49666 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 442

[FRL—6720–6]

RIN 2040–AB98

Effluent Limitations Guidelines,

Pretreatment Standards, and New

Source Performance Standards for the

Transportation Equipment Cleaning

Point Source Category

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes

technology-based effluent limitations

guidelines, new source performance

standards, and pretreatment standards

for the discharge of pollutants into

waters of the United States and into

publicly owned treatment works

(POTWs) by existing and new facilities

that perform transportation equipment

cleaning operations. Transportation

equipment cleaning (TEC) facilities are

defined as those facilities that generate

wastewater from cleaning the interior of

tank trucks, closed-top hopper trucks,

rail tank cars, closed-top hopper rail

cars, intermodal tank containers, tank

barges, closed-top hopper barges, and

ocean/sea tankers used to transport

materials or cargos that come into direct

contact with the tank or container

interior. Facilities which do not engage

in cleaning the interior of tanks are not

considered within the scope of this rule.

EPA is subcategorizing the TEC Point

Source Category into the following four

subparts based on types of cargos

carried and transportation mode:

Subpart A—Tank Trucks and

Intermodal Tank Containers

Transporting Chemical & Petroleum

Cargos; Subpart B—Rail Tank Cars

Transporting Chemical & Petroleum

Cargos; Subpart C—Tank Barges and

Ocean/Sea Tankers Transporting

Chemical & Petroleum Cargos; Subpart

D—Tanks Transporting Food Grade

Cargos.

For all four subparts, EPA is

establishing effluent limitations

guidelines for existing facilities and new

sources discharging wastewater directly

to surface waters. EPA is establishing

pretreatment standards for existing

facilities and new sources discharging

wastewater to POTWs in all subparts

except for Subpart D, applicable to Food

Grade Cargos. EPA is not establishing

effluent limitations guidelines or

pretreatment standards for facilities that

generate wastewater from cleaning the

interior of hopper cars.

The TEC limitations do not apply to

wastewaters associated with tank

cleanings performed in conjunction

with other industrial, commercial, or

POTW operations so long as the facility

cleans only tanks and containers that

have contained raw materials, byproducts, and finished products that are

associated with the facility’s on-site

processes.

The wastewater flows covered by this

rule include all washwaters which have

come into direct contact with the tank

or container interior including pre-rinse

cleaning solutions, chemical cleaning

solutions, and final rinse solutions.

Additionally, the rule covers wastewater

generated from washing vehicle

exteriors, equipment and floor

washings, and TEC contaminated

stormwater at those facilities subject to

the TEC effluent limitations guidelines

and standards. Compliance with this

rule is estimated to reduce the annual

discharge of priority pollutants by at

least 60,000 pounds per year and result

in annual benefits ranging from $1.5

million to $5.5 million. The total

annualized compliance cost of the rule

is projected to be $16.1 million (pretax).

DATES: This regulation shall become

effective September 13, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The public record is

available for review in the EPA Water

Docket, 401 M St. SW, Washington, D.C.

20460. The public record for this

rulemaking has been established under

docket number W–97–25, and includes

supporting documentation, but does not

include any information claimed as

Confidential Business Information (CBI).

The record is available for inspection

from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday, excluding legal holidays. For

access to docket materials, please call

(202) 260–3027 to schedule an

appointment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

additional technical information contact

Mr. John Tinger at (202) 260–4992 or

send E-mail to: tinger.john@epa.gov. For

additional economic information

contact Mr. George Denning at (202)

260–7374 or send E-mail to:

denning.george@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities: Entities potentially

regulated by this action include:

Category Examples of regulated entities Examples of common SIC codes

Industry ............................................ Facilities that generate wastewater from cleaning the interior of tank

trucks, rail tank cars, intermodal tank containers, tank barges, or

ocean/sea tankers used to transport materials or cargos that come

into direct contact with tank or container interior, except where

such tank cleanings are performed in conjunction with other industrial, commercial, or POTW operations..

SIC 7699, SIC 4741, SIC 4491.

This table is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

regulated by this action. This table lists

the types of entities that EPA is now

aware could potentially be regulated by

this action. Other types of entities not

listed in the table could also be

regulated. To determine whether your

facility is regulated by this action,

should carefully examine the

applicability criteria in § 442.1 of the

rule language. If you have questions

regarding the applicability of this action

to a particular entity, consult the person

listed for technical information in the

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section.

Judicial Review

In accordance with 40 CFR Part 23.2,

this rule will be considered

promulgated for purposes of judicial

review at 1 p.m. Eastern time on August

28, 2000. Under section 509(b)(1) of the

Clean Water Act, judicial review of this

regulation can be obtained only by filing

a petition for review in the United

States Court of Appeals within 120 days

after the regulation is considered

promulgated for purposes of judicial

review. Under section 509 (b)(2) of the

Clean Water Act, the requirements in

this regulation may not be challenged

later in civil or criminal proceedings

brought by EPA to enforce these

requirements.

Compliance Dates

The compliance date for Pretreatment

Standards for Existing Standards (PSES)

is as soon as possible, but no later than

August 14, 2003. Deadlines for

compliance with Best Practicable

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 49667

Control Technology Currently Available

(BPT), Best Conventional Pollutant

Control Technology (BCT), and Best

Available Technology Economically

Achievable (BAT) are established in the

National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) permits.

The compliance dates for New Source

Performance Standards (NSPS) and

Pretreatment Standards for New Sources

(PSNS) are the dates the new source

commences discharging.

Supporting Documentation

The regulations promulgated today

are supported by several major

documents:

1. ‘‘Final Development Document for

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and

Standards for the Transportation

Equipment Cleaning Category’’ (EPA

821–R–00–0012). Hereafter referred to

as the Technical Development

Document, the document presents

EPA’s technical conclusions concerning

the rule. EPA describes, among other

things, the data-collection activities in

support of the regulation, the

wastewater treatment technology

options, wastewater characterization,

and the estimated costs to the industry.

2. ‘‘Final Economic Analysis of

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and

Standards for the Transportation

Equipment Cleaning Category’’ (EPA

821–R–00–0013).

3. ‘‘Final Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and

Standards for the Transportation

Equipment Cleaning Category’’ (EPA

821–R–00–0014).

How To Obtain Supporting Documents

All documents are available from the

National Service Center for

Environmental Publications, P.O. Box

42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242–2419,

(800) 490–9198. The Technical

Development Document and previous

Transportation Equipment Cleaning

Federal Register Notices can also be

obtained on the Internet, located at

WWW.EPA.GOV/OST/GUIDE. This

website also links to an electronic

version of today’s notice.

Table of Contents

I. Legal Authority

II. Background

A. Clean Water Act

B. Profile of the Industry

C. Proposed Rule

D. Notice of Availability

III. Summary of Significant Changes Since

Proposal

A. Concentration-Based Limitations

B. Modification to Subcategorization

Approach

C. Low Flow Exclusion

D. Revision of Pollutant Loading Estimates

E. Overlap With Other Guidelines

F. Modification to Pollutants Selected For

Regulation

G. Technology Options

IV. Applicability of Final Regulation

V. Technology Options Selected for Basis of

Regulation

A. Truck/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory

B. Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory

C. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory

D. Food Subcategory

E. Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/

Hopper Subcategories

VI. Development of Effluent Limitations

A. Selection of Pollutant Parameters for

Final Regulation

B. Calculation of Effluent Limitations

VII. Costs and Pollutant Reductions of Final

Regulation

A. Changes to Cost Analysis Since Proposal

B. Compliance Costs

C. Changes to Pollutant Reduction Analysis

Since Proposal

D. Pollutant Reductions

VIII. Economic Impacts of Final Regulation

A. Changes to Economic Analysis Since

Proposal

B. Impacts Analysis

C. Small Business Analysis

D. Market Analysis

E. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

F. Cost-Benefit Analysis

IX. Water Quality Impacts of Final Regulation

A. Changes to Benefits Analysis Since

Proposal

B. Truck/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory

C. Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory

D. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory

E. Food Subcategory

X. Non-Water Quality Impacts of Final

Regulation

A. Energy Impacts

B. Air Emission Impacts

C. Solid Waste Impacts

XI. Regulatory Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) and the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA)

C. Submission to Congress and the General

Accounting Office

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

F. Executive Order 13084: Consultation

and Coordination with Indian Tribal

Governments

G. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

I. The Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act

J. Executive Order 13045 and Protecting

Children’s Health

XII. Regulatory Implementation

A. Implementation of Limitations and

Standards

B. Upset and Bypass Provisions

C. Variances and Modifications

D. Relationship of Effluent Limitations to

NPDES Permits & Monitoring

Requirements

E. Analytical Methods

Appendix A: Definitions, Acronyms, and

Abbreviations Used in This Notice

I. Legal Authority

EPA is promulgating these regulations

under the authority of Sections 301,

304, 306, 307, 308, 402, and 501 of the

Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314,

1316, 1317, 1318, 1342 and 1361.

II. Background

A. Clean Water Act

Congress adopted the Clean Water Act

(CWA) to ‘‘restore and maintain the

chemical, physical, and biological

integrity of the Nation’s waters’’

(Section 101(a), 33 U.S.C. 1251(a)). To

achieve this goal, the CWA prohibits the

discharge of pollutants into navigable

waters except in compliance with the

statute. The Clean Water Act confronts

the problem of water pollution on a

number of different fronts. Its primary

reliance, however, is on establishing

restrictions on the types and amounts of

pollutants discharged from various

industrial, commercial, and public

sources of wastewater.

Congress recognized that regulating

only those sources that discharge

effluent directly into the nation’s waters

would not be sufficient to achieve the

CWA’s goals. Consequently, the CWA

requires EPA to promulgate nationally

applicable pretreatment standards

which restrict pollutant discharges for

those who discharge wastewater

indirectly through sewers flowing to

publicly-owned treatment works

(POTWs) (Sections 307(b) and (c), 33

U.S.C. 1317(b) and (c)). National

pretreatment standards are established

for those pollutants in wastewater from

indirect dischargers which may pass

through or interfere with POTW

operations. Generally, pretreatment

standards are designed to ensure that

wastewater from direct and indirect

industrial dischargers are subject to

similar levels of treatment. In addition,

POTWs are required to implement local

treatment limits applicable to their

industrial indirect dischargers to satisfy

any local requirements (40 CFR 403.5).

Direct dischargers must comply with

effluent limitations in National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(‘‘NPDES’’) permits; indirect dischargers

must comply with pretreatment

standards. These limitations and

standards are established by regulation

for categories of industrial dischargers

and are based on the degree of control

that can be achieved using various

levels of pollution control technology.

1. Best Practicable Control Technology

Currently Available (BPT)—Section

304(b)(1) of the CWA

In the guidelines for an industry

category, EPA defines BPT effluent

49668 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

1 In the initial stages of EPA CWA regulation, EPA

efforts emphasized the achievement of BPT

limitations for control of the ‘‘classical’’ pollutants

(e.g., TSS, pH, BOD5). However, nothing on the face

of the statute explicitly restricted BPT limitation to

such pollutants. Following passage of the Clean

Water Act of 1977 with its requirement for point

sources to achieve best available technology

limitations to control discharges of toxic pollutants,

EPA shifted its focus to address the listed priority

toxic pollutants under the guidelines program. BPT

guidelines continue to include limitations to

address all pollutants.

limits for conventional, toxic,1 and nonconventional pollutants. In specifying

BPT, EPA looks at a number of factors.

EPA first considers the cost of achieving

effluent reductions in relation to the

effluent reduction benefits. The Agency

also considers the age of the equipment

and facilities, the processes employed

and any required process changes,

engineering aspects of the control

technologies, non-water quality

environmental impacts (including

energy requirements), and such other

factors as the Agency deems appropriate

(CWA 304(b)(1)(B)). Traditionally, EPA

establishes BPT effluent limitations

based on the average of the best

performances of facilities within the

industry of various ages, sizes, processes

or other common characteristics. Where

existing performance is uniformly

inadequate, EPA may require higher

levels of control than currently in place

in an industrial category if the Agency

determines that the technology can be

practically applied.

2. Best Available Technology

Economically Achievable (BAT)—

Section 304(b)(2) of the CWA

In general, BAT effluent limitations

guidelines represent the best existing

economically achievable performance of

direct discharging plants in the

industrial subcategory or category. The

factors considered in assessing BAT

include the cost of achieving BAT

effluent reductions, the age of

equipment and facilities involved, the

processes employed, engineering

aspects of the control technology,

potential process changes, non-water

quality environmental impacts

(including energy requirements), and

such factors as the Administrator deems

appropriate. The Agency retains

considerable discretion in assigning the

weight to be accorded to these factors.

An additional statutory factor

considered in setting BAT is economic

achievability. Generally, the

achievability is determined on the basis

of the total cost to the industrial

subcategory and the overall effect of the

rule on the industry’s financial health.

BAT limitations may be based upon

effluent reductions attainable through

changes in a facility’s processes and

operations. As with BPT, where existing

performance is uniformly inadequate,

BAT may be based upon technology

transferred from a different subcategory

within an industry or from another

industrial category. BAT may be based

upon process changes or internal

controls, even when these technologies

are not common industry practice.

3. Best Conventional Pollutant Control

Technology (BCT)—Section 304(b)(4) of

the CWA

The 1977 amendments to the CWA

required EPA to identify effluent

reduction levels for conventional

pollutants associated with BCT

technology for discharges from existing

industrial point sources. BCT is not an

additional limitation, but replaces Best

Available Technology (BAT) for control

of conventional pollutants. In addition

to other factors specified in Section

304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires that EPA

establish BCT limitations after

consideration of a two part ‘‘costreasonableness’’ test. EPA explained its

methodology for the development of

BCT limitations in July 1986 (51 FR

24974).

Section 304(a)(4) designates the

following as conventional pollutants:

biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5),

total suspended solids (TSS), fecal

coliform, pH, and any additional

pollutants defined by the Administrator

as conventional. The Administrator

designated oil and grease as an

additional conventional pollutant on

July 30, 1979 (44 FR 44501).

4. New Source Performance Standards

(NSPS)—Section 306 of the CWA

NSPS reflect effluent reductions that

are achievable based on the best

available demonstrated control

technology. New facilities have the

opportunity to install the best and most

efficient production processes and

wastewater treatment technologies. As a

result, NSPS should represent the

greatest degree of effluent reduction

attainable through the application of the

best available demonstrated control

technology for all pollutants (i.e.,

conventional, non-conventional, and

priority pollutants). In establishing

NSPS, EPA is directed to take into

consideration the cost of achieving the

effluent reduction and any non-water

quality environmental impacts and

energy requirements.

5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing

Sources (PSES)—Section 307(b) of the

CWA

PSES are designed to prevent the

discharge of pollutants that pass

through, interfere with, or are otherwise

incompatible with the operation of

publicly owned treatment works

(POTWs). The CWA authorizes EPA to

establish pretreatment standards for

pollutants that pass through POTWs or

interfere with treatment processes or

sludge disposal methods at POTWs.

Pretreatment standards are technologybased and analogous to BAT effluent

limitations guidelines.

The General Pretreatment

Regulations, which set forth the

framework for implementing categorical

pretreatment standards, are found at 40

CFR Part 403. Those regulations contain

a definition of pass through that

addresses localized rather than national

instances of pass through and establish

pretreatment standards that apply to all

non-domestic dischargers. See 52 FR

1586, January 14, 1987.

6. Pretreatment Standards for New

Sources (PSNS)—Section 307(b) of the

CWA

Like PSES, PSNS are designed to

prevent the discharges of pollutants that

pass through, interfere with, or are

otherwise incompatible with the

operation of POTWs. PSNS are to be

issued at the same time as NSPS. New

indirect dischargers have the

opportunity to incorporate into their

plants the best available demonstrated

technologies. The Agency considers the

same factors in promulgating PSNS as it

considers in promulgating NSPS.

B. Profile of the Industry

The TEC industry includes facilities

that generate wastewater from cleaning

the interiors of tank trucks, closed-top

hopper trucks, rail tank cars, closed-top

hopper rail cars, intermodal tank

containers, tank barges, closed-top

hopper barges, and ocean/sea tankers

used to transport cargos or commodities

that come into direct contact with the

tank or container interior.

Transportation equipment cleaning is

performed to prevent crosscontamination between products or

commodities being transported in the

tanks, containers, or hoppers, and to

prepare transportation equipment for

repair and maintenance activities, such

as welding. The cleaning activity is a

necessary part of the transportation

process.

Based upon responses to EPA’s 1994

Detailed Questionnaire for the

Transportation Equipment Cleaning

Industry (see discussion in Section V.B

of the proposal (63 FR 34686)), the

Agency estimates that there are

approximately 2,405 facilities in the

United States that perform TEC

activities. This includes approximately

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 49669

1,166 facilities that perform tank

cleaning operations on site, but which

are excluded from this rule because of

their association with other industrial,

commercial, or POTW operations. There

are 1,239 TEC facilities not associated

with other industrial, commercial, or

POTW operations. Of these facilities,

EPA estimates that 692 facilities

discharge to either a POTW or to surface

waters. The remaining 547 facilities are

considered zero dischargers.

The TEC industry consists of distinct

transportation sectors: the trucking

sector, the rail sector, and the barge

shipping sector. Each one of these

sectors has different technical and

economic characteristics. The

transportation industry transports a

wide variety of commodities, and TEC

facilities therefore clean tanks and

containers with residues (i.e., heels)

from a broad spectrum of commodities,

such as food-grade products, petroleumbased commodities, organic chemicals,

inorganic chemicals, soaps and

detergents, latex and resins, hazardous

wastes, and dry bulk commodities.

TEC facilities vary greatly in the level

of wastewater treatment that they

currently have in place. Treatment at

existing TEC facilities ranges from no

treatment to tertiary treatment. The

majority of TEC facilities discharging to

surface waters currently employ

primary treatment, such as oil/water

separation or gravity separation,

followed by biological treatment.

Indirect discharging facilities typically

employ some form of primary treatment,

such as oil/water separation, gravity

separation, dissolved air flotation, or

coagulation and flocculation. A

relatively small number of direct and

indirect facilities currently employ

tertiary treatment, such as activated

carbon adsorption.

C. Proposed Rule

On June 25, 1998 (63 FR 34685), EPA

published proposed effluent limitations

guidelines and pretreatment standards

for the discharge of pollutants into

waters of the United States and into

POTWs by existing and new facilities

that perform transportation equipment

cleaning operations.

EPA received comments on many

aspects of the proposal. The majority of

comments related to the use of massbased rather than concentration-based

limits; the subcategorization approach;

the technology options used as the basis

for setting effluent limitations; the

selection of pollutants proposed for

regulation; the costs associated with the

regulation; the cost effectiveness of the

regulation; the lack of a low flow

exclusion from the regulation; and the

applicability of the rule. EPA evaluated

all of these issues based on additional

information collected by EPA or

received during the comment period

following the proposal. EPA then

discussed the results of most of these

evaluations in a Notice of Availability

discussed below.

D. Notice of Availability

On July 20, 1999 (64 FR 38863), EPA

published a Notice of Availability

(NOA) in which the Agency presented

a summary of new data collected by

EPA or received in comments on the

proposed rule. EPA discussed the major

issues raised during the proposal

comment period and presented several

alternative approaches to address these

issues. EPA solicited comment on these

approaches and on the new data and

analyses conducted in response to

comments.

III. Summary of Significant Changes

Since Proposal

This section describes the most

significant changes to the rule since

proposal. The majority of these changes

have been in response to comments on

the proposal. All of these changes were

discussed in the Notice of Availability.

A. Concentration-Based Limitations

EPA proposed mass-based limitations.

In the proposal and NOA, EPA

discussed a change to the format of the

rule that would establish concentrationbased rather than mass-based limits.

EPA received many comments on the

proposal and on the NOA from

regulatory authorities, industry

stakeholders, and POTWs strongly

supporting the concentration-based

format of the rule. EPA received only

one comment on the proposal

supporting mass-based limits. In the

NOA, EPA presented concentrationbased limitations and explained its

rationale for the change. Comments on

the NOA were unanimously supportive

of concentration-based limits. The final

limitations and standards being

promulgated today are concentrationbased.

B. Modification to Subcategorization

Approach

EPA proposed separate subcategories

for the Truck/Chemical, Truck/

Petroleum, Rail/Chemical, and Rail/

Petroleum Subcategories. In the

proposal and NOA, EPA discussed

combining the Truck/Chemical

Subcategory and Truck/Petroleum

Subcategory into the Truck/Chemical &

Petroleum Subcategory, and combining

the Rail/Chemical Subcategory and Rail/

Petroleum Subcategory into the Rail/

Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. In

the NOA, EPA presented the

preliminary conclusion for making this

change, and presented the costs,

loadings, and economic impacts that

would result if this change were made.

The majority of the commenters on

the NOA, including regulatory

authorities, industry stakeholders, and

POTWs, supported combining these

subcategories. EPA received only one

comment supporting separate

subcategories. EPA concluded that the

proposed definitions of the chemical

and petroleum subcategories did not

adequately define the difference

between chemical and petroleum

commodities. For the final regulation,

EPA has combined the proposed

chemical and petroleum subcategories

in both the truck and rail segments of

the industry.

Additionally, EPA has combined the

Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/Food

Subcategories into one subcategory, the

Food Subcategory. For the proposed

rule, subcategorization by transportation

mode was necessary because the truck,

rail, and barge facilities had different

regulatory flows per tank cleaned,

which resulted in different mass-based

limits for each subcategory.

Subcategorization of the Food

Subcategory by transportation mode for

the final regulation is unnecessary

because the limits are all based on the

same BPT technology, and the final

concentration-based limits are identical

for all TEC facilities cleaning food grade

cargos.

C. Low Flow Exclusion

In the proposal, EPA considered

establishing a minimum flow level for

defining the scope of the regulation but

did not propose a low-flow exclusion.

EPA conducted an analysis to determine

an appropriate flow exclusion level

based on the economic impacts of low

flow facilities, the economic impacts on

small businesses, and the relative

efficiency of treatment technologies for

low flow facilities, in terms of pounds

of pollutants removed.

Based on comments on the proposal,

EPA re-evaluated a low-flow exclusion

based on 100,000 gallons per year of

TEC process wastewater and presented

the results in the NOA. EPA presented

the costs, loadings, and economic

impacts that would result if this

exclusion was adopted. EPA’s analyses

demonstrated that 26 low flow facilities

generated much less than one percent of

the baseline loadings to the industry.

EPA received numerous comments

which supported the adoption of a low

flow exclusion due to the low amounts

of toxics generated by these facilities.

49670 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

EPA also received comments

supporting establishing a low flow

exclusion at 200,000 gallons of TEC

process wastewater per year. In the

NOA, EPA noted that one model facility

(representing nine facilities) excluded at

proposal would be added to the Truck/

Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory and

would therefore be subject to the TEC

limitations. EPA noted that an exclusion

set at 200,000 gallons per year would

exclude this model facility from the

regulation. Consequently, EPA

evaluated establishing the cutoff at

200,000 gallons per year. Establishing a

low flow cutoff at 200,000 gallons per

year would exclude an additional nine

facilities in the combined Truck/

Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory

which discharge a combined total of 680

pound equivalents. This equates to 3.1

percent of facilities discharging 2.3

percent of the loadings in the Truck/

Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory.

EPA determined that the facilities

discharging between 100,000 to 200,000

gallons per year contribute a

proportional amount of toxic loadings to

the industry. Additionally, EPA found

that if the low flow exclusion was raised

from 100,000 to 200,000 gallons per

year, there would be no decrease in the

number of facilities projected to close or

experience financial stress.

For the final regulation, EPA is

excluding facilities that discharge less

than 100,000 gallons per year of TEC

process wastewater. Facilities

discharging less than 100,000 gallons

per year will remain subject to

limitations and standards established on

a case-by-case basis using Best

Professional Judgement by the

permitting authority.

D. Revision of Pollutant Loading

Estimates

In the NOA, EPA discussed a revision

to the methodology for calculating

pesticide and herbicide loadings. This

revision was in response to a comment

claiming that EPA overestimated

pollutant reductions by using

calculations based on a small number of

data points detected at levels close to

the pesticide/herbicide quantification

levels. Specifically, EPA revised the

proposed methodology by using the

same editing criteria for pesticide/

herbicide pollutants as were used for all

other parameters. EPA made this change

to the editing criteria which resulted in

excluding parameters that were not

detected in at least two samples and

with average concentrations greater than

five times the detection limit. The

revised loadings were presented in the

NOA.

EPA continued to receive comment

from the industry that EPA had

misidentified several pesticides and

herbicides that were contributing to the

calculation of toxic pound equivalent

removals in the Truck/Chemical &

Petroleum Subcategory. Based on an

extensive analysis of the pesticide data

collected in support of the regulation,

the EPA must concur that the laboratory

analysis does not conclusively support

the presence of several pesticides that

were believed to be present in the

Truck/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory wastewater. Therefore, the

Agency has labeled the analytical

results for EPN and disulfoton as

‘‘questionable’’ and has subsequently

removed these pesticides from the cost

effectiveness analysis and benefits

analysis. This approach has resulted in

a significant decrease in toxic pound

equivalent removals when compared to

the approach used at proposal.

However, EPA believes that pesticides

and herbicides are present in TEC

wastewater. As evidenced by responses

to the Detailed Questionnaire, only 5%

of tank truck facilities prohibit the

cleaning of tank trucks that have

contained pesticides and herbicides,

meaning that 95% of tank truck

facilities may potentially clean a cargo

that has contained pesticides or

herbicides. As documented by

comments submitted by the industry,

site visit reports, and a recent trade

association journal article, the TEC

industry is a service industry that cleans

out tank trucks as needed by customers.

EPA has identified over 3,000 cargo

types that are cleaned at tank truck

facilities, and these cargos have been

documented to include pesticide and

herbicides.

E. Overlap With Other Guidelines

EPA proposed language for excluding

certain commercial and industrial

facilities from the TEC guideline. Many

commenters believed that this language

was too restrictive and that the TEC

rule, as proposed, would encompass

many industrial facilities that EPA did

not intend to cover. In the NOA, EPA

described several situations where it

concurred with commenters that the

proposed language was overly

restrictive. These included industrial or

manufacturing facilities that clean a

small number of tank cars on site but

that are not covered by an existing Clean

Water Act categorical effluent guideline.

EPA presented revised regulatory

language for excluding certain industrial

and commercial facilities which the

Agency believed addressed the concerns

raised by commenters and more clearly

defined the exclusion. The majority of

commenters supported the revised

language, and no commenter opposed

the language. Therefore, EPA has

adopted language similar to that

presented in the NOA for the final

regulation. The final rule does not apply

to wastewaters associated with tank

cleanings performed in conjunction

with other industrial, commercial, or

POTW operations so long as the facility

cleans only tanks and containers that

have contained raw materials, byproducts, and finished products that are

associated with the facility’s on-site

processes.

EPA also received comments

requesting that EPA specifically exclude

TEC wastewaters generated by POTWs

that clean out garbage trucks, biosolid

waste haulers, tankers that contained

landfill leachate, and street cleaning

trucks. EPA does not believe that

wastewater generated from cleaning

garbage trucks, biosolids trucks, landfill

leachate tankers, or street cleaning

trucks meets EPA’s definition of

cleaning a tank that has contained a

chemical, petroleum, or food grade

product. However, in order to address

the concern that POTWs would

unnecessarily be subject to the TEC rule,

EPA has added language in the final

applicability section which states that

wastewater cleaning operations

performed at POTWs (in addition to

other commercial and industrial

operations) are not subject to the TEC

guidelines. Additionally, EPA has

adopted a low flow exclusion of 100,000

gallons per year to exclude from this

rule those facilities which may perform

a minimal amount of tank cleaning

activities (see Section III.C).

In the proposal, EPA stated that

facilities that are predominantly

engaged in Metal Products and

Machinery (MP&M) operations and

clean ocean/sea tankers, tank barges, rail

tank cars, or tank trucks as part of those

activities would likely be included in

the upcoming MP&M regulations and,

thus, are excluded from the TEC

guideline. EPA received numerous

comments asking EPA to more clearly

define what is meant by ‘‘predominantly

engaged.’’ In the NOA, EPA attempted

to address these concerns by clarifying

the distinction between MP&M

wastewaters and TEC wastewaters based

on the purpose of cleaning. All

commenters supported the revised

language presented in the NOA as

addressing their concerns. Therefore,

EPA is adopting the following language

for the final regulation: ‘‘Wastewater

generated from cleaning tank interiors

for purposes of shipping products (i.e.,

cleaned for purposes other than

maintenance and repair) is considered

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 49671

TEC process wastewater. Wastewater

generated from cleaning tank interiors

for the purposes of maintenance and

repair on the tank is not considered TEC

process wastewater.’’ It is possible that

some facilities, or wastewater generated

from some unit operations at these

facilities, will be subject to the Metals

Products & Machinery (MP&M) effluent

guideline currently being developed by

EPA. Facilities that clean tank interiors

solely for the purposes of repair and

maintenance would not be regulated

under the TEC guideline.

Wastewater generated from cleaning

tank interiors for purposes of shipping

products (i.e., cleaned for purposes

other than maintenance and repair) is

considered TEC process wastewater and

is subject to the TEC guideline. It is

possible that a facility may be subject to

both the TEC regulations and the MP&M

regulations. If a facility generates

wastewater from MP&M activities which

is subject to the MP&M guideline and

also discharges wastewater from

cleaning tanks for purposes other than

repair and maintenance of those tanks,

then that facility may be subject to both

guidelines.

F. Modification to Pollutants Selected

for Regulation

EPA proposed limitations for a

number of conventional, priority, and

non-conventional pollutants. Many

commenters requested that EPA

establish oil and grease (measured as

Hexane Extractable Material (HEM)) and

non-polar oil and grease (measured as

Silica-gel Treated Hexane Extractable

Material (SGT–HEM)) as indicator

pollutants for a number of other

pollutants proposed to be regulated. In

the NOA, EPA presented its evaluation

for establishing indicator pollutants,

and concluded that oil and grease

(HEM) and non-polar oil and grease

(SGT–HEM) could serve as indicator

pollutants for the straight chain

hydrocarbons proposed to be regulated.

Comments on the NOA generally

supported this conclusion. For the final

regulation, EPA has established limits

for oil and grease (HEM) and non-polar

material (SGT–HEM) as indicator

pollutants. EPA has therefore not

established limits for any straight chain

hydrocarbon, but has established limits

for polyaromatic hydrocarbons for

certain subcategories.

Furthermore, as described in Section

VI. of this notice, EPA has decided to

promulgate effluent limitations and

pretreatment standards for mercury in

the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory and in the Barge/Chemical

& Petroleum Subcategory. EPA has also

eliminated zinc as regulated pollutant in

the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory, and has decided to

eliminate COD as a regulated pollutant

in all subcategories.

G. Technology Options

EPA presented revised costs and loads

in the NOA for the technology options

considered for the proposal. The costs

and loads were revised due to a number

of changes, which were discussed in the

NOA. In summary, EPA revised the cost

model; reduced the monitoring costs;

revised the list of pollutants effectively

removed; combined the Truck/Chemical

and Truck/Petroleum Subcategories;

combined the Rail/Chemical and Rail/

Petroleum Subcategories; and adopted a

low flow exclusion.

EPA also discussed in the NOA

several options it was considering in

lieu of the proposed options for the

Truck/Chemical & Petroleum and Rail/

Chemical & Petroleum Subcategories,

including the associated costs, loads,

economic impacts, and environmental

benefits. Based on the revised analysis,

EPA is selecting Option I instead of

Option II for PSES and PSNS in the

Truck/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory. For the Rail/Chemical &

Petroleum Subcategory, EPA is selecting

Option II for BPT, BAT, BCT and NSPS.

EPA had proposed Option I for BPT,

BAT, and BCT and Option III for NSPS.

For indirect dischargers in the Rail/

Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory,

EPA is selecting Option II for both PSES

and PSNS instead of Option I for PSES

and Option III for PSNS. Additionally,

EPA has decided to establish PSES

based on Option II for the Barge/

Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory in

order to prevent pass through or

interference at a POTW.

EPA has eliminated flow reduction

from the technology options for all

subcategories because it is promulgating

concentration-based rather than massbased limitations. Note, however, that

EPA has retained flow reduction as a

cost-effective compliance strategy for

several subcategories.

Sections VII, VIII, and IX of this

notice present the final costs, pollutant

reductions, economic impacts, and

water quality impacts for EPA’s selected

options. The technology options are

described in Section V of this notice. A

description of the wastewater treatment

technology components of the options

can be found in Section VIII of the

proposal and in the Technical

Development Document.

IV. Applicability of Final Regulation

EPA is establishing effluent

limitations guidelines and pretreatment

standards for wastewater discharges

from facilities engaged in cleaning the

interiors of tanks including tank trucks,

rail tank cars, intermodal tank

containers, tank barges, and ocean/sea

tankers used to transport commodities

that come into direct contact with the

tank or container interior. Facilities

which do not engage in cleaning the

interior of tanks are not considered

within the scope of this rule.

The wastewater flows covered by the

rule include all washwaters that come

into direct contact with the tank or

container interior including pre-rinse

cleaning solutions, chemical cleaning

solutions, and final rinse solutions.

Additionally, the rule would cover

wastewater generated from washing

vehicle exteriors, equipment and floor

washings, and TEC contaminated

wastewater only at those facilities

subject to the TEC guidelines and

standards.

EPA evaluated the following

subcategorization approach for the final

regulation: Truck/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory; Rail/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory; Barge/Chemical &

Petroleum Subcategory; Food

Subcategory; Truck/Hopper

Subcategory; Rail/Hopper Subcategory;

and Barge/Hopper Subcategory. Table 1

presents the final regulatory approach.

TABLE 1.—REGULATORY APPROACH FOR THE TEC CATEGORY

Subcategory

BPT

and

BCT

BAT NSPS PSES PSNS

Truck/Chemical & Petroleum ........................................................................................................... XXXXX

Rail/Chemical & Petroleum .............................................................................................................. XXXXX

Barge/Chemical & Petroleum .......................................................................................................... XXXXX

Food ................................................................................................................................................. X ............ X ............ ............

Truck/Hopper ................................................................................................................................... ............ ............ ............ ............ ............

49672 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1.—REGULATORY APPROACH FOR THE TEC CATEGORY—Continued

Subcategory

BPT

and

BCT

BAT NSPS PSES PSNS

Rail/Hopper ...................................................................................................................................... ............ ............ ............ ............ ............

Barge/Hopper ................................................................................................................................... ............ ............ ............ ............ ............

EPA is establishing effluent

limitations guidelines for existing

facilities and new sources discharging

wastewater directly to surface waters in

the following subcategories: Truck/

Chemical & Petroleum, Rail/Chemical &

Petroleum, Barge/Chemical &

Petroleum, and Food Subcategory. EPA

is establishing pretreatment standards

for existing facilities and new sources

discharging wastewater to POTWs in the

Truck/Chemical & Petroleum, Rail/

Chemical & Petroleum, and Barge/

Chemical & Petroleum Subcategories.

For the Food Subcategory, EPA is

establishing effluent limitations

guidelines for existing and new facilities

discharging directly to surface waters.

These limitations and standards are

established to control discharges of

conventional pollutants which may

adversely affect waterways when

discharged directly to surface waters.

Few priority pollutants were found in

food wastewaters; thus, EPA has chosen

to not establish BAT limitations for the

Food Subcategory. Because POTWs

have the ability to treat conventional

pollutants, EPA concluded that it was

unnecessary to establish pretreatment

standards for the Food Subcategory.

Comments received on the proposal

predominantly supported EPA’s

regulatory approach for the Food

Subcategory.

EPA is not establishing effluent

limitations guidelines or standards for

the Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and

Barge/Hopper Subcategories. Closed-top

hopper trucks, rail cars, and barges are

used to transport dry bulk materials

such as coal, grain, and fertilizers. Raw

wastewater generated from cleaning the

interiors of hoppers was found to

contain very few priority pollutants at

treatable levels. This is likely due to the

fact that the residual materials (heels)

from dry bulk goods are easily removed

prior to washing, and that relatively

little wastewater is generated from

cleaning the interiors of hopper tanks

due to the dry nature of bulk materials

transported. These facts result in low

pollutant loadings being present in the

wastewater discharges from hopper tank

cleaning. Based on the low pollutant

loadings associated with wastewater

discharge from the hopper

subcategories, the Agency concluded

that it is not necessary to establish

nationally-applicable effluent

limitations for these subcategories.

Rather, direct dischargers will remain

subject to effluent limitations

established on a case-by-case basis using

Best Professional Judgement, and

indirect dischargers may be subject to

local pretreatment limits as necessary to

prevent pass through or interference.

EPA received comments supporting this

conclusion.

EPA received comments on the

proposal requesting that EPA include

wastewater from cleaning the interiors

of intermediate bulk containers (IBCs)

within the scope of this regulation. The

commenter believed that IBCs generate

a significant amount of loadings in the

industry; therefore, excluding IBCs

would give an economic advantage to

facilities that clean only IBCs because

these facilities would not be covered by

the TEC regulation. In response to these

comments, EPA collected additional

data on IBC cleaning performed by the

TEC industry and then conducted an

economic analysis on the impact of IBC

cleaning on the tank truck industry.

This information and analysis were

presented in the NOA. Based on the

analysis presented in Section VII of the

NOA, EPA concluded that wastewater

generated from IBC cleaning should not

be included in the scope of this

guideline. As discussed in the NOA,

EPA will continue to evaluate the

Industrial Container and Drum Cleaning

Industry as a potential candidate for

future regulation.

TEC process wastewater includes all

wastewaters associated with cleaning

the interiors of tanks including: tank

trucks; rail tank cars; intermodal tank

containers; tank barges; and ocean/sea

tankers used to transport commodities

or cargos that come into direct contact

with the tank or container interior. At

those facilities subject to the TEC

guidelines and standards, TEC process

wastewaters also include wastewater

generated from washing vehicle

exteriors, equipment and floor

washings, and TEC-contaminated

stormwater. TEC process wastewater is

defined to include only wastewater

generated from a regulated TEC

subcategory. Therefore, TEC process

wastewater does not include wastewater

generated from the hopper facilities, or

from food grade facilities discharging to

a POTW.

EPA is adopting a low flow exclusion

for this regulation. A facility that

discharges less than 100,000 gallons per

year of TEC process wastewater is not

subject to the TEC guidelines. EPA is

adopting this exclusion due to the very

low pollutant loadings associated with

facilities discharging less than 100,000

gallons per year.

Facilities discharging less than

100,000 gallons per year of TEC process

wastewater will remain subject to

limitations and standards established on

a case-by-case basis using Best

Professional Judgement by the

permitting authority.

V. Technology Options Selected for

Basis of Regulation

All of the treatment technologies

considered for the final regulations were

discussed in the proposal. In the NOA,

EPA presented the costs, loads, and

impacts for one option in the Truck/

Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory that

were not presented in the proposal. This

option, consisting of equalization and

oil/water separation only, was a

component of other options in the

proposal but had not been evaluated

separately as a regulatory option.

The following sections summarize the

technology options that EPA considered

for each subcategory. The costs, loads,

economic impacts, and environmental

benefits for the selected options are also

presented. All results presented in this

notice are expressed in 1998 dollars.

A. Truck/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory

1. BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS for the

Truck/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory

EPA evaluated the following

treatment options for the final

regulation:

Option I: Equalization, Oil/Water

Separation, Chemical Oxidation,

Neutralization, Coagulation,

Clarification, Biological Treatment,

and Sludge Dewatering.

Option II: Equalization, Oil/Water

Separation, Chemical Oxidation,

Neutralization, Coagulation,

Clarification, Biological Treatment,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 49673

Activated Carbon Adsorption, and

Sludge Dewatering.

EPA proposed to establish BPT limits

based on Option II, and to establish

BCT, BAT, and NSPS equivalent to BPT.

In the proposal, EPA stated that all three

model facilities have equalization,

coagulation/clarification, biological

treatment, and activated carbon in

place. Two of the three facilities in the

cost model have sufficient treatment in

place; therefore, costs for additional

monitoring only are attributed to these

facilities. The third facility was costed

for flow reduction, sludge dewatering,

and monitoring. Flow reduction and

sludge dewatering generates net cost

savings for the facility’s entire treatment

train. In addition, these net cost savings

are larger than the monitoring costs

incurred by the other two facilities.

EPA determined that Option II is

economically achievable because it will

result in a net cost savings to the

industry, and will not cause any facility

closures, revenue impacts, or

employment impacts. EPA did not

identify any more stringent treatment

technology option which it considers to

represent NSPS level of control.

EPA did not consider any changes to

the option selected for this subcategory

in the NOA. EPA did not receive any

comments specific to option selection

for direct discharging facilities in this

subcategory in the proposal or the NOA.

EPA has therefore established BPT,

BCT, BAT, and NSPS based on Option

II.

2. PSES and PSNS for the Truck/

Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory

EPA evaluated the following

treatment options for the final

regulation:

Option A: Equalization and Oil/Water

Separation.

Option I: Equalization, Oil/Water

Separation, Chemical Oxidation,

Neutralization, Coagulation,

Clarification, and Sludge

Dewatering.

Option II: Equalization, Oil/Water

Separation, Chemical Oxidation,

Neutralization, Coagulation,

Clarification, Activated Carbon

Adsorption, and Sludge

Dewatering.

In response to comments received,

EPA has also considered a pollution

prevention approach as a compliance

option, as discussed below.

EPA proposed to establish PSES and

PSNS at Option II. In the NOA, EPA

presented revised costs, loads and

impacts for each option, and stated that

Options I and A were also being

considered for PSES and PSNS. EPA is

today promulgating a pollution

prevention compliance option for this

subcategory as well as promulgating a

traditional compliance option (i.e. a set

of numeric pretreatment standards)

based on Option I.

EPA received comments on the

proposed technology options from the

affected industry and from other

stakeholders. Several commenters

expressed concern that Option II, which

includes activated carbon adsorption,

was an excessive and costly level of

treatment for indirect dischargers in the

tank cleaning industry. Commenters

also expressed concern that Option A

level of control may be inadequate to

control tank cleaning wastewater

discharges. Several commenters were

concerned with the discrepancy of

treatment options proposed for the truck

and rail segments of the industry.

EPA also received technical comment

questioning the presence of specific

pesticides in raw tank truck cleaning

wastewater, and the pollutant removals

associated with these pesticides for the

various options.

EPA also received comments from

stakeholders that encouraged EPA to

explore the use of pollution prevention

plans as an alternative to extensive

treatment. Generally, EPA seeks to

encourage practices that reduce

pollutant generation or minimize the

extent to which they enter treatment

systems because of the substantial

opportunities for reducing both

treatment costs and the total pollutant

load to the environment. Specifically,

the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990

(PPA) (42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq., Pub. L.

101–508, November 5, 1990) ‘‘declares it

to be the national policy of the United

States that pollution should be

prevented or reduced whenever feasible;

pollution that cannot be prevented

should be recycled in an

environmentally safe manner, whenever

feasible; pollution that cannot be

prevented or recycled should be treated

in an environmentally safe manner

whenever feasible; and disposal or

release into the environment should be

employed only as a last resort * * *’’.

As described in Section VIII.A of the

proposal, EPA identified and evaluated

a number of pollution prevention

controls applicable to the industry,

including the use of dedicated tanks,

heel (residual cargo remaining in tanks

following unloading) minimization,

water conservation practices, and

reduction in the toxicity and amount of

chemical cleaning solutions. These

controls were also described in more

detail in Chapter 8 of the proposed

Technical Development Document. EPA

identified these controls as voluntary

practices that many facilities in the

industry were already incorporating.

POTWs have also required such

practices as part of their local

pretreatment requirements. For

example, some POTWs have required

that facilities segregate specific

wastewaters such as cleaning solutions

or pesticide residues, or have prohibited

the discharge of wastewaters associated

with acid brighteners.

EPA believes that pollution

prevention and effective pollutant

management is an appropriate and

effective way of reducing pollutant

discharges from this subcategory.

Further, the Agency believes that

providing a pollution prevention

compliance option may be less costly

than the technology options considered

for regulation. Therefore EPA is

providing both a pollution prevention

option based on development and

implementation of a Pollutant

Management Plan (PMP) and a set of

numeric limits allows facility owners

and operators to choose the less

expensive compliance alternative. Based

on its economic analysis of technology

Option I, EPA believes that PSES and

PSNS based on a choice between

effective pollution prevention and limits

based on Option I is economically

achievable for this subcategory. For the

portion of the industry that already has

extensive treatment in place, it may be

more cost effective to comply with the

numeric limits. Conversely, for those

facilities already utilizing good

pollution prevention practices and/or

operating in accordance with a PMP, it

may be more cost effective to use the

pollution prevention compliance

alternative.

Nationally applicable pretreatment

standards are designed to prevent pass

through or interference with a POTW.

The legislative history of the 1972 Act

indicates that pretreatment standards

are to be technology-based and

analogous to the BAT effluent

limitations guidelines for removal of

toxic pollutants. EPA conducted a pass

through analysis for the pollutants of

concern. EPA determined that several

pollutants would pass through a POTW.

The results of this analysis are

presented in Section VI. of this notice.

Today’s rule includes numeric limits for

several of these pollutants for facilities

which choose not to use the pollution

prevention compliance option.

Without considering a pollution

prevention compliance option, Option

A has a post-tax annualized cost of $5.2

million ($8.1 million pre-tax) for 286

facilities. Option I’s cost is $9.2 million

($14.4 million pre-tax), and Option II’s

cost is $20.9 million ($32.9 million preVerDate 11<MAY>2000 15:53 Aug 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14AUR3.SGM pfrm11 PsN: 14AUR3
49674 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

tax). Costs for any of the options in

combination with a pollution

prevention compliance option would

likely be lower.

For the final regulation, EPA projects

that there will be no closures or

employment impacts for any option

(even without a Pollution prevention

compliance option) when a positive cost

pass through assumption is made. When

zero cost pass through is assumed,

EPA’s economic analysis indicates that

14 facilities may experience financial

stress at Option I, and that 22 facilities

may experience financial stress at

Option II. At Option I, none of the 14

facilities experiencing financial stress

are small businesses; at Option II, 7 of

the 22 facilities experiencing financial

stress are small businesses.

In addition to the financial stress

analysis, EPA also evaluated revenue

impacts at small businesses. EPA

projects that the compliance cost would

not be greater than three percent of

revenue for any small businesses at

Option I, but would exceed that

percentage for 14 small business at

Option II under the positive cost pass

through assumption. For the zero cost

pass through assumption, 14 small

businesses are projected to exceed

revenue impacts of three percent at

Option A; 29 small businesses at Option

I; and 36 small businesses at Option II.

Option A is projected to result in no

monetized benefits. EPA estimates that

implementation of Option I will result

in significantly higher benefits than

Option A, ranging from $1.5 million to

$5.2 million annually. However, EPA

estimates that Option II would not result

in any significant additional monetized

benefits incremental to Option I.

EPA also examined the projected

pollutant removals and cost

effectiveness of each option. In

assessing removals of toxic pollutants,

EPA estimates actual reductions that

would be achieved by the treatment

option under consideration, adjusts

these to account for removals that occur

at the POTW anyway, and then converts

the actual pounds removed to toxic

pound equivalents using a standardized

set of toxic weighting factors. For

Option A, EPA projects total removals

for this subcategory of 1,500 toxic

pound equivalents. For Option I, EPA

projects total removals for this

subcategory of 11,700 toxic pound

equivalents. For Option II, EPA projects

total removals for this subcategory of

20,900 toxic pound equivalents.

Section X of the preamble for the

proposed rule describes EPA’s cost

effectiveness analysis. EPA uses cost

effectiveness to evaluate the relative

efficiency of each option in removing

toxic pollutants. The cost effectiveness

of Option A is estimated to be $3,200/

PE. The average cost effectiveness of

Option I is estimated to be $740/PE ,

and the incremental cost effectiveness

over Option A is estimated to be $370/

PE . The average cost effectiveness of

Option II is estimated to be $940/PE ,

and the incremental cost effectiveness

over Option I is estimated to be $1,200/

PE .

EPA notes that these costeffectiveness estimates do not include

any credit for reductions of a number of

pesticides, herbicides, or other toxic

agents that may be present in TEC

wastewater at some facilities but that

were not found at the time of EPA’s

sampling. According to the detailed

questionnaire responses, EPA notes that

over 3,000 types of cargos are being

cleaned at tank truck facilities.

However, absent better estimates, EPA

based its analysis on those toxic

substances that were confirmed present

by its sampling protocols. Based on the

number presented above, EPA was

concerned that the cost effectiveness

estimates were high and the toxic

removal estimates were low when

compared to those calculated for many

of the primary manufacturing industries

for which EPA has promulgated

pretreatment standards.

As the Agency evaluated whether or

not to establish pretreatment standards

for this subcategory, and at what

technology option, EPA compared its

information on this subcategory to that

for the Industrial Laundries point source

category (64 FR 45072), which EPA

ultimately decided not to regulate at the

national level.

First, EPA found that the estimated

pollutants were similarly low for both

industries. However, in contrast to the

Industrial Laundries decision, the TEC

record identifies a wide range of

pollutants of concern to POTWs, and

identified problems (past and recent)

with TEC facilities that have included

interference and pass through, upsets

due to slug loads, not meeting local

limits, and sludge contamination. These

problems have generally been addressed

by the application of appropriate local

limits. Pretreatment authorities

submitting comments on the proposal

generally supported regulation of this

industry. Already, 44% of the industry

has been required to install technology

equivalent to Option I, and 86% of the

industry has been required to install

technology equivalent to Option A.

Second, for industrial laundries, EPA

estimated a reduction of 32 PE per

facility at an average cost of $84,000

($1998 post-tax) for the preferred option

among the technology options. EPA

estimates that under the preferred

option for this TEC subcategory (Option

I), a reduction of 40 PE per facility

would be achieved at an average cost of

$30,000 ($1998 post-tax).

Third, in terms of the cost

effectiveness analysis, the economically

achievable options for both industries

had costs per PE that are high. However,

the CE for laundries (at $2,360/PE) was

significantly higher than the CE for this

subcategory of the TEC industry (at

$740/PE).

Finally, in terms of economic impacts,

EPA determined that the preferred

option was economically achievable in

both cases. However, EPA also noted

that 44 laundry facilities were projected

to close under the preferred option, and

no firms were projected to experience

stress. No facility closures are projected

under the preferred option for this TEC

subcategory, and no facilities were

projected to experience financial stress

if they are able to pass some costs

through to customers. If the facilities

were unable to pass costs through to

customers, 14 facilities are projected to

occur financial stress.

EPA also notes that the cost-benefit

analysis for the preferred treatment

option for the industrial laundries

industry indicated that the rule, if

published, would have annual pre-tax

costs of $131.2 million (1993$) and

annual monetized benefits of $0.07–

$0.35 million (1993$). The Truck/

Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory has

an annual pre-tax cost of $14.4 million

and annualized monetized benefits of

$1.5–$5.2 million (1998$) annually.

In summary, EPA has determined that

in some respects, this subcategory is

similar to the industrial laundries

industry that EPA decided not to

regulate (e.g. small pollutant removals)

but in other respects it is significantly

different (e.g. greater potential for

POTW interference and less significant

economic impacts).

While EPA believes that pretreatment

standards are appropriate for the TEC

industry, EPA acknowledges that costs

for some facilities may be high relative

to removals. For the 14% of facilities

with no treatment in place, EPA

estimated that the average cost per

facility could be as high as $100,000 per

year on a pre-tax basis, and would

remove 67 PE per facility per year. The

Agency also does not want to establish

an inflexible regulation that may not be

able to offer the most environmentally

responsible yet cost effective solution to

a particular wastestream at a individual

TEC facility. In light of this, and

considering the wide variety of tanker

cargos accepted for cleaning, EPA

recognizes that one of the most

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 49675

successful means of reducing the

discharge of pollutants in wastewater

may be pollution prevention and source

reduction.

EPA evaluated potential regulatory

structures for pollution prevention

practices and concluded that the

Agency should promulgate a regulatory

option that would reduce the pollutant

loadings being discharged and also

prevent pass through and interference,

but that may allow more opportunities

for pollution prevention than nationally

applicable numeric pretreatment

standards. In evaluating a pollution

prevention alternative, EPA considered

a number of factors that included public

comments received, industry support,

costs, and environmental benefits. EPA

believes that the pass through and

interference of pollutants of concern to

EPA and to the pretreatment authorities

can be appropriately controlled through

effective pollution prevention and

pollutant management tailored to the

circumstances of the individual facility

through a Pollutant Management Plan.

EPA believes these pollutants can also

be controlled through compliance with

the numeric limits based on technology

Option I. EPA is thus offering both

options for compliance with PSES and

PSNS.

EPA has had discussions with

industry stakeholders and the U.S.

Small Business Administration Office of

Advocacy and EPA believes that it has

sufficient support from stakeholders to

proceed with this dual approach, and

that this approach will provide effective

pollutant reductions that prevent pass

through, interference, and sludge

contamination at the POTWs.

EPA has chosen to establish a

pollution prevention compliance

option, as well as tradition PSES and

PSNS limits based on Option I. EPA

does not believe that the lower cost

Option A removed enough toxics to

justify its selection as the basis for

pretreatment standards. Additionally,

EPA agrees with comments received

from pretreatment authorities, including

the Association of Metropolitan

Sewerage Agencies (AMSA), that oil/

water separation alone is not effective

for achieving appropriate reductions of

the pollutants which may be discharged

by TEC facilities. AMSA also indicated

its support for effective pollution

prevention practices as an alternative to

numeric limits for these facilities.

Although Option II removed

significantly more pound equivalents

than Option I, Option II does not

achieve significant incremental

reductions for any regulated pollutant

and is not projected to result in any

increased monetized benefits. Also, EPA

notes that Option II has the potential to

cause more economic impacts than

Option I. EPA does not believe that the

considerable cost increase for Option II

incremental to Option I is justified.

Therefore, EPA decided that limits

based on Option II are not appropriate

for this subcategory.

EPA believes that a dual approach

which offers facilities a choice between

Pollution prevention and compliance

with numeric limits based on Option I

is economically achievable and will

significantly reduce pollutant loadings.

Option I does not result in any projected

closures, even with a zero cost pass

through assumption. Although 14

facilities are projected to incur financial

stress under this assumption, this is a

relatively small percentage of the

subcategory population (two percent of

the industry) and none of these facilities

are small businesses. Under the

assumption of some cost pass through to

customers, no facilities are projected to

experience financial stress.

Additionally, EPA believes that it has

responded to many commenters’

concerns by requiring similar levels of

control for the truck and rail

subcategories and by providing the

pollution prevention compliance option

for both subcategories and by omitting

granular activated carbon, a potentially

costly treatment addition, from the

selected PSES and PSNS treatment

option for the Truck/Chemical &

Petroleum Subcategory. Also, EPA has

made a finding of no barrier to entry

associated with Option I level of control

for new sources (discussed in Section

VIII). Therefore, EPA is establishing

PSES and PSNS based on a dual

approach involving a pollution

prevention compliance option and

traditional limits based on Option I

technologies.

The Agency believes that the

implementation of a Pollutant

Management Plan that ensures that

heels, chemicals, and mixtures that are

incompatible with POTW systems are

not discharged to POTWs, and ensures

appropriate handling of such materials

(by recycle, reuse, effective

pretreatment, or off-site treatment or

disposal) would provide comparable

effluent reductions. Wastewaters

resulting from heel removals, prerinse

solutions, and cleaning solutions

normally contain the highest

concentrations of pollutants in TEC

wastewater. Some facilities will find it

less costly to implement pollution

prevention and pollutant management

controls, while others will find it less

costly to meet numeric limits. As a

regulatory compliance alternative,

facility owners and operators would be

given the flexibility to choose the less

expensive compliance alternative, i.e.

either meeting the specific numeric

pretreatment standards, or by

implementing a Pollutant Management

Plan.

The management plan would require

facilities to implement procedures for

identifying cargos, the cleaning of

which is likely to result in discharges of

pollutants that would be incompatible

with treatment at the POTW. This

would include cargos containing

pesticides, herbicides, and other toxic

compounds that are not effectively

treated by biological treatment. The plan

would also require facilities to fully

drain heels from such cargos, segregate

those heels from other wastewaters, and

handle them in an appropriate manner.

Appropriate handling of heels could

include return of the heel to the

customer, off-site treatment or disposal,

or pretreatment that has been

demonstrated to result in sufficient

reductions to prevent pass through or

interference. The plan would likewise

require facilities to prerinse or presteam

such cargos as appropriate, segregate the

prerinse/presteam wastewaters from

other wastewaters as appropriate and

handle in an appropriate manner to

ensure that they do not cause or

contribute to a discharge that would be

incompatible with treatment at the

POTW. Appropriate handling of

prerinse/presteam wastewaters could

include recycle/reuse, off-site treatment

or disposal, or pretreatment that has

been demonstrated to result in sufficient

reductions to prevent pass through or

interference.

In addition, the plan would require

that all spent cleaning solutions be

segregated as appropriate and handled

in an appropriate manner to ensure that

they do not cause or contribute to a

discharge that would be incompatible

with treatment at the POTW. Spent

cleaning solutions include interior

caustic washes, interior presolve

washes, interior detergent washes,

interior acid washes, and exterior acid

brightener washes. Appropriate

handling of spent cleaning solutions

could include regeneration of the

solutions, off-site treatment or disposal,

or pretreatment that has been

demonstrated to result in sufficient

reductions to prevent pass through or

interference.

The plan would also require the

appropriate recycling or reuse of

cleaning agents; the minimization of

toxic cleaning agent use; and the

maintenance of appropriate records on

heel management, prerinse/presteam

management, cleaning agent

management, operator training, and

49676 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

proper operation and maintenance of

any pretreatment systems.

The plans would also provide

information on the volumes, content,

and chemical characteristics of cleaning

agents used in cleaning or brightening

operations.

EPA has identified these pollution

prevention practices through its data

collection efforts in support of this

rulemaking, and EPA believes that it has

developed the most appropriate

combination of Pollution prevention

practices that provides maximum

flexibility while ensuring significant

pollutant reductions.

B. Rail/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory

1. BPT, BCT, BAT and NSPS for the

Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory

EPA evaluated three treatment

options for the final regulation:

Option I: Oil/Water Separation,

Equalization, Biological Treatment,

and Sludge Dewatering.

Option II: Oil/Water Separation,

Equalization, Dissolved Air

Flotation (with Flocculation and pH

Adjustment), Biological Treatment

and Sludge Dewatering.

Option III: Oil/Water Separation,

Equalization, Dissolved Air

Flotation (with Flocculation and pH

Adjustment), Biological Treatment,

Organo-Clay/Activated Carbon

Adsorption, and Sludge

Dewatering.

EPA proposed Option I for BPT, and

proposed to establish BCT and BAT

equivalent to BPT. EPA proposed

Option III for NSPS. EPA did not receive

any comments following the proposal or

the NOA specific to establishing limits

for direct discharging facilities in this

subcategory.

All regulated toxic parameters were

treated to the same level at Options I, II,

and III. As discussed in Section VI, EPA

did not have sampling data for direct

dischargers in this subcategory because

EPA only identified one direct

discharger and it does not have the

treatment technology used as the basis

for BPT. EPA has therefore relied on

technology transfer from the Barge/

Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory to

establish limits for conventionals, and

data from indirect dischargers in the

Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory

to establish limits for toxic pollutants.

Although EPA believes that the

treatment in place at the one rail direct

discharging facility (consisting of oil/

water separation, equalization, pH

adjustment, biological treatment, and a

filter press) is sufficient to meet the

limitations, EPA has decided to

establish BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS

based on Option II, which includes

dissolved air flotation (DAF). EPA

believes that this is the most appropriate

technology because the dataset used to

transfer limits (from both the rail

indirect facilities and the barge direct

facilities) includes DAF treatment.

Therefore, EPA has included the

additional costs of DAF treatment for

the one direct discharging rail facility,

even though this has not changed the

limitations presented in the NOA.

As discussed in Section VIII.B.1.c of

the proposal, EPA evaluated the costs,

loads, and impacts of the one model

direct discharging facility. EPA

estimates that the cost of implementing

Option I, for monitoring only, is about

$4,900 annually on a post-tax basis

($7,600 pre-tax). EPA’s estimate of costs

for Option II is $40,800 annually on a

post-tax basis ($59,000 pre-tax), and for

Option III is $60,600 annually on a posttax basis ($89,000 pre-tax). EPA projects

that this facility would not close or

experience revenue impacts,

employment impacts, or financial stress

at Option I or Option II level of control.

EPA’s economic analysis indicates that

Option III would have higher costs for

the existing facility used as the basis for

today’s regulation. The single direct

discharge facility used for analysis

would not close under Option III, but

this facility would have annualized

costs that exceed three percent of

annual revenue. The results of the

annualized costs to sales analysis shows

a high impact that should be avoided if

possible since these additional costs

would not provide incremental

pollutant removals in comparison to

Option II.

In addition, the incremental economic

impacts projected at Option III may

create a barrier to entry for new sources.

Therefore, EPA does not believe that

there are additional removals or benefits

to be obtained by establishing NSPS at

a more stringent level of control, and

EPA decided to establish NSPS

equivalent to BPT, BCT, and BAT.

2. PSES and PSNS for the Rail/Chemical

& Petroleum Subcategory

EPA considered three options for the

final regulation:

Option I—Oil/Water Separation.

Option II—Oil/Water Separation,

Equalization, Dissolved Air

Flotation (with Flocculation and pH

Adjustment), and Sludge

Dewatering.

Option III—Oil/Water Separation,

Equalization, Dissolved Air

Flotation (with Flocculation and pH

Adjustment), Organo-Clay/

Activated Carbon Adsorption, and

Sludge Dewatering.

EPA proposed Option I for PSES and

Option III for PSNS. As discussed in

Section VIII.B.5.d of the proposal, the

economic impacts to the industry

played a large role in EPA’s selection of

Option I for pretreatment standards.

EPA noted that its preliminary

conclusion was that Option II was

projected to result in six facility

closures and was not considered to be

economically achievable.

EPA received several comments on

the pollutant control technologies

proposed for the Rail/Chemical &

Petroleum Subcategory. EPA received

comments from several entities,

including AMSA, who argued that oil/

water separation alone is not sufficient

pretreatment for the pollutants in Rail/

Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory

wastewaters. Additionally, many

commenters have expressed concern

about the discrepancy in treatment

technology proposed for the rail and

truck facilities. Several commenters

argued that the wastewater

characteristics are similar for truck and

rail facilities, and that the treatment

options should therefore be similar for

facilities which potentially compete

with each other.

EPA has determined that a Pollutant

Management Plan is an appropriate

compliance alternative to the numerical

pretreatment standards also being

promulgated in today’s rule for the rail/

chemical and petroleum subcategory. As

explained elsewhere in today’s notice,

the Agency believes this Pollutant

Management Plan alternative is

consistent with the CWA and the

Pollution Prevention Act of 1990; is

comparable to the numerical standards

in terms of pollutant removal and costs

incurred by facilities; is economically

achievable; and will allow an

appropriate level of flexibility to facility

owners and operators on how to best

achieve a reduction in pollutants being

discharged to the POTW. The full

discussion of the Agency’s reasoning is

set forth in section V.A of today’s

notice.

In the proposal, EPA also noted this

discrepancy, and noted that there were

many similarities between the truck and

rail subcategory wastewaters, and that

the most significant reason for

proposing dissimilar technology options

in the truck and rail subcategories was

due to economic considerations. EPA’s

analysis showed that several rail

facilities were unable to incur the costs

of a more stringent regulatory option

without sustaining significant economic

impacts. However, all of the financially

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 49677

stressed rail facilities will now qualify

for the low flow exclusion (see Section

III.C of this notice). Additionally, as

discussed in Section VI, EPA has

reduced monitoring costs by

establishing indicator parameters.

Removing low flow facilities and some

monitoring costs from EPA’s analysis

has affected the total costs, loads, and

economic impacts of the technology

options for this subcategory.

For the final regulation, EPA

estimates that Option I will have an

annualized cost of $589,000 post-tax

($897,000 pre-tax), Option II will cost

$1.0 million post-tax ($1.5 million pretax), and Option III will cost $1.6

million post-tax ($2.5 million pre-tax).

EPA projects that Option I and Option

II will both result in monetized benefits

of $54,000 to $285,000 annually, and

that Option III would result in benefits

of $1.0 to $3.9 million annually.

EPA conducted a pass through

analysis for the pollutants selected for

regulation under BAT. EPA determined

that several pollutants would pass

through a POTW. The results of this

analysis are presented in Section VI. of

this notice.

For Options I, II, and III, EPA

anticipates no closures, revenue

impacts, or employment impacts at even

the most conservative assumption of no

cost pass through. Additionally, EPA

does not anticipate any facilities will

experience financial stress at Options I,

II, or III.

EPA also considers the cost

effectiveness to evaluate the relative

efficiency of each option in removing

toxic pollutants. Option I is projected to

remove 6,600 pound equivalents,

Option II will remove 7,300 pound

equivalents, and Option III will remove

7,800 pound equivalents.

EPA has decided to establish PSES

and PSNS based on Option II. Although

Option III is projected to remove more

pound equivalents and also result in

higher monetized benefits then Option

II, Option III was not demonstrated to

achieve significant reductions

incremental to Option II for any

regulated pollutant. The increase in

monetized benefits in Option II was due

to the removal of several pesticides not

proposed for regulation. EPA has

discussed its rationale for not

establishing limitations for pesticides in

Section VI. Therefore, EPA does not

believe that the higher costs for Option

III justify its selection for pretreatment

standards for new sources.

As noted in the NOA, the cost of

Option II is 70 percent higher than the

costs for Option I, and the

corresponding increase in pound

equivalents removed is approximately

10 percent. Comparatively, the cost of

Option III is 65 percent higher than the

costs for Option II, and the

corresponding increase in pound

equivalents removed is approximately

six percent. While this results in a

relatively high incremental costeffectiveness ratio for both Options II

and III, EPA has decided to establish

PSES based on Option II for the reasons

discussed above. Option II, which is

analogous to Option I in the Truck/

Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory,

achieves a significant reduction in toxic

loadings and results in no closures,

financial stress, or revenue impacts.

Additionally, EPA has modified the

proposal to decrease costs for the

industry, and the final costs for Option

II are roughly equivalent to the costs

estimated for Option I at proposal. EPA

has therefore decided to establish PSES

and PSNS based on Option II.

C. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory

1. BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS for the

Barge/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory

EPA considered two options for the

final regulation:

Option I: Oil/Water Separation,

Dissolved Air Flotation, Filter

Press, Biological Treatment, and

Sludge Dewatering.

Option II: Oil/Water Separation,

Dissolved Air Flotation, Filter

Press, Biological Treatment, Reverse

Osmosis, and Sludge Dewatering.

EPA proposed Option I for BPT, and

proposed to establish BCT, BAT and

NSPS equivalent to BPT. EPA estimates

the annualized costs for Option I at

$89,500 annually post-tax ($146,300

pre-tax) and Option II at $345,700

annually post-tax ($540,900 pre-tax).

EPA estimates that both Option I and

Option II remove 19,300 pounds of

BOD5 and TSS. Based on the treatment

technologies in place at the model

facilities, coupled with the biological

treatment system upgrades estimated by

EPA to achieve Option I performance

levels, EPA predicts that Option II

would not result in any additional

removal of toxic pollutants because

most pollutants are already treated to

very low levels, often approaching or

below non-detect levels. EPA did not

receive any support for establishing

BPT, BCT, BAT, or NSPS at Option II.

EPA has therefore decided to establish

BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS based on

Option I.

2. PSES and PSNS for the Barge/

Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory

EPA considered three options for the

final regulation:

Option I—Oil/Water Separation,

Dissolved Air Flotation, and Filter

Press.

Option II—Oil/Water Separation,

Dissolved Air Flotation, Filter

Press, Biological Treatment, and

Sludge Dewatering.

Option III—Oil/Water Separation,

Dissolved Air Flotation, Filter

Press, Biological Treatment, Reverse

Osmosis, and Sludge Dewatering.

EPA proposed Option II for PSNS.

EPA did not propose PSES for the

Barge/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory because EPA identified

only one facility discharging to a POTW.

However, since the proposal, EPA has

identified four facilities which

previously discharged directly to

surface waters and have since either

switched or plan to switch discharge

status. EPA noted this change in

discharge status for these four barge

facilities in the NOA, and EPA now

estimates that there are five facilities in

EPA’s model which discharge

wastewater to a POTW.

EPA evaluated the treatment in place

and levels of control currently achieved

by the model indirect discharging

Barge/Chemical & Petroleum facilities.

EPA was able to evaluate effluent

discharge concentrations of BOD5, TSS,

and oil and grease from each of these

model facilities (EPA did not have the

data to evaluate the discharge

concentrations of other parameters).

Based on the discharge concentrations

of these conventional pollutants, EPA

believes that all model indirect

discharging facilities are meeting the

levels of control that would be

established under PSES, and that the

effluent concentrations of other

pollutants of interest would also be

similarly controlled.

Therefore, EPA estimates that the cost

of implementing PSES standards

equivalent to PSNS would be solely for

increased monitoring costs, totaling

approximately $67,000 (pre-tax)

annually. EPA believes that all

indirectly discharging facilities have

sufficient treatment in place to meet

standards that would be established

under PSES. EPA predicts that there

would be no incremental removals or

benefits associated with establishing

PSES standards. EPA has not received

any comments that disagreed with the

Agency’s assessment that existing

facilities would meet the standards.

EPA evaluated the pass through of

pollutants regulated under BAT. As was

49678 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

discussed at proposal for establishment

of NSPS, and in the NOA for SGT–HEM,

EPA found that a number of pollutants

would in fact pass through a POTW

based on BAT treatment. Due to the pass

through of a number of pollutants, and

due to the number of facilities that have

switched discharge status since

proposal, EPA concluded that it should

establish PSES and PSNS based on

Option II. EPA believes that PSES is

necessary in order to establish similar

levels of control for direct and indirect

dischargers, and especially to establish

similar levels of control for those

facilities which may decide to switch

discharge status.

As noted under NSPS for the Barge/

Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory,

EPA believes that Option III, consisting

of reverse osmosis treatment, would not

result in a significant reduction of toxic

pollutants, because most pollutants are

already treated to low levels based on

Option II level of control. Option II was

demonstrated to treat many regulated

pollutants to effluent levels approaching

the detection limit. EPA has therefore

decided to establish PSES and PSNS

based on Option II.

D. Food Subcategory

EPA proposed to establish separate

subcategories for the Truck/Food, Rail/

Food, and Barge/Food subcategories due

to the differences in the amount of water

generated per cleaning by truck, rail,

and barge facilities. The different

volumes of wastewater were used to

establish distinct mass-based limits in

each of the subcategories. However, EPA

is establishing concentration-based

instead of mass-based limits, making

further subcategorization of food

facilities by transportation mode

unnecessary.

1. BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS for the

Food Subcategory

EPA considered the following options

for the final regulation:

Option I—Oil/Water Separation.

Option II—Oil/Water Separation,

Equalization, Biological Treatment,

and Sludge Dewatering.

Based on screener survey results, EPA

estimates that there are 19 direct

discharging facilities in the Food

Subcategory.

EPA proposed Option II for BPT, BCT,

and NSPS. In the proposal, EPA stated

that no additional pollutant removals

and no additional costs to the industry

were projected because all facilities

identified by EPA currently have the

proposed technology in place. EPA has

not received any comment objecting to

the assumptions or conclusions

contained in the proposal. EPA

therefore continues to believe that all

food grade facilities currently have the

proposed treatment technology in place,

and that Option II represents the average

of the best treatment. EPA has decided

to establish BPT at Option II, and to

establish BCT and NSPS equivalent to

BPT. Based on the analysis of existing

facilities, EPA concluded that there

would be no barrier to entry for new

sources based on Option II.

Additionally, EPA did not identify any

treatment technology for the Food

Subcategory that would achieve

significant pollutant removals or would

establish effluent limitations

significantly more stringent than those

being established under BPT. EPA is not

establishing BAT because EPA did not

identify toxic or non-conventional

pollutants at levels sufficient to merit

regulation.

2. PSES and PSNS for the Food

Subcategory

In the Agency’s engineering

assessment of pretreatment of

wastewaters for the Food Subcategory,

EPA considered the types and

concentrations of pollutants found in

raw wastewaters in this subcategory. As

expected, food grade facilities did not

discharge significant quantities of toxic

pollutants to POTWs. In addition,

conventional pollutants present in the

wastewater are amenable to treatment at

a POTW. As a result, EPA did not

propose to establish pretreatment

standards for any of the food

subcategories. Comments received on

the proposal predominantly supported

EPA’s regulatory approach for the Food

Subcategory. Therefore, EPA is not

establishing PSES or PSNS for the Food

Subcategory in the final regulation.

E. Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and

Barge/Hopper Subcategories

1. BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS for the

Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/

Hopper Subcategories.

EPA did not propose to establish BPT,

BAT, BCT, or NSPS regulations for any

of the hopper subcategories. EPA

concluded that hopper facilities

discharge very few pounds of

conventional or toxic pollutants. This is

based on EPA sampling data, which

showed very few priority toxic

pollutants at treatable levels in raw

wastewater. Additionally, very little

wastewater is generated from cleaning

the interiors of hopper tanks due to the

dry nature of bulk materials transported.

EPA estimates that nine hopper

facilities discharge 21 pound

equivalents per year to surface waters,

or about two pound equivalents per year

per facility. Comments on the proposal

generally supported EPA’s conclusion

on the hopper subcategories. Therefore,

EPA concluded that nationallyapplicable regulations are unnecessary

and hopper facilities will remain subject

to limitations established on a case-bycase basis using Best Professional

Judgement.

2. PSES and PSNS for the Truck/

Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/Hopper

Subcategories

EPA also did not propose to establish

PSES or PSNS for any of the hopper

subcategories. EPA estimates that there

are 42 indirect discharging hopper

facilities which discharge a total of 3.5

pound equivalents to the nation’s

waterways, or less than one poundequivalent per facility. Additionally,

EPA estimates that the total cost to the

industry to implement PSES would be

greater than $350,000 annually. The

estimated costs to control the discharge

of these small amounts of pound

equivalents were not considered to be

reasonable. EPA also evaluated the

levels of pollutants in raw wastewaters

and concluded that none were present

at levels that are expected to cause

inhibition to the receiving POTW.

Therefore, EPA concluded that

nationally-applicable regulations are

unnecessary and hopper facilities will

remain subject to local pretreatment

limits as necessary to prevent pass

through or interference.

VI. Development of Effluent Limitations

A. Selection of Pollutant Parameters for

Final Regulation

EPA based its decision to select

specific pollutants for regulation on a

rigorous evaluation of available

sampling data. This evaluation included

factors such as the concentration and

frequency of detection of the pollutants

in the industry raw wastewater, the

relative toxicity of pollutants as defined

by their toxic weighting factors, the

treatability of the pollutants in the

modeled treatment systems, and the

potential of the pollutants to pass

through or interfere with POTW

operations. Particular attention has been

given to priority pollutants which have

been detected at treatable levels. EPA

has attempted to select several

pollutants which have been frequently

detected at sampled facilities, which are

possible indicators of the presence of

similar pollutants, and whose control

through some combination of physical,

chemical, and biological treatment will

be indicative of a well-operated

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 49679

treatment system capable of removing a

wide range of pollutants.

EPA proposed to establish limits for a

list of pollutants that included classical

pollutants, semivolatile organics, and

metals. EPA solicited and received

numerous comments from stakeholders

on the pollutants selected for regulation

in each subcategory. In the NOA, EPA

presented several changes being

considered based on the comments

received.

EPA did not propose to establish

effluent limitations for any pesticide,

herbicide, dioxin, or furan. These

pollutants were not found in

concentrations high enough to merit

regulation, the cost associated with

monitoring for these parameters is very

high, and EPA’s sampling data have

shown that the discharge concentrations

of pesticides, herbicides, dioxins, and

furans are generally treated by the

proposed technology options. In the

case of dioxins and furans, the most

highly toxic congeners were treated to

nondetect values based on oil/water

separation and coagulation/clarification.

In its evaluation of treatment

technologies, EPA compared the TEC

treatment data to known characteristics

of dioxins and furans, and to the

correlation of TSS and oil & grease

removals. Dioxins and furans are

lipophilic and hydrophobic and are

most often associated with suspended

particulates and/or oils in wastewater

matrices. Treatment technologies for

dioxins and furans vary depending on

the characteristics of the matrix. If

wastes such as oils and greases are

present, dioxins will tend to bind with

the oil and can be effectively removed

by treatments such as dissolved air

flotation. If oils are not present, dioxins

will tend to bind with particulates and

can be effectively removed by

treatments such as clarification and

filtration.

The removal efficiencies for dioxins

and furans across oil/water separation

and coagulation/clarification ranged

from 65–97 percent, (they would be 100

percent if the effluent nondetect value

were set at zero), and paralleled the

removal efficiencies of oil & grease and/

or TSS.

In summary, EPA decided not to

establish limitations for dioxin or furan

congeners for several reasons: (1) the

congeners found in TEC wastewater are

not priority pollutants and were found

at very low levels in raw wastewater, (2)

the selected technology options were

demonstrated to treat dioxin and furans

to nondetect levels (due to control of

TSS and oil and grease), and (3) dioxin

and furan monitoring is very expensive

(monitoring alone would increase the

cost per facility by approximately

$12,000 per year, compared to the

average per facility cost of the regulation

of approximately $30,000 per year).

Several commenters disagreed with

the Agency’s conclusion and thought

that EPA should establish limitations for

these parameters due to their toxicity.

However, most comments received by

EPA supported EPA’s conclusion not to

regulate these parameters due to the

high costs associated with monitoring

and due to the fact that these pollutants

are generally treated by the technologies

identified in this rule. EPA has decided

not to establish limitations for

pesticides, herbicides, dioxins, or furans

in the final regulation. However, NDPES

permits for any individual TEC facility

must include certain other pollutants in

given circumstances. For example,

permits must include limitations that

are necessary to ensure compliance with

water quality standards and State

requirements. See 40 CFR 122.44(d).

Moreover, TEC industry permittees

must submit with their permit

application detailed monitoring

information on an extensive list of

pollutants. See 40 CFR 122.21(g)(7).

Their permits must include technologybased limits for any toxic pollutant

which the permit writer determines is or

may be discharged at a level greater than

the level which can be achieved by

treatment requirements appropriate to

the permittee. The permit writer would

establish case-by-case limits for such

pollutants. See 40 CFR Part 125.3 (c)(3).

EPA proposed to establish limitations

for chemical oxygen demand (COD).

EPA received numerous comments

opposed to the Agency’s preliminary

decision to regulate COD and, based on

these comments, EPA has decided to

eliminate COD as a regulated pollutant.

The majority of comments received

were from POTW operators who did not

want EPA to establish pretreatment

standards for COD. The commenters

believed that COD pollutant loads

generated from tank cleaning facilities

were easily treated biologically in a

POTW. EPA has agreed with

commenters that the levels of COD

generated from tank cleaning facilities

are adequately treated in a POTW and,

thus, will not pass through or interfere

with its operation. Additionally, EPA

believes COD would be adequately

controlled through the regulation of

other conventional pollutants, including

BOD and oil and grease for direct

dischargers. EPA did not receive any

comments in opposition to this change,

and EPA has not included limits for

COD in the final regulation. Permit

writers and local authorities should

carefully examine the concentration

and/or treatability of COD in TEC

wastewater to determine if local limits

are necessary.

EPA received comments from

pretreatment authorities that EPA

should regulate pollutants identified in

TEC wastewater that may pass through

the POTW or which may accumulate in

the POTW sludge. The commenter

specifically identified copper, lead, and

mercury as pollutants of concern to the

POTW. The commenter was especially

concerned that mercury was identified

in the proposal as a constituent of raw

TEC wastewater and was identified as a

pollutant of concern for the Truck/

Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory and

the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory, but was not proposed for

regulation in either subcategory. In

response to these comments, EPA

reevaluated the frequency of detection,

the level of concentrations found in raw

wastewater, and the pass through

analysis for each of the regulated

subcategories for the pollutants copper,

lead, and mercury.

In the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory, neither copper, lead, nor

mercury was detected at significant

concentrations in raw wastewater to

merit national regulation.

In the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory, lead was detected at very

low concentrations and EPA determined

that lead did not merit national

regulation. However, copper was

detected in 10 out of 10 samples, with

an average concentration of 1,100 μg/L,

and a maximum concentration of 9,200

μg/L. Due to the frequency of detects,

relatively high raw wastewater

concentrations, and toxicity of copper,

EPA has promulgated effluent

limitations for copper. EPA conducted a

pass through analysis, and determined

that copper does pass through a POTW.

Therefore, EPA has established

pretreatment standards for copper.

Mercury was detected 8 out of 10 times,

with an average concentration of 1.8 μg/

L and a maximum concentration of 5.0

μg/L. Mercury was also determined to

pass through a POTW. Due to the high

toxicity of mercury, the high frequency

of detects, relatively high raw

wastewater concentrations, and pass

through analysis, EPA has promulgated

effluent limitations and pretreatment

standards for mercury in the Truck/

Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory.

In the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory, mercury was detected

three out of six times, with an average

concentration of 5.4 μg/L and a

maximum concentration of 81 μg/L.

Although the detection frequency was

only 50%, the raw wastewater

concentrations reached high enough

49680 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

levels to be of concern, especially for a

pollutant as toxic as mercury. Mercury

was also determined to pass through a

POTW. Therefore, EPA has decided to

promulgate effluent limitations and

pretreatment standards for mercury in

the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory. Additionally, both lead

and copper were detected at significant

concentrations in raw wastewater to

merit regulation and were determined to

pass through a POTW. Due to the

toxicity, frequency of detects, and

relatively high raw wastewater

concentrations of lead and copper, EPA

has promulgated effluent limitations

and pretreatment standards for lead and

copper.

EPA did not propose to regulate

mercury in either the Truck/Chemical &

Petroleum Subcategory or the Barge/

Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory.

However, mercury was identified as a

pollutant of concern in each of these

subcategories and EPA developed long

term averages and variability factors for

mercury at the time of proposal, which

were included in the proposed

statistical support document (EPA–832–

B–98–014). In calculating limits for the

final regulation, EPA has used the same

methodology as descibed in Section VIII

of the proposal and as finalized in

Section VI of this notice. Based on

comments, EPA has concluded that it

should establish effluent limitations and

pretreatment standards for mercury.

EPA also received comments from

pretreatment authorities and

stakeholders on EPA’s decision to

establish limits for parameters such as

zinc and chromium which are found in

potable water supply systems, and

which may be found at levels higher

than the proposed limitations. The

commenters questioned if the presence

of these parameters in TEC wastewaters

was the result of cleaning cargos, or the

result of source water contamination.

The commenter noted that maximum

contaminant levels for zinc and

chromium in drinking water are 5 mg/

L and 0.1 mg/l, respectively, and that

the proposed limitations were low in

comparison to drinking water standards.

In response, EPA evaluated sampling

data from TEC wastewater and source

water from the Truck/Chemical &

Petroleum Subcategory and Barge/

Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory.

Based on a data review of the Truck/

Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory,

EPA concluded that one of the highest

concentrations of zinc found in truck/

chemical process water was actually

from source water supplied from a

domestic water distribution system.

Furthermore, all of the levels of zinc

found in truck/chemical process water

were within the range of concentrations

that the commenter describes as being

present in drinking water (i.e. less than

5 mg/l.) Therefore, EPA has concluded

that zinc is not a pollutant of concern

for this subcategory because the zinc

levels present in dischargers from

Truck/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory facilities may be due to

source water contamination rather than

a direct result of cleaning tanks.

Therefore, EPA has decided not to

promulgate effluent limitations or

pretreatment standards for zinc in the

Truck/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory. However, the average raw

wastewater concentration of chromium

in raw wastewater was 2.4 mg/L, and

the maximum concentration was 18.6

mg/L. The levels of chromium in the

source water at these facilities was

much lower than raw wastewater

concentrations, and were all less than

0.01 mg/L. Therefore, EPA concluded

that chromium is a pollutant of interest

in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory. However, based on the

discussion in Section VI.A of this

notice, EPA is not promulgating effluent

limitations and pretreatment standards

for chromium. However, with respect to

the comment that the chromium limits

are too low, EPA has recalculated the

limits based on additional self

monitoring data received from industry

after publication of the NOA. The

industry data represents the effluent

levels attainable at a facility over a

much longer time period that was

represented by EPA’s original data set.

Because this data more accurately

accounts for the variability present in

tank cleaning wastewater, the limits

have become less stringent.

In the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory, the average raw

wastewater concentration of zinc was 19

mg/L, and the maximum concentration

found was 78.5 mg/L. The highest level

of zinc in source water at barge facilities

was 0.114 mg/L. Additionally, all source

water concentrations of chromium were

non-detect. Therefore, EPA concluded

that the levels of zinc and chromium

present in barge process water were the

result of barge cleaning operations, and

not due to source water contamination.

EPA concluded that, due to the high

levels present in raw wastewater, that

zinc and chromium are pollutants of

interest. EPA has decided to retain the

effluent limitations and pretreatment

standards for zinc and chromium in the

Barge/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory.

EPA received numerous comments

from POTWs, industry trade

associations, and affected facilities

suggesting that EPA use oil and grease

(measured as HEM) and total petroleum

hydrocarbons as indicator pollutants for

straight chain hydrocarbons proposed

for regulation. As descibed in the NOA,

EPA has revised the name of ‘‘total

petroleum hydrocarbons’’ in Method

1664 to ‘‘non-polar material’’ to indicate

that the new test method is different

from previous versions. (64 FR 26315

May 14, 1999). Non-polar materials are

measured by Silica-gel Treated nHexane Extractable Material (SGT–

HEM). Oil and Grease continues to be

synonymous with the Method 1664 for

n-Hexane Extractable Material (HEM).

EPA proposed to regulate oil and grease

(HEM) for direct discharging facilities,

and non-polar oil and grease (SGT–

HEM) for indirect discharging facilities.

As discussed in Section XIII.G of the

proposal, EPA recognizes that HEM

analysis can include edible oils (such as

animal fats and vegetable oils) in

addition to petroleum-based oils, which

are the primary constituents measured

by the SGT–HEM analysis. As discussed

in Section VIII.B of the NOA, EPA has

deemed non-polar material (SGT–HEM)

to pass through a POTW due to the

prevalence of petroleum-based

compounds.

Many commenters argued that straight

chain hydrocarbons are components of

oil and grease (HEM) and non-polar

material (SGT–HEM), and that their

regulation as individual pollutants

would be redundant and would impose

additional, unnecessary costs on the

industry. These straight chain

hydrocarbons include n-Hexadecane, nHexacosane, n-Decane, n-Docosane, nDodecane, n-Eicosane, n-Octacosane, nOctadecane, n-Tetracosane, nTetradecane, and n-Triacontane. EPA

does not necessarily agree that

regulation of such individual pollutants

is redundant but has considered the

comment and performed the evaluation

described below.

EPA reviewed the treatment

effectiveness data collected in support

of this regulation, and found that the

treatment effectiveness of these

parameters is related to the treatment

effectiveness of HEM and SGT–HEM.

This is consistent with the chemical

characteristics of HEM and SGT–HEM,

which by definition include the straight

chain hydrocarbons as constituents. In

cases where oil and grease (HEM) and

non-polar material (SGT–HEM) were

effectively controlled, all of the

pollutants listed above were treated to

very low levels, such as in PSES/PSNS

Option II in the Rail/Chemical &

Petroleum Subcategory, which consists

of oil/water separation and dissolved air

flotation. This system achieved

substantial removals of HEM and SGT–

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 49681

HEM, along with the straight chain

hydrocarbons listed above. Treatment

effectiveness in the Barge/Chemical &

Petroleum Subcategory demonstrated

similar results.

Additionally, EPA reviewed data from

a characterization study of the HEM and

SGT–HEM test methods conducted for

the Proposed Effluent Limitations

Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards

for the Industrial Laundries Point

Source Category (63 FR 71054 December

23, 1998). This study was performed to

characterize the individual constituents

measured by method 1664 (HEM and

SGT–HEM); the study is available for

review in Section 16 of the regulatory

record for the Industrial Laundries

Effluent Guideline. The laundries data

demonstrate that the HEM and SGT–

HEM test methods provide a general

indication of the presence of the straight

chain hydrocarbons listed above in

wastewater samples.

EPA proposed effluent limitations and

pretreatment standards for chromium in

the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory based on EPA sampling

data from one BAT facility. to develop

long term averages. At the time of the

NOA (July 20, 1999) EPA continued to

propose effluent limitations and

pretreatment standards for chromium

based on the proposal methodology.

However, during the comment period

on the NOA, the industry submitted

additional self-monitoring data from the

wastewater treatment plant that EPA

had sampled, and from which EPA had

developed the proposed limits. The data

submitted by the facility demonstrated

that it would actually exceed the

proposed limitations on numerous

occasions. Although a significant

number of effluent monitoring

chromium concentrations were similar

to the concentrations observed by EPA

during its sampling episode, a few data

points were significantly higher than the

values observed by EPA.

The facility only provided EPA copies

of its DMRs and associated laboratory

analyses, and did not provide any

information on raw wastewater

concentrations, treatment system

operation, or lists of cleaning operations

that were performed during the time of

the self-monitoring sampling. Therefore,

EPA cannot evaluate the effectiveness of

treatment on those days with high

chromium effluent concentrations.

However, based on its knowledge of the

industry, EPA hypothesizes that the

high concentrations of chromium in the

effluent are the result of the facility

performing exterior acid washes on

those days. Exterior acid washing is a

common service that tank truck

facilities provide to their customers to

brighten and remove the tarnish from

the chrome parts of a tank truck. This

service leaches chromium from the

external truck parts.

On the days that EPA sampled the

facility, it did not perform acid

brightener washes. Therefore EPA’s

sampling data did not include high

concentrations of chromium. EPA

believes that its chromium data is not

representative of the practices that may

be performed by tank truck facilities,

and that the chromium limits based on

EPA’s sampling data may not be

achievable for facilities that are

performing acid washes for their

customers.

However, because the facility

provided no data about its raw

wastewater concentrations, treatment

effectiveness, or treatment unit

operations on the days it reported selfmonitoring data, EPA does not believe

that it would be appropriate to establish

long term averages based on the

industry supplied self monitoring data.

EPA is unable to evaluate the

effectiveness of the treatment system.

Therefore, EPA has decided not to

promulgate the effluent limitations and

pretreatment standards for chromium in

the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory, and leave the

establishment of any chromium

limitations and standards to the BPJ of

the permit writer.

As described in detail in Section X of

this notice, EPA has spent a

considerable amount of effort in

developing an alternative pollution

prevention option in lieu of national

pretreatment standards for the industry.

Specific to the concern of chromium in

tank truck washwater, and realizing the

potential for pollution prevention

practices in lieu of national numeric

standards, EPA has included in the P2

practices the segregation of exterior acid

brighteners from other wastewaters, and

has specified that these wastewaters

must be handled in an appropriate

manner to ensure that they do not cause

or contribute to a discharge that would

be incompatible with treatment at the

POTW. While EPA is not promulgating

this pollution prevention alternative for

chromium for facilities that decided to

meet the numeric limitations, EPA

believes that the control authority may

wish to incorporate pollution

prevention in lieu of BPJ numeric

limitations for chromium. EPA has

received comments from a POTW that

currently employs such a pollution

prevention practice in order to prevent

high levels of chrome from being

discharged to its system.

Due to concerns about its own data,

insufficient documentation of the

industry’s self monitoring data,

inadequate time for additional field

sampling and public notice of any

sampling efforts, and the opportunities

for appropriate pollution prevention

practices, EPA is not establishing

limitations or pretreatment standards for

chromium and the control authority

may establish BPJ chromium standards,

or require chromium pollution

prevention practices, based on an

evaluation of site specific factors.

For direct discharging facilities, EPA

is establishing limitations for the Truck/

Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory for

BOD5, TSS, Oil and Grease (HEM),

Copper, Mercury, and pH. For the Rail/

Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory,

EPA is establishing limitations for

BOD5, TSS, Oil and Grease (HEM),

Fluoranthene, Phenanthrene, and pH.

For the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory, EPA is establishing

limitations for BOD5, TSS, Oil and

Grease (HEM), Cadmium, Chromium,

Copper, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Zinc,

and pH. Additionally, EPA is

establishing limits for the Food

Subcategory for BOD5, TSS, Oil and

Grease (HEM), and pH.

Finally, EPA conducted a passthrough analysis on the pollutants

selected for regulation under BPT and

BAT to determine if the Agency should

establish pretreatment standards for any

pollutant. (The pass-through analysis is

not applicable to conventional

parameters such as BOD5, TSS, and Oil

and Grease (HEM). EPA is establishing

pretreatment standards for those

pollutants which the Agency has

determined to pass through a POTW. In

addition, as discussed in the NOA, EPA

has concluded that non-polar material

(SGT–HEM) does pass through a POTW

in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum,

Rail/Chemical & Petroleum, and Barge/

Chemical & Petroleum Subcategories.

EPA did not receive any comments on

this pass through determination, and

EPA has retained its conclusion for the

final regulation.

Based on the pass-through analysis,

EPA is establishing PSES and PSNS in

the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory for non-polar material

(SGT–HEM), Copper and Mercury. EPA

is establishing PSES and PSNS in the

Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory

for non-polar material (SGT–HEM),

Fluoranthene, and Phenanthrene.

Finally, EPA is establishing PSES and

PSNS in the Barge/Chemical &

Petroleum Subcategory for non-polar

material (SGT–HEM), Cadmium,

Chromium, Copper, Lead, Mercury,

Nickel, and Zinc.

Regulated facilities can meet the final

limitations through the use of any

49682 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

combination of physical, chemical, or

biological treatment, or implementation

of pollution prevention strategies (e.g.,

good heel removal and water

conservation). Additional information

on the development of effluent

limitations and the technology options

considered for regulation is included in

Section VIII of the proposed rule,

Section V of this notice and the

Technical Development Document.

B. Calculation of Effluent Limitations

1. Changes in Methodology Since

Proposal

The data and methodology used to

calculate effluent limitations and

pretreatment standards are located in

Section 21 of the regulatory record. The

data and methodology are the same as

proposed with several exceptions.

One, EPA has calculated

concentration-based instead of massbased limits. EPA received many

comments on the proposal criticizing

EPA for proposing mass-based

standards. EPA described these

comments in the NOA and described an

alternative methodology which would

establish concentration-based limits.

EPA received almost unanimous

comment in support of concentrationbased limits and has adopted

concentration-based limits for the final

regulation.

Two, EPA has used data provided by

industry to calculate final effluent

limitations. EPA used data from two

additional Barge/Chemical & Petroleum

facilities for the calculation of BOD5 and

TSS limits, as discussed in Section II of

the NOA. EPA has received no comment

on the use of this additional data, and

EPA has continued to use these data for

developing the final BOD5 and TSS

limitations. EPA has used additional

data from one Truck/Chemical &

Petroleum Subcategory facility for the

calculation of variability factors for

copper, and mercury. The data provided

consisted of self monitoring data for a

facility that was sampled by EPA and

used to calculate proposed effluent

limitations. EPA had already

determined this site to represent BAT

treatment. EPA has used this additional

self-monitoring data to determine

variability factors because it represents

treatment performance over a much

longer time period (4 years) than was

demonstrated from EPA sampling data.

The complete dataset, including lab

reports and certified monitoring reports,

can be found in Section 15.2.2 of the

regulatory record.

Third, EPA has used the pollutantspecific variability factor where

available, and then calculated group and

fraction-level variability factors by

taking a median of all pollutants

effectively removed in a chemical class,

rather than using the median of only

those pollutants selected for regulation

in a chemical class. EPA believes this

revised methodology is appropriate

because the Agency believes that all

pollutants in a chemical class will

behave similarly, regardless of whether

or not it is selected for regulation. This

change was also presented in the NOA,

and EPA did not receive any comment

on this revised methodology. EPA has

adopted this methodology for the final

regulation.

Fourth, EPA has used technology

transfer to establish PSES standards for

non-polar material (SGT–HEM) in the

Truck/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory. EPA proposed

pretreatment standards for SGT–HEM in

the Truck/Chemical Subcategory based

on the data from two Truck/Chemical

facilities. However, EPA feels that the

SGT–HEM standards developed for this

subcategory may not be achievable,

because the raw wastewater

concentrations at these two facilities

were 65 mg/L and 61 mg/L, whereas the

average raw wastewater concentration

for the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum

subcategory was measured to be 150

mg/L. EPA is aware that some facilities

in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory may be generating

wastewater with significantly higher

concentrations of oil and grease than

EPA considered in the proposed

limitations. Therefore, EPA transferred

standards for SGT–HEM from similar

treatment technologies operated in the

Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory.

As mentioned previously, this system

consisted of oil/water separation

followed by dissolved air flotation

(DAF) and achieved 98 percent removal

of HEM for wastewater that had an

influent concentration of 1,994 mg/L.

For SGT–HEM, the system achieved a

97 percent removal for wastewater that

had an average influent concentration of

206 mg/L. EPA believes that technology

transfer of SGT–HEM establishes

limitations that are achievable for all

facilities in the Truck/Chemical &

Petroleum Subcategory. As discussed in

Section III.F and VI.A, EPA is

establishing HEM (for direct

dischargers) and SGT–HEM (for indirect

dischargers) as indicator pollutants for

several other constituents in the Truck/

Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory.

As in the proposal, EPA has

continued to use technology transfer to

establish BPT limits for conventional

pollutants BOD5, TSS, and oil and

grease (HEM) in the Truck/Chemical &

Petroleum and Rail/Chemical &

Petroleum Subcategories. EPA does not

have sampling data from a facility

operating BPT biological treatment in

either the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum

or Rail/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategories. Therefore, EPA has

transferred effluent limitations for

BOD5, TSS, and oil and grease (HEM)

from a biological system in the Barge/

Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, as

was described in Section II of the NOA.

2. Methodology for Final Limitations

EPA based the effluent limitations

and standards in today’s notice on

widely-recognized statistical procedures

for calculating long-term averages and

variability factors. The following

presents a summary of the statistical

methodology used in the calculation of

effluent limitations.

Effluent limitations for each

subcategory are based on a combination

of long-term average effluent values and

variability factors that account for

variation in day-to-day treatment

performance within a treatment plant.

The long-term averages are average

effluent concentrations that have been

achieved by well-operated treatment

systems using the processes described

in Section V (Technology Options

Selected for Basis of Regulation). The

variability factors are values that

represent the ratio of a large value that

would be expected to occur only rarely

to the long-term average. The purpose of

the variability factor is to allow for

normal variation in effluent

concentrations. A facility that designs

and operates its treatment system to

achieve a long-term average on a

consistent basis should be able to

comply with the daily and monthly

limitations in the course of normal

operations.

The variability factors and long-term

averages were developed from a

database composed of individual

measurements on treated effluent based

on EPA sampling data and from

industry supplied data. EPA sampling

data reflects the performance of a

system over a three to five day period,

although not necessarily over

consecutive days.

The long-term average concentration

of a pollutant for a treatment system was

calculated based on either an arithmetic

mean or the expected value of the

distribution of the samples, depending

on the number of total samples and the

number of detected samples for that

pollutant at that facility. A deltalognormal distributional assumption

was used for all subcategories except the

Truck/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory where the arithmetic mean

was used. The pollutant long-term

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 49683

average concentration for a treatment

technology was the median of the longterm averages from the sampled

treatment systems within the

subcategory using the proposed

treatment technology.

EPA calculated variability factors by

fitting a statistical distribution to the

sampling data. The distribution was

based on an assumption that the furthest

excursion from the long-term average

(LTA) that a well operated plant using

the proposed technology option could

be expected to make on a daily basis

was a point below which 99 percent of

the data for that facility falls, under the

assumed distribution. The daily

variability factor for each pollutant at

each facility is the ratio of the estimated

99th percentile of the distribution of the

daily pollutant concentration values

divided by the expected value of the

distribution of the daily values. The

pollutant variability factor for a

treatment technology was the mean of

the pollutant variability factors from the

facilities with that technology.

There were several instances where

variability factors could not be

calculated directly from the TEC

database because there were not at least

two effluent values measured above the

minimum detection level for a specific

pollutant. In these cases, the sample size

of the data is too small to allow

distributional assumptions to be made.

Therefore, in order to assume a

variability factor for a pollutant, the

Agency transferred variability factors

from other pollutants that exhibit

similar treatability characteristics

within the treatment system.

In order to do this, pollutants were

grouped on the basis of their chemical

structure and published data on relative

treatability. The median pollutant

variability factor for all pollutants

within a group at that sampling episode

was used to create a group-level

variability factor. When group-level

variability factors were not able to be

calculated, groups that were similar

were collected into analytical method

fractions and the median group-level

variability factor was calculated to

create a fraction-level variability factor.

Group-level variability factors were

used when available, and fraction-level

variability factors were used if grouplevel variability factors could not be

calculated. For the sampling episodes in

the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory, there were not enough data

to calculate variability factors at any

level from EPA sampling data and

therefore variability factors were

calculated based on industry supplied

data contained in self-monitoring

reports.

Limitations were based on actual

concentrations of pollutants measured

in wastewaters treated by the proposed

technologies where such data were

available. Actual measured value data

were available for pollutant parameters

in all subcategories with the exception

of pollutants regulated for direct

dischargers in the Truck/Chemical &

Petroleum and Rail/Chemical &

Petroleum Subcategories. Due to the

small number of direct discharging

facilities identified by EPA, all of EPA’s

sampling was conducted at indirect

discharging facilities in these

subcategories. In the case of BPT

regulation for conventional, priority,

and non-conventional pollutants, EPA

concluded that establishing limits based

on indirect discharging treatment

systems was not appropriate because

indirect discharging treatment systems

are generally not operated for optimal

control of pollutants which are

amenable to treatment in a POTW. For

example, treatment systems at indirect

discharging facilities generally do not

require biological treatment to control

organic pollutants because a POTW will

control these pollutants. Therefore, in

establishing limits for conventional

pollutants at direct discharging

facilities, EPA has established BPT

limitations based on the treatment

performance demonstrated from two

direct discharging Barge/Chemical &

Petroleum facilities that utilized

biological treatment systems.

Limitations for priority and non

conventional pollutants were based on

the indirect discharging facilities in that

subcategory.

The daily maximum limitation is

calculated as the product of the

pollutant long-term average

concentration and the variability factor.

The monthly maximum limitation is

also calculated as the product of the

pollutant long-term average and the

variability factor, but the variability

factor is based on the 95 percentile of

the distribution of daily pollutant

concentrations instead of the 99th

percentile.

By accounting for these reasonable

excursions above the LTA, EPA’s use of

variability factors results in standards

that are generally well above the actual

LTAs. Thus if a facility operates its

treatment system to meet the relevant

LTA, EPA expects the plant to be able

to meet the standards. Variability factors

assure that normal fluctuations in a

facility’s treatment are accounted for in

the limitations.

The final limitations, as presented in

today’s notice, are provided as daily

maximums and monthly averages for

conventional pollutants. Monitoring

was assumed to occur four times per

month for conventional pollutants.

Monitoring was assumed to occur once

per month for all priority and nonconventional pollutants. This has the

result that the daily maximums and

monthly averages for priority and nonconventional pollutants are the same.

Although the monitoring frequency

necessary for a facility to demonstrate

compliance is determined by the local

permitting authority, EPA must assume

a monitoring frequency in order to

assess costs and to determine variability

of the treatment system.

EPA has assumed facilities will

monitor their wastewater four times per

month for conventional pollutants or

SGT–HEM to ensure that facility TEC

processes and wastewater treatment

systems are consistently and

continuously operated to achieve the

associated pollutant long-term averages.

EPA also assumed that facilities will

monitor wastewater once per month for

toxic pollutants, providing some

economic relief to regulated facilities

while ensuring that facility TEC

processes and wastewater treatment

systems are designed and operated to

control the discharge of toxic pollutants.

VII. Costs and Pollutant Reductions of

Final Regulation

EPA estimated industry-wide

compliance costs and pollutant loading

removals associated with the effluent

limitations and standards using a

computer cost model and data collected

through survey responses, industry

submittals, site visits, and sampling

episodes. Cost estimates and pollutant

removals for each regulatory option are

summarized below and in more detail in

the Technical Development Document.

A. Changes to Cost Analysis Since

Proposal

Following a thorough review of the

cost model, EPA made several

adjustments to the costing methodology

in response to comments on the

proposed rule and Notice of

Availability, and to correct minor

inaccuracies identified by EPA. One of

the most notable changes was to

eliminate estimated compliance costs

for facilities that would meet the low

flow exclusion (i.e., discharge less than

100,000 gallons per year of TEC process

wastewater). After eliminating these

facilities, EPA evaluated the remaining

77 Detailed Questionnaire recipients,

plus four direct discharging facilities

that did not receive the questionnaire, to

determine TEC operations, wastewater

characteristics, daily flow rates (process

flow rates), operating schedules, tank

cleaning production (i.e., number of

49684 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

tanks cleaned), and wastewater

treatment technologies currently in

place at the site.

Facilities that did not have the

technologies for the selected option

already in place were projected to incur

costs as a result of compliance with this

regulation. A facility that did not have

the technology, or an equivalent

technology, in place was costed for

installing and maintaining the

technology. Costs include: (1) total

capital costs for installed technologies,

including equipment, shipping,

indirect, and start-up costs; (2) operating

and maintenance (O&M) costs for

installed technologies, including labor,

electrical, material, and chemical usage

costs; (3) solids handling costs,

including capital, O&M, and disposal

costs; and (4) monitoring costs.

EPA based direct capital costs for

equipment, shipping, installation,

controls, and retrofit costs on

information from treatment vendors and

other effluent guidelines. EPA also

developed cost factors and applied them

to the direct capital costs to account for

indirect costs such as site work,

interface piping, general contracting,

engineering, buildings, site

improvements, legal/administrative

fees, interest, contingency, and taxes

and insurance. For the final rule, EPA

increased some of the indirect capital

cost factors and included start-up costs

in total capital cost estimates.

Also for the final rule, EPA made the

following changes: increased capital and

annual costs for activated carbon,

equalization, and filter presses; revised

the methodology to credit treatment in

place; and removed flow reduction for

some facilities. EPA also significantly

reduced the monitoring costs associated

with compliance by selecting indicator

parameters to replace specific pollutants

proposed for regulation and by using

less expensive analytical methods.

Although EPA has eliminated flow

reduction from the technology bases for

all subcategories, EPA has retained flow

reduction in the cost model for most

subcategories. Flow reduction results in

significant compliance cost savings and

consequently EPA assumes facilities

will incorporate flow reduction in their

compliance strategy.

The total capital costs were amortized

over 16 years and added to the total

annual O&M costs (equipment and

monitoring) to calculate the total

annualized costs incurred by each

facility to comply with this regulation.

The costs associated with each of the 81

facilities in the cost analysis were then

modeled to represent the national

population by using statistically

calculated survey weights.

All cost models, cost factors, and cost

assumptions are discussed in detail in

the Technical Development Document

for the final rule.

B. Compliance Costs

The final costs for the regulated

subcategories are presented in Table 2.

Total capital investment, total annual

(i.e., O&M), and total annualized costs

are shown in 1998 post-tax dollars. BPT,

BCT, and BAT total annual and total

annualized costs include weekly

monitoring of regulated conventional

pollutants and monthly monitoring of

all other regulated pollutants. PSES total

annual and total annualized costs

include monthly monitoring of all

regulated pollutants.

TABLE 2.—TOTAL COSTS OF THE TEC RULE, BY SUBCATEGORY

[Millions of 1998 dollars]

Subcategory Selected

option

Total capital

investment

Total annual

O&M costs

Total

annualized

cost

(post-tax)

BPT/BCT/BAT

Truck/Chemical & Petroleum ....................................................................................... II 0.084 a (0) a (0)

Rail/Chemical & Petroleum .......................................................................................... II 0.201 0.038 0.041

Barge/Chemical & Petroleum ...................................................................................... I 0.093 0.138 0.089

Food ............................................................................................................................. II 0 0 0

PSES

Truck/Chemical & Petroleum ....................................................................................... I 56.3 8.79 9.16

Rail/Chemical & Petroleum .......................................................................................... II 7.70 0.722 1.02

Barge/Chemical & Petroleum ...................................................................................... II 0 0.067 0.041

a Net annual cost savings are the result of flow reduction and sludge dewatering for one facility, which results in a greater savings than the

monitoring costs incurred by all facilities.

C. Changes to Pollutant Reduction

Analysis Since Proposal

The BPT, BCT, BAT, and PSES

limitations will control the discharge of

conventional, priority toxic, and nonconventional pollutants from TEC

facilities. The Agency developed

estimates of the post-compliance longterm average (LTA) pollutant

concentrations that would be discharged

from TEC facilities within each

subcategory. These estimates were

calculated using the long-term average

effluent concentrations of specific

pollutants achieved after

implementation of the BPT, BCT, BAT,

and PSES technology bases. Long-term

average effluent concentrations at

proposal were statistically derived using

treatment performance data collected

during EPA’s sampling program. For the

final rule, EPA made the following

adjustments to the load removal

estimates: revised the list of pollutants

for which removals were calculated;

added a new criteria to determine final

effluent concentrations; and

incorporated additional treatment

performance data for the Truck/

Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory and

the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory.

BPT, BCT, BAT, and PSES pollutant

reductions were first estimated on a sitespecific basis for affected facilities that

responded to the Detailed Questionnaire

(77 facilities) and for four additional

affected facilities identified from

responses to the Screener

Questionnaire. Site-specific pollutant

reductions were calculated as the

difference between the site-specific

baseline pollutant loadings (i.e.,

estimated pollutant loadings currently

discharged) and the site-specific postcompliance pollutant loadings (i.e.,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 49685

estimated pollutant loadings discharged

after implementation of the regulation).

The site-specific pollutant reductions

were then multiplied by statistically

derived survey weighting (scaling)

factors and summed to represent

pollutant reductions for the entire TEC

industry.

To estimate pollutant loadings

discharged after implementation of the

regulation, EPA estimated pollutant

load removals for ‘‘pollutants of

interest’’ for each subcategory. EPA

identified pollutants of interest for each

subcategory using a set of data-editing

criteria such that these pollutants are

typically present at treatable

concentrations in the subcategoryspecific raw wastewater. These editing

criteria are: (1) The average influent

technology option concentration must

be at least five times the pollutant’s

method detection limit, and (2) the

pollutant must be detected in at least

two wastewater characterization

samples (if at least two facilities in the

subcategory were sampled) or one

wastewater characterization sample (if

only one facility in the subcategory was

sampled) .

For proposal and the NOA, EPA only

considered those pollutants that were

removed by at least 50% by EPA’s

technology bases in the subcategoryspecific load removals. In the proposal,

EPA described how it used a modified

approach to identify pesticide and

herbicide pollutants included in the

removal estimates; however, for the

final rule, EPA applied the same

approach to all pollutants. Upon further

review, for the final rule, EPA included

all pollutants of interest in the load

removal estimates that had a removal

efficiency greater than 0%. EPA believes

its previous data-editing criteria

requiring 50% removal was incorrect

because it did not accurately reflect

incidental removals of all pollutants

across the various technology options.

Note, however, that EPA retained the

50% removal criteria for the purpose of

selecting regulated pollutants.

If a given pollutant met the pollutant

of interest criteria, EPA calculated the

treatment effectiveness concentrations

and percent removal efficiencies from

the sampling data. Treatment

effectiveness concentrations are the

long-term average concentrations

achievable by the technology option.

Percent removal efficiencies are the

pollutant percent removals achievable

by the technology option, based on the

difference between the influent and

effluent concentrations.

For the proposed rule, EPA only

estimated pollutant load removals based

on treatment effectiveness

concentrations. For example, the TEC

cost model calculated the difference

between the influent concentration and

the treatment effectiveness

concentration achieved by the treatment

unit; the result was the pollutant

reduction achieved by the treatment

unit. For the final rule, EPA

incorporated pollutant percent removal

efficiencies (for all pollutants of

interest), in addition to treatment

effectiveness concentrations, in the load

removal calculations. For example, for

pollutants with significant removals (for

pollutants of interest with removals

greater than 50% by the technology

bases), the TEC cost model compared

the influent concentration to two

possible effluent concentrations, the

treatment effectiveness concentration

and the effluent concentration that

would be achieved after applying the

treatment unit (limited to the pollutant

method detection limit) percent removal

efficiency. The model selects the lower

of the two effluent concentrations to

calculate the pollutant reductions

achieved by the treatment unit. No

removals were credited to a pollutant if

the influent concentration was at its

detection limit. For other pollutants, the

model uses only a percent removal

efficiency.

EPA obtained additional treatment

performance data following the

proposed rule from two Barge/Chemical

& Petroleum facilities operating BPT/

BAT treatment. The data consisted of

influent and effluent self-monitoring

data over a one-year period. EPA used

these data to calculate BPT effluent

limitations and new source performance

standards for biochemical oxygen

demand (BOD5) and total suspended

solids (TSS). These additional data and

revised effluent limitations were

presented in the NOA.

EPA obtained additional treatment

performance data following the NOA

from one Truck/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory facility operating PSES/

PSNS treatment. The data consisted of

effluent self-monitoring data over a fouryear period. EPA used these data to

calculate limitations and pretreatment

standards for copper and mercury.

For the proposed rule, EPA did not

consider dioxin and furan removals for

any subcategory because EPA assumed

that any detections of these pollutants

were isolated, site-specific instances. In

response to several comments on this

issue, EPA reevaluated the presence of

dioxins and furans in TEC wastewater

based on the pollutants of interest

criteria described above. EPA found that

several dioxins and furans meet the

editing criteria and should be

considered pollutants of interest;

therefore, EPA included their removals

in the load removal estimates.

D. Pollutant Reductions

The final pollutant removals for the

regulated subcategories are presented in

Table 3, by discharge type. Pollutant

removals were estimated as the

difference between the subcategory

baseline pollutant loadings (i.e.,

estimated pollutant loadings currently

discharged) and the subcategory postcompliance pollutant loadings (i.e.,

estimated pollutant loadings discharged

after implementation of the regulation).

The load removals (in pounds per year)

are scaled to represent the industry but

do not account for the relative toxicity

between pollutants.

TABLE 3.—TOTAL POLLUTANT REMOVALS OF THE TEC RULE

Subcategory Selected

option

Pounds of

conventional

pollutants

removed

(lbs/yr)

Pounds of

priority

pollutants

removed

(lbs/yr)

Pounds of

non-conventional

pollutants

removed

(lbs/yr)

Total pounds

of pollutant

removed

(lbs/yr)

BPT/BCT/BAT (for consistency with Table 2)

Truck/Chemical & Petroleum ..................................................... II 47 2.3 670 720

Rail/Chemical & Petroleum ........................................................ II 22 2.2 15,000 15,000

Barge/Chemical & Petroleum .................................................... I >19,000 (1) >69,000 >88,000

Food ........................................................................................... II 0 0 0 0

49686 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 3.—TOTAL POLLUTANT REMOVALS OF THE TEC RULE—Continued

Subcategory Selected

option

Pounds of

conventional

pollutants

removed

(lbs/yr)

Pounds of

priority

pollutants

removed

(lbs/yr)

Pounds of

non-conventional

pollutants

removed

(lbs/yr)

Total pounds

of pollutant

removed

(lbs/yr)

PSES

Truck/Chemical & Petroleum ..................................................... I 20,000,000 60,000 21,000,000 41,000,000

Rail/Chemical & Petroleum ........................................................ II 960,000 870 4,500,000 5,500,000

Barge/Chemical & Petroleum .................................................... II 0 0 0 0

1 Not available.

VIII. Economic Impacts of Final

Regulation

EPA projects that the final TEC rule

will result in no facility closures,

revenue losses, nor employment losses

in the industry. As set forth below, the

Agency’s financial analysis found that

14 facilities in the Truck/Chemical &

Petroleum Subcategory may experience

financial stress as a result of this rule.

In addition, the small business analysis,

using a sales test methodology, shows

that some small businesses could have

compliance costs that exceed three

percent of annual sales revenues.

However, these impacts are quite small

relative to the TEC industry, and EPA

certifies, as discussed later, that the

regulation will not have a significant

impact on substantial number of small

entities.

A. Changes to Economic Analysis Since

Proposal

EPA has not changed the economic

methodology used in the proposal for

the final rulemaking action. As in the

proposal, the economic methods

include a cost annualization model, a

market model (with a commercial

component and an outsourcing

component), a closure model, financial

ratio analysis, secondary impacts

analysis, small business analysis, and

cost effectiveness analysis. The

description of these analytical tools can

be found in Section X of the proposal.

EPA received comments in response

to the proposal and the NOA from

potentially affected facilities and trade

associations regarding the economic

analysis. The majority of comments

reflected concerns about the economic

impacts that the effluent guideline

would have on the industry. EPA’s

response is that the economic analysis

finds that the regulation will not cause

any facility closures, and it will not lead

to the loss of any business revenues nor

the loss of any jobs in the industry.

The comments did not generally

address EPA’s economic analysis

methods. The only issue raised related

to the methodology was over EPA’s cost

pass through analysis, which assumes

that a portion of compliance costs can

be passed through to the final

customers. Several commenters

disagreed with the assumption that a

portion of the compliance costs could

potentially be passed through to the

customer. EPA believes that, given the

relatively inelastic demand for TEC

services, a portion of compliance costs

can be passed through to TEC

customers. In turn, EPA believes that,

because TEC services are such a small

portion of total transportation costs, the

impact on the customer market is

minimal.

The nature of the market demand for

TEC services is two-fold. First, tank

cleaning services are essential services

in the marketplace, because

transportation service providers must

deliver clean and safe products.

Therefore, the transportation service

firms and their customers create a

demand for tank cleaning services that

is relatively inelastic, i.e., customers

need the services provided by the TEC

industry. Second, EPA believes that

some costs can be passed through to the

customer without losing business

because all facilities transporting similar

cargos will be subject to the regulation.

EPA performed a sensitivity analysis to

evaluate the impacts that would occur

under the most conservative assumption

of zero cost pass through, which

assumes that no compliance cost can be

passed through to the final customer.

EPA found that, at the most

conservative cost pass through

assumption, this rule will result in no

closures, revenue losses, or employment

losses.

As in the proposal, the economic

baseline was established using data

from the 1993 Tank and Container

Cleaning Screener Questionnaire and

the 1994 Detailed Questionnaire for the

Transportation Equipment Cleaning

Industry. Anecdotal market and

economic information has been used to

update trends in the industry. Details of

the economic analysis are presented in

the ‘‘Final Economic Analysis of

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and

Standards for the Transportation

Equipment Cleaning Category’’ and in

the ‘‘Final Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and

Standards for the Transportation

Equipment Cleaning Category’’.

EPA has updated the economic

analysis to reflect the changes made by

EPA since the proposal for this final

rulemaking action. These changes are

summarized in Section III of this notice.

Briefly, the changes include

promulgation of concentration-based

rather than mass-based limitations,

modification to the subcategorization

approach, a low flow exclusion, revised

pollutant loading estimates, new

language for the exclusion of facilities

engaged in other commercial activities,

and changes to the technology options

and regulated pollutants.

EPA has modified the

subcategorization approach and reduced

the number of subcategories from eleven

in the proposal to seven for this final

regulation. The economic analysis

reflects the change in subcategories. For

example, the number of facilities in the

proposed Truck/Chemical Subcategory

(288) are added to those in the proposed

Truck/Petroleum Subcategory (34),

giving a total of 322 for the new Truck/

Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. The

economic analysis was conducted for

the new subcategory rather than the two

separate subcategories.

EPA has also decided to establish a

flow exclusion of less than 100,000

gallons per year for process wastewater.

Due to the low flow exclusion, 36

indirect Truck/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory facilities, 11 indirect Rail/

Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory

facilities, and three direct discharge

Barge/Chemical & Petroleum facilities

will be excluded from the effluent

guidelines.

The Agency has also revised the

pollutant reduction analysis for the final

guideline which has, in turn, affected

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 49687

the cost effectiveness of the regulation.

For the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory, 17 pollutants were

removed and 26 pollutants were added.

For the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory, EPA removed 37

pollutants and added 23 pollutants. For

the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory, three pollutants were

removed and 18 pollutants were added.

The Truck/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory now includes 95 pollutants

of interest; the Rail/Chemical &

Petroleum Subcategory includes 85

pollutants of interest; and the Barge/

Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory

includes 82 pollutants of interest.

B. Impacts Analysis

EPA estimates that the total capital

costs incurred by regulated facilities

(over the sixteen year project life) for the

transportation equipment cleaning

industry effluent limitations guidelines

and standards will be about $64.4

million in 1998 dollars. Total

annualized costs on a post-tax basis of

the regulation for all facilities are

estimated to be about $10.4 million in

1998 dollars, which includes $4.8

million of annualized capital costs and

$5.6 million in annualized operation

and maintenance costs.

EPA estimated the total annualized

compliance costs based on the

incremental capital investment, annual

operation and maintenance costs, and

monitoring costs required for facilities

to comply with this final regulation.

Capital costs for each TEC facility were

annualized, using EPA’s cost

annualization model, by spreading them

over the 16 year analytic life of the

project. These annualized capital costs

are then added to the annual operation

and maintenance costs and to the

annual monitoring costs for each TEC

facility to estimate total annualized

post-tax costs of the selected technology

alternative. EPA presented the total

annualized costs on a post-tax basis to

show the full opportunity compliance

costs that facilities may incur after

taxes. In the later section on costbenefits analysis, costs are presented on

a pre-tax basis as a proxy for social

costs.

EPA’s economic analysis estimates

that the selected technology alternatives

will result in no facility closures. In

addition, EPA predicts that the selected

technology alternatives will result in no

loss in revenues or employment. In the

financial stress analysis using the

Altman Z′′ bankruptcy test, EPA found

that 14 facilities in the Truck/Chemical

& Petroleum Subcategory could

experience financial stress under the

selected technology alternatives. In

order to analyze these 14 facilities more

carefully, EPA conducted two

additional financial tests—current ratio

analysis and times interest earned

analysis. The current ratio analysis

indicated that 14 facilities could

experience financial stress as a result of

the regulation. However, the times

interest earned analysis, which

measures the ability of facilities to cover

their debt, gave results that no financial

stress would occur as a result of the

regulation. Therefore, EPA concludes

that financial stress, if present, is

minimal among 14 facilities.

1. BPT, BCT, and BAT

As described in Section V of today’s

notice, EPA is issuing final effluent

limitations based on BPT, BCT, and

BAT for the Truck/Chemical &

Petroleum Subcategory, Rail/Chemical &

Petroleum Subcategory, Barge/Chemical

& Petroleum Subcategory, and Food

Subcategory. The summary of costs and

economic impacts is presented here for

each subcategory. For BPT and BCT,

additional information on cost and

removal comparisons is presented in the

Technical Development Document.

EPA estimates that the total post-tax

annualized compliance costs for BPT,

BCT, and BAT will be about $130

thousand. EPA based its analysis on

technology Option II for the Truck/

Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory,

Option II for the Rail/Chemical &

Petroleum Subcategory, Option I for the

Barge/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory, and Option II for the Food

Subcategory. Due to data limitations as

described in the proposed regulation

and in this notice, EPA did not have

data from the detailed questionnaire for

direct discharging facilities in the

Truck/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory and Rail/Chemical &

Petroleum Subcategory because of the

very small population. Instead, EPA

used information from the screener

survey to identify direct discharging

facilities. EPA assumed that the

economic profile for direct discharging

facilities is similar to indirect

discharging facilities. EPA believes that

this is a reasonable approach, because

the Agency does not believe that there

is a correlation between annual revenue

or facility employment and the method

the facility chooses to discharge its

wastewater. Rather, the decision on

whether to discharge wastewater

directly or indirectly is determined by

such considerations as cost, proximity

to a POTW, permitting requirements,

and wastewater treatment technology

options.

EPA therefore assumed that the direct

discharging Truck/Chemical &

Petroleum and Rail/Chemical &

Petroleum facilities were similar to

indirect discharging facilities in terms of

annual revenue, facility employment,

and the number of tanks cleaned.

Information on each of these indices

was provided to EPA by the three direct

discharging facilities in the screener

questionnaire. EPA then identified

indirect discharge facilities in the

detailed questionnaire database that

were similar to each of the direct

dischargers in terms of revenue,

employment and tanks cleaned. EPA

then simulated the financial and

economic profile for the direct

discharging facilities based on data

provided by similar indirect discharging

facilities in the same subcategory. Based

on this analysis, EPA determined that

implementation of BPT would result in

no facility closures and anticipates that

no facilities will have revenue losses or

employment losses.

For Barge/Chemical & Petroleum

facilities, EPA estimated economic

impacts for the 10 direct discharge

facilities based on responses to the

detailed questionnaire and incremental

compliance costs. EPA has projected no

closures, revenue losses, or employment

losses for these facilities. EPA also

described in the proposal the costs that

may accrue to Barge/Chemical &

Petroleum facilities under a regulation

published under authority of the Clean

Air Act. EPA analyzed this subcategory

assuming that those regulations, and

possible consequent costs, were in

effect. This analysis may be found in the

economic analysis for the proposal and

the final regulation.

For the Food Subcategory, EPA found

that direct discharge facilities have oil/

water separators and biological

treatment in place. This is the selected

BPT and BCT technology option for the

Food Subcategory, and the facilities in

this subcategory will not incur

incremental compliance costs nor

experience economic impacts.

2. PSES

EPA estimates that the total

annualized compliance costs for PSES

will be approximately $10.2 million per

year (1998 post-tax dollars). These costs

include compliance with PSES for the

Truck/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory, the Rail/Chemical &

Petroleum Subcategory, and the Barge/

Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory.

EPA is not setting PSES for the Food

and Hopper Subcategories. Total annual

compliance costs are based on the

following technology alternatives:

Option I for the Truck/Chemical &

Petroleum Subcategory, Option II for the

Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory,

49688 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

and Option II for the Barge/Chemical &

Petroleum Subcategory.

EPA estimates that the selected

technology options will result in no

facility closures, revenue losses, nor

employment losses for PSES. As

indicated above, EPA did find that PSES

may cause financial stress for 14

facilities (4.3 percent) in the Truck/

Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory

under the highly conservative

assumption of zero cost pass through,

but confirmatory financial tests

indicated that financial stress, if

present, would be minimal.

Within non-TEC industries, EPA’s

economic analysis indicates that some

industries that provide materials and

equipment to the TEC industry may

experience revenue increases as a result

of the regulation. However, other nonTEC industries could incur revenue

losses. EPA’s economic analysis

indicates that the regulation would

result in net losses of 200 to 300 jobs in

all industries (i.e., including TEC and

non-TEC industries). These impacts

were estimated using EPA’s inputoutput methodology for the U.S.

economy. Details of EPA’s input-output

analysis are available in the Economic

Analysis.

Within the TEC industry itself, EPA

determined that many financially

healthy facilities might actually

experience gains in production (and

thus gains in output, revenue, and

employment). Financially healthy

facilities in the local market area might

expand to take over a portion of

production from a facility having

financial difficulties. In addition, some

employment gains are anticipated for

installation and operation of flow

reduction and wastewater treatment

facilities.

EPA has also conducted an analysis of

the community impacts of the final

regulation for PSES. EPA has

determined that most facility financial

stress will result in a community’s

unemployment rate of no more than 0.2

percent. Because the methodology

assumes that all of the community

impacts would occur in one State, the

more probable impact is considerably

lower. Thus the community impact from

the transportation equipment cleaning

industry regulation is estimated to be

negligible.

EPA expects the rule to have minimal

impact on international markets.

Domestic markets might initially be

slightly affected by the rule, because

tank cleaning facilities will absorb a

portion of the compliance costs and will

pass through a portion of the costs

through to their customers. For the

portion of compliance costs passed

through to tank cleaning customers,

EPA’s market model estimates that

prices will increase about 0.1 percent to

4.3 percent. Output, or the number of

tanks cleaned, will decrease from almost

zero percent to about 0.6 percent.

Because tank cleaning is an essential

service and is a very small part of total

transportation services costs, customers

may not be as sensitive to tank cleaning

prices as they are to larger cost

elements.

EPA expects the rule will have

minimal impacts on inflation,

insignificant distributional effects, and

no major impacts on environmental

justice.

EPA also investigated the likelihood

that customers might use methods such

as installing additional on-site

wastewater treatment in order to comply

with the regulation. Substitution

possibilities, such as on-site tank

washing or purchasing dedicated tanks,

are associated with potential negative

impacts on customers that might deter

them from choosing these potential

substitutes. On-site tank cleaning

capabilities require capital investment,

operation and maintenance, and

monitoring costs. The decision to build

an on-site tank cleaning capability is

more likely determined by non-pricing

factors such as environmental liability,

tank-cleaning quality control, and

internal management controls than by a

choice to develop alternatives to

commercial tank washing.

EPA’s analysis does not indicate that

transportation service companies (i.e.,

TEC customers) would likely decide to

build a tank cleaning facility as a result

of EPA’s regulations. Further, because of

high initial capital investment ($1.0–

$2.0 million for a tank cleaning facility)

and the small increase in price of

transportation equipment cleaning

services discussed earlier, on-site

transportation equipment cleaning

could require years before any cost

savings might be realized. Also, EPA’s

market model provides a means for

estimating price increases and

reductions in quantity demanded for

transportation equipment cleaning

services at the higher price. This

analysis shows a very small decrease in

the number of tanks cleaned as a result

of the regulation, from almost zero to

about 0.6 percent of baseline production

across the subcategories. Given the

disincentives towards substitutes

indicated above, EPA does not expect

the rule to cause many, if any,

customers to substitute on-site facilities

for transportation equipment cleaning

services or to substitute dedicated tanks.

The small reduction in production is

more likely to occur from customers

delaying cleaning (rather than cleaning

tanks after delivery of load) or dropping

certain services such as handling toxic

wastes heels. This decline in production

is negligible compared to the

approximate 10 to 20 percent per year

revenue growth between 1992 and 1994,

(according to data provided in the

Detailed Questionnaire) in the TEC

industry.

3. NSPS and PSNS

As described in today’s notice, EPA is

setting NSPS equivalent to BPT, BCT,

and BAT, and PSNS equivalent to PSES,

in all subcategories.

EPA uses a barrier-to-entry analysis to

analyze the impacts of effluent

guideline and pretreatment standards on

new sources. The analysis focuses on

whether the impact of the regulation

will result in a barrier-to-entry into the

market. The methodology for the

barrier-to entry analysis is described in

the proposal. Briefly, the analysis

compares the expected compliance costs

to the assets of existing facilities. This

analysis is performed by analyzing the

costs that each existing facility could

potentially incur as a result of the

regulations. EPA makes the assumption

that new facilities will have impacts

from the regulation that are no greater

than the impact of the regulation on

existing facilities. This assumption is

based upon the rationale that new

facilities are better able to include

regulatory requirements in their design

and construction plans. The incremental

compliance costs are compared with the

dollar value of assets of the existing

facilities. The dollar value of assets of

each facility provide a measure of the

size of the facility in terms of financial

capital in place. EPA has used the dollar

value of assets as one indicator, among

others, of the ability of a facility to

absorb additional costs. The analytic

approach is to divide the compliance

costs of each facility by the dollar value

of the assets of each facility. The result

of the analysis is reviewed in

comparison to industry trends and

norms. EPA has not set a threshold

value for the ratio of incremental

compliance costs to the dollar value of

facility assets. However, EPA decisions

in the past have generally indicated that

ratios below 10 percent indicate that

there is no barrier-to-entry. The results

of this analysis show the relative impact

of the effluent guideline on existing

sources.

For the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory, average facility assets are

about $2.5 million ($1998). In its

economic analysis, EPA determined that

the average additional facility capital

costs for PSNS in this subcategory

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 49689

would be about $197 thousand. The

ratio of average facility capital

compliance costs to average facility

assets would be approximately 8.0

percent. EPA concludes that the capital

cost to comply with the standards are

modest in comparison to total facility

assets and would not pose a barrier-toentry into the market.

For the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory, responses to the detailed

questionnaire indicate that the average

facility assets are about $5.4 million

($1998). In its economic analysis, EPA

determined that the average additional

facility capital compliance costs for

PSNS would be about $257 thousand.

The ratio average facility compliance

capital costs to average facility assets

would be less than five percent of

average facility assets. EPA concluded

that the average annual capital

compliance costs are modest in

comparison to average facility assets

and that they would not pose a barrierto-entry into the market.

For the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory, the average facility assets

for a barge chemical cleaning facility are

about $3.3 million. The average

additional compliance capital costs for

NSPS are about $13,000, or less than

one percent of average facility assets.

This percentage is expected to be lower

for new facilities, because they can

include pollution control equipment in

the design of new facilities. Therefore,

these costs would not pose a barrier to

entry into the market.

EPA is regulating only direct

dischargers in the Food Subcategory.

The Agency is setting BPT, BCT, and

NSPS for the Food Subcategory. The

direct dischargers in the Food

Subcategory have treatment in place

that meets the requirements that EPA is

promulgating in today’s rule. Because

Food Subcategory facilities have

treatment in place, these facilities will

not incur additional costs to comply

with the regulation. In addition, new

sources will install treatment similar or

equivalent to treatment in place for

existing facilities. New sources will

incur no costs as a result of the

regulation that is not incurred by

existing facilities. Therefore, there are

no costs and no barrier to entry in this

subcategory under the NSPS regulation.

EPA analyzed the number of facilities

that entered the market each year during

the three year period of the Detailed

Questionnaire. The results of this

analysis can be found in the proposal.

In essence, new facilities were replacing

closing facilities. In addition to

replacing existing facilities, the industry

also experienced modest growth during

the three year period of the Detailed

Questionnaire.

Similar to PSNS, EPA concludes that

no barrier-to-entry exists for new direct

discharge facilities to construct, operate,

and maintain these technologies. EPA

also analyzed the impact on new, small

facilities in the TEC industry. The

analysis shows that there are no small

facility closures for direct discharging

small businesses. New, small businesses

will incur costs no higher than costs for

existing, small businesses. Therefore

there will be no barrier to entry for new,

small businesses in the TEC industry.

4. Economic Analysis of Accepted and

Rejected Options

As discussed in Section V of this

notice, EPA considered several

technology options for each

subcategory. A summary of costs and

impacts for all BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS,

PSES, and PSNS options are shown in

Table 4. The annualized costs in Table

4 are presented on a post-tax basis.

EPA also conducted an economic

analysis under the zero cost pass

through assumption as a sensitivity

analysis. Although these analyses

estimated higher impacts than the

analyses using positive cost pass though

analysis, EPA believes that the most

conservative economic and financial

assumptions are highly unlikely and

that all facilities will be able to pass

through a portion of any incremental

compliance cost that they may incur.

Cost pass through is more likely to

occur, because the entire industry will

be required to comply with the new

regulation.

TABLE 4.—SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FOR FINAL BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, AND PSNS OPTIONS

Subcategory Option

Annualized

costs ($1998

millions posttax)

Facility

closures

Financial

stress

Employee

losses

Truck/Chemical & Petroleum (Direct) ...... Option I .................................................... 0 0 0 0

Option II (BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS) .......... 0 0 0 0

Truck/Chemical & Petroleum (Indirect) ... Option A .................................................. 5.2 N/A N/A N/A

Option I (PSES, PSNS) ........................... 9.2 0 14 0

Option II ................................................... 20.9 0 22 0

Rail/Chemical & Petroleum (Direct) ......... Option I .................................................... 0.005 0 0 0

Option II (BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS) .......... 0.041 0 0 0

Option III .................................................. 0.61 0 0 0

Rail/Chemical & Petroleum (Indirect) ...... Option I .................................................... 0.589 0 0 0

Option II (PSES, PSNS) .......................... 1.02 0 0 0

Option III .................................................. 1.61 0 0 0

Barge/Chemical & Petroleum (Direct) ..... Option I (BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS) ........... 0.089 0 0 0

Option II ................................................... 0.346 0 0 0

Barge/Chemical & Petroleum (Indirect) ... Option I .................................................... 0.04 0 0 0

Option II (PSES, PSNS) .......................... 0.04 0 0 0

Option III .................................................. 0.240 0 0 0

Food (Direct) ............................................ Option I .................................................... 0 0 0 0

Option II (BPT, BCT, NSPS) ................... 0 0 0 0

Food (Indirect) ......................................... Option I (no regulation) ........................... 0 0 0 0

Truck/Hopper (Direct and Indirect) .......... Option I (no regulation) ........................... 0 0 0 0

Rail/Hopper (Direct and Indirect) ............. Option I (no regulation) ........................... 0 0 0 0

Barge/Hopper (Direct and Indirect) ......... Option I (no regulation) ........................... 0 0 0 0

49690 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

C. Small Business Analysis

For purposes of assessing the impacts

of today’s rule on small entities, a small

entity is defined as a business that has

annual revenues of less than $5,000,000.

EPA provided the initial results of the

small business analysis in the proposal.

As described in the proposal, a key

aspect of the small business analysis

was to identify options that would

minimize the economic impacts for

small businesses. The Agency

considered exclusions based upon

business size and wastewater flow as

ways to provide relief to small

businesses. In the proposal, EPA did not

identify criteria for a facility exclusion

to the regulation. Since the proposal,

however, the Agency has continued to

assess possible criteria for facility

exclusions from the regulations. For this

final regulation, the Agency is excluding

from coverage all facilities discharging

less than 100,000 gallons per year of

TEC process wastewater.

In the small business analyses for the

proposal, EPA applied a conservative

set of assumptions, i.e., zero cost past

through, to analyze the options available

to provide relief to small businesses.

Among the analyses the Agency

conducted was a sales test analysis that

compares the post-tax cost of

compliance with the regulation with the

annual revenues of each facility in the

sample survey. EPA conducted similar

sales test analyses for this final

regulation using both positive cost pass

through and zero cost pass through

assumptions. For the Truck/Chemical &

Petroleum Subcategory, using the

positive cost pass through analysis, 29

of 79 (37 percent) small businesses

exceed the one percent sales test and

zero small businesses exceed the three

percent sales test. Using the zero cost

pass through assumption, 29 of 79 (37

percent) small businesses exceed the

one percent sales and 29 of 79 (37

percent) small businesses exceed the

three percent sales test.

For the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory, 6 of 12 (50 percent) small

businesses exceed the one percent sales

test under both zero cost pass and

positive cost pass through assumptions.

No small businesses exceed the three

percent sales test under either zero or

positive cost pass through scenarios.

For the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory, no small businesses

exceed either the one or three percent

sales test under positive cost pass

through. Using the zero cost pass

through analysis, three of six small

businesses exceed the one percent sales

test and no facilities exceed the three

percent sales test.

For the Food Subcategory, facilities

will not incur additional costs, because

they have the required treatment in

place. Therefore, the sales test was not

conducted on the 19 facilities in the

Food Subcategory. There are no

facilities in the Food Subcategory that

will have an economic impact or have

a sales test greater than zero.

EPA believes that the sales test serves

as an indication of relative cost of the

regulation but alone is not sufficient to

determine the economic achievability

for this rule. However, EPA has

concluded that the rule is economically

achievable, because there are no impacts

on small businesses in terms of closures

or employment losses. In addition, EPA

has determined that there will not be a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities, because the

number of small business affected by

this rule is relatively low and the impact

is modest for most of the affected small

businesses. The impact on small

businesses is even less when a portion

of the costs are passed through to the

final transportation industry customers.

D. Market Analysis

EPA conducts a market analysis using

the market model (with commercial and

out source components) developed for

the transportation equipment cleaning

industry. The market analysis provides

information on the changes in the

marketplace as a result of the regulation.

For the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory, EPA predicts that the

regulation may increase the price of

tank cleaning from about $279 to about

$285 per tank, or about a two percent

price increase. In response to the price

increase, there could be a small

adjustment in the number of tanks

cleaned from a baseline of 774,000 to

about 772,000 (a decrease of less than

0.5 percent). The projected price

increases are modest relative to the

market price and market response is

expected to be minimal.

For the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory, the market analysis shows

that the cost for cleaning rail tank cars

could increase from about $781 to about

$815 per tank cleaned or about 4.3

percent. The market response would be

a decrease in the number of rail tank

cars cleaned from about 33,000 to about

32,800 (about 0.5 percent). The

projected market price relative the

market price of cleaning rail tank cars is

modest and the expected market

response is minimal.

For the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory, the market analysis

indicates that there would be a price

increase from about $6,448 to about

$6,456 per tank barge cleaned (or about

0.1 percent change in the price). The

market response is anticipated to be an

imperceptible change in the quantity of

tank barges cleaned.

For the Food Subcategory, EPA’s

economic analysis indicates that all

direct discharging facilities have

treatment in place. Therefore, they will

not have to install treatment technology

or change operation and management

practices as a result of today’s

promulgation. The Food Subcategory

facilities will not incur costs that exceed

those that they have already incurred for

currently installed treatment. The

market analysis indicates that there will

be no impacts on the markets served by

these facilities as a result of the

regulation.

Although transportation cleaning

services is a small part of the overall

transportation services sector, cleaning

services are essential for delivery of

safe, quality products in the

marketplace. Because these services are

essential, transportation services

companies must have clean tanks,

cleaned by their in-house cleaning

services, or provided by commercial

cleaning service companies. Given the

necessity of cleaning tanks to provide

safe, quality products, the price may

increase in the marketplace with little if

any response by cleaning customers.

This finding suggests that prices could

increase, in some cases significantly,

with little if any reduction in the

number of tanks cleaned.

E. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

EPA conducts the cost-effectiveness

(CE) analysis to determine the cost per

pound of pollutant removed as a result

of the regulation. The Agency identifies

the pounds of each pollutant removed

by each technology considered as a

basis for regulation. These removals are

added for each technology option and

compared to the incremental costs of

each technology option. EPA estimates

the average and incremental cost

effectiveness of each regulatory option.

Pounds removed are adjusted for the

removal by POTWs and for the toxic

weights of the specific pollutants. After

these two adjustments, the analysis

provides pound equivalents. The results

of the cost effectiveness analysis for this

rule are presented in 1981 dollars, the

latter for comparing with other effluent

guidelines if appropriate. EPA’s

incremental cost-effectiveness analysis

for the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory indicates a cost

effectiveness ratio of $370 in 1981

dollars. For the Rail/Chemical &

Petroleum Subcategory, the CE analysis

indicated a result of $492 in 1981

dollars. Further information about the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 49691

cost effectiveness analysis is provided

in ‘‘Final Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and

Standards for the Transportation

Equipment Cleaning Category’’.

F. Cost-Benefit Analysis

Executive Order 12866 requires

agencies to prepare a cost-benefit

analysis for Federal regulations that may

have economic impacts on industry.

Table 5 presents the costs and benefits

of the TEC final regulation. The details

of the cost-benefit analysis are discussed

in the Economic Analysis. Total social

costs for the cost-benefit analysis are

estimated by using pre-tax dollars as an

approximation for the total social costs

of the regulation. The benefits of the

regulation are derived from

improvements in water quality resulting

from reductions in the amount of

pollutants discharged.

This rule is expected to have a total

annual social cost of $17.0 million (1998

dollars), which includes $16. 4 million

in pre-tax compliance costs, $0.6

million in administrative costs, and

almost zero costs for administering

unemployment benefits. Total annual

benefits are expected to range from $1.5

million to $5.5 million (1998 dollars).

This includes $1.0 million to $3.5

million for recreational benefits, $0.5

million to $1.7 million associated with

nonuse values benefits, and $56,000 to

$300,000 associated with cancer

benefits. The derivation of annual

benefits is discussed in more detail in

Section IX.

TABLE 5.—SUMMARY OF THE COSTBENEFIT ANALYSIS

Category

Costs and

benefits

($1998

millions)

Costs (pre-tax)

Compliance Costs ................ $16.4

Administrative Costs ............. $0.6

Administrative Costs of Unemployment ....................... $0.0

Total Social Costs ............. $17.0

Benefits

Human Health Benefits

Cancer Benefits .................... $0.056–$0.30

Recreational Benefits ........... $1.0–$3.5

Nonuse Benefits ................... $0.5–$1.7

Total Monetized Benefits .. $1.5–$5.5

IX. Water Quality Impacts of Final

Regulation

A. Changes to Benefits Analysis Since

Proposal

EPA has not changed the

methodology described in the proposal

to evaluate the environmental benefits

of controlling discharges of pollutants

for the final rulemaking action. As in

the proposal, the methodology includes

evaluation of projected in-stream

concentrations of pollutants relative to

aquatic criteria, analysis of potential

interference with POTW operations in

terms of inhibition of activated sludge

and contamination of sludges, and the

potential for human health impacts

resulting from the ingestion of drinking

water and fish containing pollutants

discharged by TEC facilities. A detailed

description of the methodology can be

found in the Environmental Assessment

of the Final Effluent Guidelines for the

Transportation Equipment Cleaning

(TEC) Industry.

Several changes made to the rule

since proposal have affected this

analysis, resulting in removal of a few

facilities, the removal of some

pollutants, and the addition of other

pollutants assessed in the analysis for

the proposal. These changes include: (1)

The modification to the

subcategorization approach, in which

EPA combined the Truck/Chemical

Subcategory and Truck/Petroleum

Subcategory into the Truck/Chemical &

Petroleum Subcategory, and also

combined the Rail/Chemical

Subcategory and Rail/Petroleum

Subcategory into the Rail/Chemical &

Petroleum Subcategory; (2) the

establishment of a low flow exclusion,

which excludes facilities that discharge

less than 100,000 gallons per year of

TEC process wastewater; (3) the

clarification of the definition of the

exclusion of facilities engaged in

activities covered elsewhere (e.g., the

proposed MP&M guideline); and (4) a

revision to the methodology for

calculating pesticide and herbicide

loadings.

B. Truck/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory

1. Direct Dischargers

EPA projects that no additional

removals of toxics will be achieved by

the regulatory option because all three

modeled facilities have sufficient

treatment in place to meet BAT limits.

EPA therefore predicts that there are no

additional benefits to be obtained as a

result of the selected BAT regulatory

option.

2. Indirect Dischargers

EPA evaluated the potential effect on

aquatic life and human health of a

representative sample of 40 indirect

wastewater dischargers of the 286

facilities subject to the guidelines in the

Truck/Chemical & Petroleum indirect

subcategory to receiving waters at

current levels of treatment and at

pretreatment levels. These 40 modeled

facilities discharge 84 pollutants in

wastewater to 34 POTWs, which then

discharge to 34 receiving streams.

At the national level, 286 facilities

discharge wastewater to 255 POTWs,

which then discharge into 255 receiving

streams. EPA projects that in-stream

concentrations of one pollutant will

exceed aquatic life or human health

criteria (for both water and organisms)

in seven receiving streams at current

discharge levels. The selected

pretreatment regulatory option

eliminates excursions of aquatic life or

human health criteria in all seven

streams. Estimates of the increase in

value of recreational fishing to anglers

as a result of this improvement range

from $975,000 to $3,484,000 annually

(1998 dollars). In addition, the nonuse

value (e.g. option, existence, and

bequest value) of the improvement is

estimated to range from $488,000 to

$1,742,000 (1998 dollars).

The reduction of excess annual cancer

cases from the ingestion of

contaminated fish and drinking water

by all populations evaluated generate a

benefit to society of $2,200 to $13,000

(1998 dollars). (A monetary value of this

benefit to society was not projected at

proposal.) No systemic toxicant effects

(non-cancer adverse health effects such

as reproductive toxicity) are projected

for anglers fishing the receiving streams

at current discharge levels. Therefore,

no further analysis of these types of

impacts was performed.

3. POTWs

EPA also evaluated the potential

adverse impacts on POTW operations

(inhibition of microbial activity during

biological treatment) and contamination

of sewage sludge at the 34 modeled

POTWs that receive wastewater from

the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory. At current discharge

levels, EPA projects no inhibition or

sludge contamination problems at any

of the POTWs at current loadings.

Therefore, no further analysis of these

types of impacts was performed.

49692 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

C. Rail/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory

1. Direct Dischargers

EPA projects that no additional

removals of toxics will be achieved by

the regulatory option because the one

model facility has sufficient treatment

in place to comply with BAT. EPA

therefore predicts that there are no

additional benefits to be obtained as a

result of the selected BAT regulatory

option.

2. Indirect Dischargers

EPA evaluated the potential effect on

aquatic life and human health of a

representative sample of 10 indirect

wastewater dischargers of the 30

facilities in the Rail/Chemical &

Petroleum Subcategory to receiving

waters at current levels of treatment and

at pretreatment levels. These 10

modeled facilities discharge 74

pollutants in wastewater to nine

POTWs, which discharge to nine

receiving streams.

At the national level, 30 facilities

discharge wastewater to 28 POTWs,

which then discharge into 28 receiving

streams. EPA projects that in-stream

pollutant concentrations will exceed

human health criteria (for both water

and organisms) in 13 receiving streams

at both current and pretreatment

discharge levels. Since the selected

pretreatment regulatory option is not

expected to eliminate all occurrences of

pollutant concentrations in excess of

human health criteria at any of the

receiving streams, no increase in value

of recreational fishing to anglers is

projected as a result of this

pretreatment.

The reduction of excess annual cancer

cases from the ingestion of

contaminated fish and drinking water

by all populations evaluated generate a

benefit to society of $55,000 to $290,000

(1998 dollars). (A monetary value of this

benefit to society was not projected at

proposal.) No systemic toxicant effects

(non-cancer adverse health effects such

as reproductive toxicity) are projected

for anglers fishing the receiving streams

at current discharge levels. Therefore,

no further analysis of these types of

impacts was performed.

3. POTWs

EPA also evaluated the potential

adverse impacts on POTW operations

(inhibition of microbial activity during

biological treatment) and contamination

of sewage sludge at the nine modeled

POTWs that receive wastewater from

the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory. Model results were then

extrapolated to the national level, which

included 28 POTWs.

At current discharge levels, EPA

projects inhibition problems at 13 of the

POTWs, caused by two pollutants. At

the selected pretreatment regulatory

option, EPA projects continued

inhibition problems at these 13 POTWs

because these two pollutants are not

treated to sufficiently low levels to

affect the POTW inhibition level. The

Agency projects sewage sludge

contamination at none of the POTWs at

current loadings. Therefore, no further

analysis of these types of impacts was

performed.

The POTW inhibition values used in

this analysis are not, in general,

regulatory values. EPA based these

values upon engineering and health

estimates contained in guidance or

guidelines published by EPA and other

sources. EPA used these values to

determine whether the pollutants

interfere with POTW operations. The

pretreatment standards today are not

based on these values; rather, they are

based on the performance of the

selected technology basis for each

standard. However, the values used in

this analysis help indicate the potential

benefits for POTW operations that may

result from the compliance with

pretreatment discharge levels.

D. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory

1. Direct Dischargers

EPA projects that BAT would not

result in any additional removals of

toxic pollutants because most pollutants

are already treated to very low levels,

often approaching the detection levels.

EPA therefore did not quantify

additional benefits obtained as a result

of the selected BAT regulatory option.

2. Indirect Dischargers

Based on the discharge concentrations

of several conventional pollutants, EPA

believes that all five modeled indirect

discharging facilities are meeting the

levels of control that would be

established under PSES. EPA therefore

did not additional benefits obtained as

a result of the selected PSES regulatory

option.

E. Food Subcategory

1. Direct Dischargers

EPA estimates no additional pollutant

removals and no additional costs to the

industry because all 19 facilities

identified by EPA currently have the

proposed BPT technology in place. EPA

is not establishing BAT because EPA is

not regulating any toxic parameters.

2. Indirect Dischargers

EPA is not establishing PSES or PSNS

for the Food Subcategory.

X. Non-Water Quality Impacts of Final

Regulation

As required by Sections 304(b) and

306 of the Clean Water Act, EPA has

considered the non-water quality

environmental impacts associated with

the treatment technology options for the

TEC industry. Non-water quality

environmental impacts are impacts of

the final rule on the environment that

are not directly associated with

wastewater, such as changes in energy

consumption, air emissions, and solid

waste generation of sludge and oil. In

addition to these non-water quality

environmental impacts, EPA examined

the impacts of the final rule on noise

pollution, and water and chemical use.

Based on these analyses, EPA finds the

relatively small increase in non-water

quality environmental impacts resulting

from the rule to be acceptable. EPA’s

estimates have not changed significantly

from the proposed rule.

A. Energy Impacts

Energy impacts resulting from the

regulatory options include energy

requirements to operate wastewater

treatment equipment such as aerators,

pumps, and mixers. However, flow

reduction technologies reduce energy

requirements by reducing the number of

operating hours per day and/or

operating days per year for wastewater

treatment equipment currently operated

by the TEC industry. For some

regulatory options, energy savings

resulting from flow reduction exceed

requirements for operation of additional

wastewater treatment equipment,

resulting in a net energy savings for

these options. EPA estimates a net

increase in electricity use of

approximately 5 million kilowatt hours

annually for the TEC industry as a result

of the rule, which is an insignificant

increase in U.S. industrial electrical

energy purchase. Therefore, the Agency

concludes that the effluent pollutant

reduction benefits from the technology

options exceed the potential adverse

effects from the estimated increase in

energy consumption.

B. Air Emission Impacts

TEC facilities generate wastewater

containing concentrations of volatile

and semivolatile organic pollutants,

some of which are also on the list of

Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) in

Title 3 of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990. These waste

streams pass through treatment units

open to the atmosphere, which may

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 49693

result in the volatilization of organic

pollutants from the wastewater.

Emissions from TEC facilities also occur

when tanks are opened and cleaned,

with cleaning typically performed using

hot water or cleaning solutions. Prior to

cleaning, tanks may be opened with

vapors vented through the tank hatch

and air vents in a process called gas

freeing. At some facilities, tanks used to

transport gases or volatile material are

filled to capacity with water to displace

vapors to the atmosphere or a

combustion device. Some facilities also

perform open steaming of tanks.

Other sources of emissions at TEC

facilities include heated cleaning

solution storage tanks as well as

emissions from TEC wastewater as it

falls onto the cleaning bay floor, flows

to floor drains and collection sumps,

and conveys to wastewater treatment.

In order to quantify the impact of the

regulation on air emissions at proposal,

EPA performed a model analysis to

estimate the amount of organic

pollutants emitted to the air. EPA

estimated the increase of air emissions

at TEC facilities as a result of the

wastewater treatment technology to be

approximately 153,000 kilograms per

year of organic pollutants (volatile and

semivolatile organics), which

represented approximately 35 percent of

the total organic pollutant wastewater

load of raw TEC wastewater. Since the

final technology options are fairly

similar to the proposed technology

options, EPA estimates that these

estimates would not change

significantly. EPA’s estimate of air

emissions reflects the increase in

emissions at TEC facilities, and does not

account for baseline air emissions that

are currently being released to the

atmosphere at the POTW or as the

wastewater is conveyed to the POTW. It

is expected that much of the increased

emissions at indirect TEC facilities

calculated for this rule are currently

being released at POTWs or during

conveyance to the POTW. To a large

degree, this rule will merely shift the

location at which the air emissions are

released, rather than increasing the total

air emissions from TEC wastewater. As

a result, air emission from TEC

wastewater at POTWs are expected to be

reduced somewhat following

implementation of this rule. EPA’s

model analysis was performed based on

the most stringent regulatory options

considered for each subcategory in order

to create a ‘‘worst case scenario’’ (i.e.,

the more treatment technologies used,

the more chance of volatilization of

compounds to the air). For some

subcategories, EPA is not promulgating

the most stringent regulatory option;

therefore, for these subcategories, air

emission impacts are overestimated.

In addition, to the extent that facilities

currently operate treatment in place, the

results overestimate air emission

impacts from the regulatory options.

Additional details concerning EPA’s

model analysis to estimate air emission

impacts are included in ‘‘Estimated Air

Emission Impacts of TEC Industry

Regulatory Options’’ in the rulemaking

record.

Based on the sources of air emissions

in the TEC industry and limited data

concerning air pollutant emissions from

TEC operations provided in response to

the 1994 Detailed Questionnaire (most

facilities did not provide air pollutant

emissions estimates), EPA estimates that

the incremental air emissions resulting

from the regulatory options are a small

percentage of air emissions generated by

TEC operations. For these reasons, air

emission impacts of the regulatory

options are acceptable.

C. Solid Waste Impacts

Solid waste impacts resulting from

the regulatory options include

additional solid wastes generated by

wastewater treatment technologies.

These solid wastes include wastewater

treatment residuals, including sludge

and waste oil.

1. Wastewater Treatment Sludge

Wastewater treatment sludge is

generated in two forms: dewatered

sludge (or filter cake) generated by a

filter press and/or wet sludge generated

by treatment units such as oil/water

separators, coagulation/clarification,

dissolved air flotation, and biological

treatment. Many facilities that currently

operate wastewater treatment systems

do not dewater wastewater treatment

sludge. Storage, transportation, and

disposal of greater volumes of undewatered sludge that would be

generated after implementing the TEC

industry regulatory options is less costeffective than dewatering sludge on site

and disposing of the greatly reduced

volume of resulting filter cake.

However, in estimating costs for the

rule, EPA has included the costs for TEC

facilities to install sludge dewatering

equipment to handle increases in sludge

generation. For these reasons, EPA

estimates net decreases in the volume of

wet sludge generated by the industry

and net increases in the volume of dry

sludge generated by the industry.

EPA estimates that the rule will result

in a decrease in wet sludge generation

of approximately 17 million gallons per

year, which represents an estimated 98

percent decrease from current wet

sludge generation. In addition, EPA

estimates that the rule will result in an

increase in dewatered sludge generation

of approximately 35 thousand cubic

yards per year, which represents an

estimated 120 percent increase from

current dewatered sludge generation.

However, this results in a net decrease

of sludge volume that will be deposited

in landfills.

Compliance cost estimates for the TEC

industry regulatory options are based on

disposal of wastewater treatment sludge

in nonhazardous waste landfills. EPA

sampling of sludge using the Toxicity

Characteristic Leaching Procedure

(TCLP) test verified the sludge as nonhazardous. Such landfills are subject to

RCRA Subtitle D standards found in 40

CFR parts 257 or 258.

The Agency concludes that the

effluent benefits and the reductions in

wet sludge generation from the

technology options exceed the potential

adverse effects from the estimated

increase in wastewater treatment sludge

generation.

2. Waste Oil

EPA estimates that compliance with

the regulation will result in an increase

in waste oil generation at TEC sites

based on removal of oil from wastewater

via oil/water separation. EPA estimates

that this increase in waste oil generation

will be approximately 670,000 gallons

per year, which represents no more than

an estimated 330 percent increase from

current waste oil generation. EPA

assumes, based on responses to the

Detailed Questionnaire, that waste oil

disposal will be via oil reclamation or

fuels blending on or off site. Therefore,

the Agency does not estimate any

adverse effects from increased waste oil

generation.

XI. Regulatory Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 [58 FR

51735 (October 4, 1993)], the Agency

must determine whether the regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to OMB review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely

to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

49694 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

(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 have been

documented in the public record.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as

amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (SBREFA), 5 USC 601 et seq.

The RFA generally requires an agency

to prepare a regulatory flexibility

analysis of any rule subject to notice

and comment rulemaking requirements

under the Administrative Procedure Act

or any other statute unless the agency

certifies that the rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small organizations, and small

governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts

of today’s rule on small entities, a small

entity is defined as (1) a small business

that has less than $5 million in annual

revenue (based on SBA size standards);

(2) a small government jurisdiction that

is a government of a city, county, town,

school district or special district with a

population of less than 50,000; and (3)

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently

owned and operated and is not

dominant in its field.

After considering the economic

impacts of today’s final rule on small

entities, I certify that this action will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

In accordance with section 603 of the

RFA, EPA prepared an initial regulatory

flexibility analysis (IRFA) for the

proposed rule (see 63 FR 34685) and

convened a Small Business Advocacy

Review Panel to obtain advice and

recommendations from representatives

of small entities that would potentially

be regulated by the rule in accordance

with section 609(b) of the RFA. A

detailed discussion of the Panel’s advice

and recommendations is found in the

Panel Report (DCN T10301). A summary

of the Panel’s recommendations is

presented in the preamble to the

proposed rule at 63 FR 34730.

In the final rule, EPA made changes

to the proposal that reduced the level of

impacts to small entities. The final

regulation excludes all facilities that

discharge less than 100,000 gallons per

year of TEC process wastewater and

excludes facilities that are engaged in

non-TEC industrial, commercial, or

POTW activities. In addition, EPA

projects fewer economic impacts to

small entities as a result of selecting a

less stringent technology option in one

subcategory. These and other changes

made to the proposal are described in

Section III of this notice.

In particular, EPA acknowledges the

SBAR Panel’s recommendations

regarding regulatory alternatives,

applicability of the final rule, and

comment solicitation in the proposal.

EPA carefully considered and adopted

many of the recommendations made by

the SBAR Panel as discussed in the

proposal. EPA evaluated comments

received on the proposal during the

notice and comment period and decided

to adopt several of the alternatives

supported by commenters and the SBAR

Panel. As discussed throughout this

notice, EPA has decided to exclude

drums and Intermediate Bulk

Containers from the rule; to establish a

less stringent regulatory option for the

Truck/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory; to establish similar levels

of control for the Truck/Chemical &

Petroleum Subcategory and Rail/

Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory; and

to adopt a low flow exclusion.

EPA’s Economic Analysis includes an

assessment of the impacts on small

entities. EPA projects that no small

businesses will close as a result of this

rule. Using two sets of assumptions

related to the ability of a business to

pass the additional costs to customers,

EPA projects that 35 to 38 small

businesses would incur costs exceeding

one percent of revenues, and that zero

to 29 small businesses would incur

costs exceeding three percent of

revenues. This is approximately a 50

percent reduction in the impacts

projected at proposal for EPA’s most

conservative cost pass through

assumption. Due to the ability to recover

all or a portion of regulatory costs by

passing them through to customers, the

number of small TEC operators affected

at these levels is likely to fall in the

lower end of the ranges.

C. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. A major rule

cannot take effect until 60 days after it

is published in the Federal Register.

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule

will be effective September 13, 2000.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

As discussed in Section V of this

notice, EPA is promulgating a pollution

prevention alternative as a regulatory

compliance option and the final rule

contains information collection

requirements as a part of this

compliance option. Therefore, the

information collection requirements for

this rule will be submitted for approval

to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An

Information Collection Request (ICR)

document will be prepared by EPA and

published in a subsequent Federal

Register notice. The information

requirements are not enforceable until

OMB approves them. EPA will

incorporate new reporting and record

keeping requirements and associated

burden into a previously approved ICR

(2040–0009) for the National

Pretreatment Program with an

amendment.

Burden means the total time, effort, or

financial resources expended by persons

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose

or provide information to or for a

Federal agency. This includes the time

needed to review instructions; develop,

acquire, install, and utilize technology

and systems for the purposes of

collecting, validating, and verifying

information, processing and

maintaining information, and disclosing

and providing information; adjust the

existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to be able

to respond to a collection of

information; search data sources;

complete and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

An Agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB

control number. The OMB control

numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed

in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter

15. The OMB control number for the

information collection requirements in

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 49695

this rule will be listed in an amendment

to 40 CFR Part 9 in a subsequent

Federal Register document after OMB

approves the ICR. Because of the

delayed compliance date for the

pretreatment standards in today’s rule,

indirect dischargers will not be subject

to the information collection burden

associated with the alternative Pollutant

Management Plan provisions for the rail

and tank/truck subcategories until three

years from now. The Agency will

provide burden estimates for the

paperwork compliance components of

the Pollutant Management Plan

alternative (submission of a certification

statement and the Pollutant

Management Plan to the local control

authority, preparation and maintenance

of the plan and certain records at the

facility) and obtain ICR clearance for

these estimates prior to the end of that

three-year time frame.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures to State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or to the private sector, of $100 million

or more in any one year. Before

promulgating an EPA rule for which a

written statement is needed, section 205

of the UMRA generally requires EPA to

identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and

adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule.

The provisions of section 205 do not

apply when they are inconsistent with

applicable law. Moreover, section 205

allows EPA to adopt an alternative other

than the least costly, most cost-effective

or least burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation why that alternative

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes

any regulatory requirements that may

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, including tribal

governments, it must have developed

under section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, enabling

officials of affected small governments

to have meaningful and timely input in

the development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

EPA has determined that this rule

does not contain a Federal mandate that

may result in expenditures of $100

million or more for State, local, and

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or

the private sector in any one year. EPA

has estimated total annualized costs of

the rule as $11.1 million (1998$, posttax). Thus, today’s rule is not subject to

the requirements of Sections 202 and

205 of the UMRA.

EPA has determined that this rule

contains no regulatory requirements that

might significantly or uniquely affect

small governments. EPA projects that no

small governments will be affected by

this rule. Thus, today’s rule is not

subject to the requirements of Section

203 of the UMRA.

F. Executive Order 13084: Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian Tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the Office of

Management and Budget, in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a description of the extent of EPA’s

prior consultation with representatives

of affected tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’

Today’s rule does not significantly or

uniquely affect the communities of

Indian tribal governments nor does it

impose substantial direct compliance

costs on them. EPA has determined that

no communities of Indian tribal

governments are affected by this rule.

Accordingly, the requirements of

section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084

do not apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

Executive Order 13132, entitled

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999), requires EPA to develop an

accountable process to ensure

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State

and local officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government.’’

This final rule does not have

federalism implications. It will not have

substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132. The rule will

not impose substantial costs on States or

local governments. The rule establishes

effluent limitations guidelines and

pretreatment standards imposing

requirements that apply to TEC facilities

when they discharge wastewater or

introduce wastewater to a POTW. The

rule does not apply directly to States

and local governments and will only

affect State and local governments when

they are administering CWA permitting

programs. The final rule, at most,

imposes minimal administrative costs

on States that have an authorized

NPDES programs and on local

governments that are administering

approved pretreatment programs. (These

States and local governments must

incorporate the new limitations and

standards in new and reissued NPDES

permits or local pretreatment orders or

permits). Thus, Executive Order 13132

does not apply to this rule.

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

As noted in the proposed rule,

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act (NTTAA) of 1995, (Pub L. No. 104–

113 Section 12(d) 15 U.S.C. 272 note)

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus

standards in its regulatory activities

unless to do so would be inconsistent

with applicable law or otherwise

impractical. Voluntary consensus

standards are technical standards (e.g.,

materials specifications, test methods,

sampling procedures, and business

practices) that are developed or adopted

by voluntary consensus standard bodies.

The NTTAA directs EPA to provide

49696 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Congress, through the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB),

explanations when the Agency decides

not to use available and applicable

voluntary consensus standards.

This rulemaking involves technical

standards. The rule requires dischargers

to measure for seven metals, two organic

contaminants, BOD5, TSS, Oil and

Grease (HEM), non-polar material (SGT–

HEM), and pH. EPA performed a search

to identify potentially voluntary

consensus standards that could be used

to measure the analytes in today’s final

guideline. EPA’s search revealed that

consensus standards exist and are

already specified in the tables at 40 CFR

Part 136.3 for measurement of many of

the analytes. Pollutants in today’s rule

for which there are voluntary consensus

methods include: seven metals; two

organics; BOD5; TSS; Oil and Grease

(HEM); non-polar material (SGT–HEM);

and pH.

I. The Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act

The Edible Oil Regulatory Reform

Act, Public Law 104–55, requires most

Federal agencies to differentiate

between and establish separate classes

for (1) animal fats and oils and greases,

fish and marine mammal oils, and oils

of vegetable origin, and (2) other greases

and oils, including petroleum, when

issuing or enforcing any regulation or

establishing any interpretation or

guideline relating to the transportation,

storage, discharge, release, emission, or

disposal of a fat, oil or grease.

The Agency believes that vegetable

oils and animal fats pose similar types

of threats to the environment as

petroleum oils when spilled to the

environment (62 FR 54508 Oct. 20,

1997). The deleterious environmental

effects of spills of petroleum and nonpetroleum oils, including animal fats

and vegetable oils, are produced

through physical contact and

destruction of food sources (via

smothering or coating) as well as toxic

contamination (62 FR 54511). However,

the permitted discharge of TEC process

wastewater containing residual and

dilute quantities of petroleum and nonpetroleum oils is significantly different

than an uncontrolled spill of pure

petroleum or non-petroleum oil

products.

As discussed in Section VI of the

proposal, and in accordance with the

Edible Oil Regulatory Reform, EPA has

grouped facilities which clean

transportation equipment that carry

vegetable oils or animal fats as cargos

into separate subcategories (Food

Subcategory) from those facilities that

clean equipment that had carried

petroleum products (Truck/Chemical &

Petroleum Subcategory, Rail/Chemical &

Petroleum Subcategory, Barge/Chemical

& Petroleum Subcategory).

J. Executive Order 13045 and Protecting

Children’s Health

The Executive Order ‘‘Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency. This rule is

not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is

not ‘‘economically significant’’ as

defined under Executive Order 12866,

and because the rule does not concern

an environmental health or safety risk

that may have a disproportional effect

on children.

XII. Regulatory Implementation

Upon promulgation of these

regulations, the effluent limitations for

the appropriate subcategory must be

applied in all Federal and State NPDES

permits issued to affected direct

dischargers in the TEC industry. In

addition, the pretreatment standards are

directly applicable to affected indirect

dischargers. This section discusses the

relationship of upset and bypass

provisions, variances and modifications,

and monitoring requirements.

A. Implementation of Limitations and

Standards

Upon the promulgation of these

regulations, all new and reissued

Federal and State NPDES permits issued

to direct dischargers in the TEC industry

must include the effluent limitations for

the appropriate subcategory. Permit

writers should be aware that EPA has

now finalized revisions to 40 CFR

122.44(a) which could be particularly

relevant to the development of NPDES

permits for the TEC point source

category (see 65 FR 30989, May 15,

2000). As finalized, the revision would

require that permits have limitations for

all applicable guidelines-listed

pollutants but allows for the waiver of

sampling requirements for guidelinelisted pollutants on a case-by-case basis

if the discharger can certify that the

pollutant is not present in the discharge

or present in only background levels

from intake water with no increase due

to the activities of the dischargers. New

sources and new dischargers are not

eligible for this waiver for their first

permit term, and monitoring can be reestablished through a minor

modification if the discharger expands

or changes its process. Further, the

permittee must notify the permit writer

of any modifications that have taken

place over the course of the permit term

and, if necessary, monitoring can be

reestablished through a minor

modification.

B. Upset and Bypass Provisions

A ‘‘bypass’’ is an intentional diversion

of waste streams from any portion of a

treatment facility. An ‘‘upset’’ is an

exceptional incident in which there is

unintentional and temporary

noncompliance with technology-based

permit effluent limitations because of

factors beyond the reasonable control of

the permittee. EPA’s regulations

concerning bypasses and upsets are set

forth at 40 CFR 122.41(m) and (n), and

40 CFR 403.16 (upset) and 403.17

(bypass).

C. Variances and Modifications

The CWA requires application of the

effluent limitations established pursuant

to Section 301 or the pretreatment

standards of Section 307 to all direct

and indirect dischargers. However, the

statute provides for the modification of

these national requirements in a limited

number of circumstances. Moreover, the

Agency has established administrative

mechanisms to provide an opportunity

for relief from the application of

national effluent limitations guidelines

and pretreatment standards for

categories of existing sources for

priority, conventional and nonconventional pollutants.

1. Fundamentally Different Factors

Variances

EPA will develop effluent limitations

guidelines or standards different from

the otherwise applicable requirements if

an individual existing discharging

facility is fundamentally different with

respect to factors considered in

establishing the guidelines or standards

applicable to the individual facility.

Such a modification is known as a

‘‘fundamentally different factors’’ (FDF)

variance.

Early on, EPA, by regulation,

provided for FDF modifications from

BPT effluent limitations, BAT

limitations for priority and nonconventional pollutants and BCT

limitation for conventional pollutants

for direct dischargers. For indirect

dischargers, EPA provided for FDF

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 49697

2Under 40 CFR 403.7, a POTW is authorized to

give removal credits only under certain conditions.

These include applying for, and obtaining, approval

from the Regional Administrator (or Director of a

State NPDES program with an approved

pretreatment program), a showing of consistent

pollutant removal and an approved pretreatment

program. See 40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(i), (ii), and (iii).

modifications from pretreatment

standards for existing facilities. FDF

variances for priority pollutants were

challenged judicially and ultimately

sustained by the Supreme Court.

(Chemical Manufacturers Ass’n v.

NRDC, 479 U.S. 116 (1985)).

Subsequently, in the Water Quality

Act of 1987, Congress added new

Section 301(n) of the Act explicitly to

authorize modification of the otherwise

applicable BAT effluent limitations or

categorical pretreatment standards for

existing sources if a facility is

fundamentally different with respect to

the factors specified in Section 304

(other than costs) from those considered

by EPA in establishing the effluent

limitations or pretreatment standards.

Section 301(n) also defined the

conditions under which EPA may

establish alternative requirements.

Under Section 301(n), an application for

approval of an FDF variance must be

based solely on (1) information

submitted during the rulemaking raising

the factors that are fundamentally

different or (2) information the

applicant did not have an opportunity

to submit. The alternate limitation or

standard must be no less stringent than

justified by the difference and not result

in markedly more adverse non-water

quality environmental impacts than the

national limitation or standard.

EPA regulations at 40 CFR 125

Subpart D, authorizing the Regional

Administrators to establish alternative

guidelines and standards, further detail

the substantive criteria used to evaluate

FDF variance requests for existing direct

dischargers. Thus, 40 CFR 125.31(d)

identifies six factors (e.g., volume of

process wastewater, age and size of a

discharger’s facility) that may be

considered in determining if a facility is

fundamentally different. The Agency

must determine whether, on the basis of

one or more of these factors, the facility

in question is fundamentally different

from the facilities and factors

considered by EPA in developing the

nationally applicable effluent

guidelines. The regulation also lists four

other factors (e.g., infeasibility of

installation within the time allowed or

a discharger’s ability to pay) that may

not provide a basis for an FDF variance.

In addition, under 40 CFR 125.31(b)(3),

a request for limitations less stringent

than the national limitation may be

approved only if compliance with the

national limitations would result in

either (a) a removal cost wholly out of

proportion to the removal cost

considered during development of the

national limitations, or (b) a non-water

quality environmental impact

(including energy requirements)

fundamentally more adverse than the

impact considered during development

of the national limits. EPA regulations

provide for an FDF variance for existing

indirect dischargers at 40 CFR 403.13.

The conditions for approval of a request

to modify applicable pretreatment

standards and factors considered are the

same as those for direct dischargers.

The legislative history of Section

301(n) underscores the necessity for the

FDF variance applicant to establish

eligibility for the variance. EPA’s

regulations at 40 CFR 125.32(b)(1) are

explicit in imposing this burden upon

the applicant. The applicant must show

that the factors relating to the discharge

controlled by the applicant’s permit

which are claimed to be fundamentally

different are, in fact, fundamentally

different from those factors considered

by EPA in establishing the applicable

guidelines. The pretreatment regulation

incorporate a similar requirement at 40

CFR 403.13(h)(9).

An FDF variance is not available to a

new source subject to NSPS or PSNS.

2. Removal Credits

The CWA establishes a discretionary

program for POTWs to grant ‘‘removal

credits’’ to their indirect dischargers.

This credit in the form of a less stringent

pretreatment standard, allows an

increased concentration of a pollutant in

the flow from the indirect discharger’s

facility to the POTW (See 40 CFR 403.7).

EPA has promulgated removal credit

regulations as part of its pretreatment

regulations.

The following discussion provides a

description of the existing removal

credit regulations. Under EPA’s existing

pretreatment regulations, the

availability of a removal credit for a

particular pollutant is linked to the

POTW method of using or disposing of

its sewage sludge. The regulations

provide that removal credits are only

available for certain pollutants regulated

in EPA’s 40 CFR Part 503 sewage sludge

regulations (58 FR 9386). The

pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR Part

403 provide that removal credits may be

made potentially available for the

following pollutants:

(1) If a POTW applies its sewage

sludge to the land for beneficial uses,

disposes of it on surface disposal sites

or incinerates it, removal credits may be

available, depending on which use or

disposal method is selected (so long as

the POTW complies with the

requirements in Part 503). When sewage

sludge is applied to land, removal

credits may be available for ten metals.

When sewage sludge is disposed of on

a surface disposal site, removal credits

may be available for three metals. When

the sewage sludge is incinerated,

removal credits may be available for

seven metals and for 57 organic

pollutants (40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(iv)(A)).

(2) In addition, when sewage sludge is

used on land or disposed of on a surface

disposal site or incinerated, removal

credits may also be available for

additional pollutants so long as the

concentration of the pollutant in sludge

does not exceed a concentration level

established in Part 403. When sewage

sludge is applied to land, removal

credits may be available for two

additional metals and 14 organic

pollutants. When the sewage sludge is

disposed of on a surface disposal site,

removal credits may be available for

seven additional metals and 13 organic

pollutants. When the sewage sludge is

incinerated, removal credits may be

available for three other metals (40 CFR

403.7(a)(3)(iv)(B)).

(3) When a POTW disposes of its

sewage sludge in a municipal solid

waste landfill (MSWLF) that meets the

criteria of 40 CFR Part 258, removal

credits may be available for any

pollutant in the POTW’s sewage sludge

(40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(iv)(C)). Thus, given

compliance with the requirements of

EPA’s removal credit regulations,2

following today’s promulgation of the

pretreatment standards, removal credits

may be authorized for any pollutant

subject to pretreatment standards if the

applying POTW disposes of its sewage

sludge in a MSWLF that meets the

requirements of 40 CFR Part 258. If the

POTW uses or disposes of its sewage

sludge by land application, surface

disposal or incineration, removal credits

may be available for the following metal

pollutants (depending on the method of

use or disposal): arsenic, cadmium,

chromium, copper, iron, lead, mercury,

molybdenum, nickel, selenium and

zinc. Given compliance with Section

403.7, removal credits may be available

for the following organic pollutants

(depending on the method of use or

disposal) if the POTW uses or disposes

of its sewage sludge: benzene, 1,1-

dichloroethane, 1,2-dibromoethane,

ethylbenzene, methylene chloride,

toluene, tetrachloroethene, 1,1,1-

trichloroethane, 1,1,2-trichloroethane

and trans-1,2-dichloroethene.

Some facilities may be interested in

obtaining removal credit authorization

for other pollutants being regulated by

49698 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

this rulemaking for which removal

credit authorization would not

otherwise be available under Part 403.

Under Sections 307(b) and 405 of the

CWA, EPA may authorize removal

credits only when EPA determines that,

if removal credits are authorized, that

the increased discharges of a pollutant

to POTWs resulting from removal

credits will not affect POTW sewage

sludge use or disposal adversely. As

discussed in the preamble to

amendments to Part 403 regulations (58

FR 9382–83), EPA has interpreted these

sections to authorize removal credits for

a pollutant only in one of two

circumstances. Removal credits may be

authorized for any categorical pollutant

(1) for which EPA have established a

numerical pollutant limit in Part 503; or

(2) which EPA has determined will not

threaten human health and the

environment when used or disposed in

sewage sludge. The pollutants described

in paragraphs (1)–(3) above include all

those pollutants that EPA either

specifically regulated in Part 503 or

evaluated for regulation and determined

would not adversely affect sludge use

and disposal.

D. Relationship of Effluent Limitations

to NPDES Permits and Monitoring

Requirements

Effluent limitations act as a primary

mechanism to control the discharges of

pollutants to waters of the United

States. These limitations are applied to

individual facilities through NPDES

permits issued by EPA or authorized

States under Section 402 of the Act.

The Agency has developed the

limitations for this regulation to cover

the discharge of pollutants for this

industrial category. In specific cases, the

NPDES permitting authority may elect

to establish technology-based permit

limits for pollutants not covered by this

regulation. In addition, if State water

quality standards or other provisions of

State or Federal Law require limits on

pollutants not covered by this regulation

(or require more stringent limits on

covered pollutants), the permitting

authority must apply those limitations.

Working in conjunction with the

effluent limitations are the monitoring

conditions set out in a NPDES permit.

An integral part of the monitoring

conditions is the point at which a

facility must monitor to demonstrate

compliance. The point at which a

sample is collected can have a dramatic

effect on the monitoring results for that

facility. Therefore, it may be necessary

to require internal monitoring points in

order to ensure compliance. Authority

to address internal waste streams is

provided in 40 CFR 122.44(i)(1)(iii) and

122.45(h). Permit writers may establish

additional internal monitoring points to

the extent consistent with EPA’s

regulations.

An important component of the

monitoring requirements established by

the permitting authority is the frequency

at which monitoring is required. In

costing the various technology options

for the TEC industry, EPA assumed

monthly monitoring for priority and

non-conventional pollutants and weekly

monitoring for conventional pollutants.

These monitoring frequencies may be

lower than those generally imposed by

some permitting authorities, but EPA

believes these reduced frequencies are

appropriate due to the relative costs of

monitoring when compared to the

estimated costs of complying with the

proposed limitations.

E. Analytical Methods

Section 304(h) of the Clean Water Act

directs EPA to promulgate guidelines

establishing test methods for the

analysis of pollutants. TEC facilities use

these methods to determine the

presence and concentration of

pollutants in wastewater, and EPA,

State and local control authorities use

them for compliance monitoring and for

filing applications for the NPDES

program under 40 CFR 122.21, 122.41,

122.44 and 123.25, and for the

implementation of the pretreatment

standards under 40 CFR 403.10 and

403.12. To date, EPA has promulgated

methods for conventional pollutants,

toxic pollutants, and for some nonconventional pollutants. In 40 CFR

401.16, EPA defines the five

conventional pollutants. Table I–B at 40

CFR 136 lists the analytical methods

approved for these pollutants. The 65

toxic metals and organic pollutants and

classes of pollutants are defined at 40

CFR 401.15. From the list of 65 classes

of toxic pollutants EPA identified a list

of 126 ‘‘Priority Pollutants.’’ This list of

Priority Pollutants is shown, for

example, at 40 CFR Part 423, Appendix

A. The list includes non-pesticide

organic pollutants, metal pollutants,

cyanide, asbestos, and pesticide

pollutants. Currently approved methods

for metals and cyanide are included in

the table of approved inorganic test

procedures at 40 CFR 136.3, Table I–B.

Table I–C at 40 CFR 136.3 lists approved

methods for measurement of nonpesticide organic pollutants, and Table

I–D lists approved methods for the toxic

pesticide pollutants and for other

pesticide pollutants. Dischargers must

use the test methods promulgated at 40

CFR Part 136.3 or incorporated by

reference in the tables to monitor

pollutant discharges from TEC facilities,

unless specified otherwise by the

permitting authority.

The final rule would require facilities

in the TEC point source category to

monitor for BOD5, TSS, Oil and Grease

(HEM), non-polar material (SGT–HEM),

Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead,

Mercury, Nickel, Zinc, Fluoranthene,

Phenanthrene, and pH. EPA has

approved test methods for all these

pollutants at 40 CFR Part 136.3. EPA

recently published an amendment to

EPA Methods 625 and 1625 that

expands the list of analytes that can be

measured using these methods, (see

Landfills final rule, 65 FR 3008, January

19, 2000).

As stated in the proposal (see Table

10 at 63 FR 34736, June 25, 1998), EPA

used Method 1625C to collect analytical

data for the semivolatile organics. The

proposal further stated that commenters

should use these methods or equivalent

methods for analyses. In 1998, EPA also

proposed to amend Methods 625 and

1625 to include additional pollutants to

be measured under effluent guidelines

for the Centralized Waste Treatment

point source category (64 FR 2345).

Since then, EPA has gathered data on

the capacity of these methods to

measure the additional pollutants. The

modifications to EPA Methods 625 and

1625 consist of text, performance data,

and quality control (QC) acceptance

criteria for the additional analytes. EPA

validated the QC acceptance criteria for

the additional analytes in singlelaboratory studies that included TEC

wastewater. The collected data are

summarized in a report contained in the

docket for today’s rulemaking.

In today’s rule, EPA is approving the

use of EPA Method 1625 (published at

40 CFR part 136.3, appendix A) for

Fluoranthene and Phenanthrene.

Method 625 (also published at 40 CFR

part 136.3, appendix A) may also be

used to monitor for Fluoranthene and

Phenanthrene since these two analytes

are listed in that method for general

application.

Appendix A: Definitions, Acronyms,

and Abbreviations Used in This Notice

AGENCY—The U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency.

BAT—The best available technology

economically achievable, as described in

Section 304(b)(2) of the CWA.

BCT—The best conventional pollutant

control technology, as described in Section

304(b)(4) of the CWA.

BOD5—Five Day Biochemical Oxygen

Demand. A measure of biochemical

decomposition of organic matter in a water

sample. It is determined by measuring the

dissolved oxygen consumed by

microorganisms to oxidize the organic matter

in a water sample under standard laboratory

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 49699

conditions of five days and 70° C, see Method

405.1. BOD5 is not related to the oxygen

requirements in chemical combustion.

BPT—The best practicable control

technology currently available, as described

in Section 304(b)(1) of the CWA.

CARGO—Any chemical, material, or

substance transported in a tank truck, closedtop hopper truck, intermodal tank container,

rail tank car, closed-top hopper rail car, tank

barge, closed-top hopper barge, or ocean/sea

tanker that comes in direct contact with the

chemical, material, or substance. A cargo

may also be referred to as a commodity.

CLOSED-TOP HOPPER RAIL CAR—A

completely enclosed storage vessel pulled by

a locomotive that is used to transport dry

bulk commodities or cargos over railway

access lines. Closed-top hopper rail cars are

not designed or contracted to carry liquid

commodities or cargos and are typically used

to transport grain, soybeans, soy meal, soda

ash, lime, fertilizer, plastic pellets, flour,

sugar, and similar commodities or cargos.

The commodities or cargos transported come

in direct contact with the hopper interior.

Closed-top hopper rail cars are typically

divided into three compartments, carry the

same commodity or cargo in each

compartment, and are generally top loaded

and bottom unloaded. The hatch covers on

closed-top hopper rail cars are typically

longitudinal hatch covers or round manhole

covers.

CLOSED-TOP HOPPER TRUCK—A motordriven vehicle with a completely enclosed

storage vessel used to transport dry bulk

commodities or cargos over roads and

highways. Closed-top hopper trucks are not

designed or constructed to carry liquid

commodities or cargos and are typically used

to transport grain, soybeans, soy meal, soda

ash, lime, fertilizer, plastic pellets, flour,

sugar, and similar commodities or cargos.

The commodities or cargos transported come

in direct contact with the hopper interior.

Closed-top hopper trucks are typically

divided into three compartments, carry the

same commodity or cargo in each

compartment, and are generally top loaded

and bottom unloaded. The hatch covers used

on closed-top hopper trucks are typically

longitudinal hatch covers or round manhole

covers. Closed-top hopper trucks are also

commonly referred to as dry bulk hoppers.

CLOSED-TOP HOPPER BARGE—A nonself-propelled vessel constructed or adapted

primarily to carry dry commodities or cargos

in bulk through rivers and inland waterways,

and may occasionally carry commodities or

cargos through oceans and seas when in

transit from one inland waterway to another.

Closed-top hopper barges are not designed to

carry liquid commodities or cargos and are

typically used to transport corn, wheat, soy

beans, oats, soy meal, animal pellets, and

similar commodities or cargos. The

commodities or cargos transported come in

direct contact with the hopper interior. The

basic types of tops on closed-top hopper

barges are telescoping rolls, steel lift covers,

and fiberglass lift covers.

COD—Chemical oxygen demand—A nonconventional bulk parameter that measures

the oxygen-consuming capacity of refractory

organic and inorganic matter present in water

or wastewater. COD is expressed as the

amount of oxygen consumed from a chemical

oxidant in a specific test, see Methods 410.1

through 401.4.

COMMODITY—Any chemical, material, or

substance transported in a tank truck, closedtop hopper truck, intermodal tank container,

rail tank car, closed-top hopper rail car, tank

barge, closed-top hopper barge, ocean/sea

tanker, or similar tank that comes in direct

contact with the chemical, material, or

substance. A commodity may also be referred

to as a cargo.

CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS—The

pollutants identified in Section 304(a)(4) of

the CWA and the regulations thereunder

(biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total

suspended solids (TSS), oil and grease, fecal

Commentors, and pH).

CWA—CLEAN WATER ACT—The Federal

Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of

1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), as amended.

CWA—Centralized Waste Treaters Effluent

Guideline.

DIRECT DISCHARGER—A facility that

conveys or may convey untreated or facilitytreated process wastewater or nonprocess

wastewater directly into waters of the United

States, such as rivers, lakes, or oceans. (See

United States Surface Waters definition.)

DRUM—A metal or plastic cylindrical

container with either an open-head or a tighthead (also known as bung-type top) used to

hold liquid, solid, or gaseous commodities or

cargos which are in direct contact with the

container interior. Drums typically range in

capacity from 30 to 55 gallons.

FOOD GRADE CARGO—Food grade cargos

include edible and non-edible food products.

Specific examples of food grade products

include but are not limited to: alcoholic

beverages, animal by-products, animal fats,

animal oils, caramel, caramel coloring,

chocolate, corn syrup and other corn

products, dairy products, dietary

supplements, eggs, flavorings, food

preservatives, food products that are not

suitable for human consumption, fruit juices,

honey, lard, molasses, non-alcoholic

beverages, salt, sugars, sweeteners, tallow,

vegetable oils, vinegar, and pool water.

HEEL—Any material remaining in a tank

or container following unloading, delivery, or

discharge of the transported cargo. Heels may

also be referred to as container residue,

residual materials or residuals.

HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL

(HEM)—A method-defined parameter that

measures the presence of relatively

nonvolatile hydrocarbons, vegetable oils,

animal fats, waxes, soaps, greases, and

related materials that are extractable in the

solvent n-hexane. See Method 1664.

HEM is also referred to as oil and grease.

INDIRECT DISCHARGER-A facility that

discharges or may discharge pollutants into

a publicly-owned treatment works.

INTERMEDIATE BULK CONTAINER (IBC

OR TOTE)—A completely enclosed storage

vessel used to hold liquid, solid, or gaseous

commodities or cargos which are in direct

contact with the tank interior. Intermediate

bulk containers may be loaded onto flat beds

for either truck or rail transport, or onto ship

decks for water transport. IBCs are portable

containers with 450 liters (119 gallons) to

3000 liters (793 gallons) capacity. IBCs are

also commonly referred to as totes or tote

bins.

INTERMODAL TANK CONTAINER—A

completely enclosed storage vessel used to

hold liquid, solid, or gaseous commodities or

cargos which come in direct contact with the

tank interior. Intermodal tank containers may

be loaded onto flat beds for either truck or

rail transport, or onto ship decks for water

transport. Containers larger than 3000 liters

capacity are considered intermodal tank

containers. Containers smaller than 3000

liters capacity are considered IBCs.

LTA—LONG-TERM AVERAGE—For

purposes of the effluent guidelines, average

pollutant levels achieved over a period of

time by a facility, subcategory, or technology

option. LTAs were used in developing the

limitations and standards in today’s final

regulation.

NEW SOURCE—‘‘New source’’ is defined

at 40 CFR 122.2 and 122.29(b).

NON-CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT—

Pollutants other than those specifically

defined as conventional pollutants

(identified in Section 304(a)(4) of the Clean

Water Act) or priority pollutants (identified

in 40 CFR Part 423, Appendix A).

NON-DETECT VALUE—A concentrationbased measurement reported below the

sample specific detection limit that can

reliably be measured by the analytical

method for the pollutant.

NON-POLAR MATERIAL—A methoddefined parameter that measures the

presence of mineral oils that are extractable

in the solvent n-hexane and not absorbed by

silica gel. See Method 1664.

NPDES—The National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System authorized under Section

402 of the CWA. NPDES requires permits for

discharge of pollutants from any point source

into waters of the United States.

NONPROCESS WASTEWATER—

Wastewater that is not generated from

industrial processes or that does not come

into contact with process wastewater.

Nonprocess wastewater includes, but is not

limited to, wastewater generated from

restrooms, cafeterias, and showers.

NSPS—New Source Performance

Standards, under Section 306 of the CWA.

OCEAN/SEA TANKER—A self- or nonself-propelled vessel constructed or adapted

to transport commodities or cargos in bulk in

cargo spaces (or tanks) through oceans and

seas, where the commodity or cargo carried

comes in direct contact with the tank

interior. There are no maximum or minimum

vessel or tank volumes.

OFF SITE—‘‘Off site’’ means outside the

contiguous and non-contiguous established

boundaries of the facility.

OIL AND GREASE—A method-defined

parameter that measures the presence of

relatively nonvolatile hydrocarbons,

vegetable oils, animal fats, waxes, soaps,

greases, and related materials that are

extractable in either n-hexane (referred to as

HEM, see Method 1664) or Freon 113 (1,1,2-

tricholoro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane, see Method

413.1). Data collected by EPA in support of

the TEC effluent guideline utilized method

1664.

49700 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

ON SITE—‘‘On site’’ means within the

contiguous and non-contiguous established

boundaries of the facility.

PETROLEUM CARGO—Petroleum cargos

include the products of the fractionation or

straight distillation of crude oil, redistillation

of unfinished petroleum derivatives,

cracking, or other refining processes. For

purposes of this rule, petroleum cargos also

include products obtained from the refining

or processing of natural gas and coal. For

purposes of this rule, specific examples of

petroleum products include but are not

limited to: asphalt; benzene; coal tar; crude

oil; cutting oil; ethyl benzene; diesel fuel;

fuel additives; fuel oils; gasoline; greases;

heavy, medium, and light oils; hydraulic

fluids, jet fuel; kerosene; liquid petroleum

gases (LPG) including butane and propane;

lubrication oils; mineral spirits; naphtha;

olefin, paraffin, and other waxes; tall oil; tar;

toluene; xylene; and waste oil.

POTW—Publicly-owned treatment works,

as defined at 40 CFR 403.3(0).

PRETREATMENT STANDARD—A

regulation that establishes industrial

wastewater effluent quality required for

discharge to a POTW. (CWA Section 307(b).)

PRIORITY POLLUTANTS—The pollutants

designated by EPA as priority in 40 CFR Part

423 Appendix A.

PSES—Pretreatment standards for existing

sources, under Section 307(b) of the CWA.

PSNS—Pretreatment standards for new

sources, under Section 307(b) and (c) of the

CWA.

RAIL TANK CAR—A completely enclosed

storage vessel pulled by a locomotive that is

used to transport liquid, solid, or gaseous

commodities or cargos over railway access

lines. A rail tank car storage vessel may have

one or more storage compartments and the

stored commodities or cargos come in direct

contact with the tank interior. There are no

maximum or minimum vessel or tank

volumes.

RCRA—Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (PL 94–580) of 1976, as

amended (42 U.S.C. 6901, et. seq.).

SILICA GEL TREATED HEXANE

EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL (SGT–HEM)—A

method-defined parameter that measures the

presence of mineral oils that are extractable

in the solvent n-hexane and not adsorbed by

silica gel. See Method 1664. SGT–HEM is

also referred to as non-polar material.

TANK—A generic term used to describe

any closed container used to transport

commodities or cargos. The commodities or

cargos transported come in direct contact

with the container interior, which is cleaned

by TEC facilities. Examples of containers

which are considered tanks include : tank

trucks, closed-top hopper trucks, intermodal

tank containers, rail tank cars, closed-top

hopper rail cars, tank barges, closed-top

hopper barges, and ocean/sea tankers.

Containers used to transport pre-packaged

materials are not considered tanks, nor are

55-gallon drums or pails or intermediate bulk

containers.

TANK BARGE—A non-self-propelled

vessel constructed or adapted primarily to

carry commodities or cargos in bulk in cargo

spaces (or tanks) through rivers and inland

waterways, and may occasionally carry

commodities or cargos through oceans and

seas when in transit from one inland

waterway to another. The commodities or

cargos transported are in direct contact with

the tank interior. There are no maximum or

minimum vessel or tank volumes.

TANK TRUCK—A motor-driven vehicle

with a completely enclosed storage vessel

used to transport liquid, solid or gaseous

materials over roads and highways. The

storage vessel or tank may be detachable, as

with tank trailers, or permanently attached.

The commodities or cargos transported come

in direct contact with the tank interior. A

tank truck may have one or more storage

compartments. There are no maximum or

minimum vessel or tank volumes. Tank

trucks are also commonly referred to as cargo

tanks or tankers.

TEC INDUSTRY—Transportation

Equipment Cleaning Industry.

TOTES OR TOTE BINS—A completely

enclosed storage vessel used to hold liquid,

solid, or gaseous commodities or cargos

which come in direct contact with the vessel

interior. Totes may be loaded onto flat beds

for either truck or rail transport, or onto ship

decks for water transport. There are no

maximum or minimum values for tote

volumes, although larger containers are

generally considered to be intermodal tank

containers. Totes or tote bins are also referred

to as intermediate bulk containers or IBCs.

Fifty-five gallon drums and pails are not

considered totes or tote bins.

TSS—TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS—A

measure of the amount of particulate matter

that is suspended in a water sample. The

measure is obtained by filtering a water

sample of known volume. The particulate

material retained on the filter is then dried

and weighed, see Method 160.2.

VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS

(VOCs)—Any compound of carbon,

excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide,

carbonic acid, metallic carbides or

carbonates, and ammonium carbonate, which

participates in atmospheric photochemical

reactions. See 40 CFR Part 51.100 for

additional detail and exclusions

ZERO DISCHARGE FACILITY—Facilities

that do not discharge pollutants to waters of

the United States or to a POTW. Also

included in this definition are discharge of

pollutants by way of evaporation, deep-well

injection, off-site transfer to a treatment

facility, and land application.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 442

Environmental protection, Barge

cleaning, Rail tank cleaning, Tank

cleaning, Transportation equipment

cleaning, Waste treatment and disposal,

Water pollution control.

Dated: June 15, 2000.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

Accordingly, part 442 is added to 40

CFR chapter I to read as follows:

PART 442—TRANSPORTATION

EQUIPMENT CLEANING POINT

SOURCE CATEGORY

Sec.

442.1 General applicability.

442.2 General definitions.

442.3 General pretreatment standards.

Subpart A—Tank Trucks and Intermodal

Tank Containers Transporting Chemical

and Petroleum Cargos

442.10 Applicability.

442.11 Effluent limitations attainable by the

application of best practicable control

technology currently available (BPT).

442.12 Effluent limitations attainable by the

best conventional pollutant control

technology (BCT).

442.13 Effluent limitations attainable by the

application of best available technology

economically achievable (BAT).

442.14 New source performance standards

(NSPS).

442.15 Pretreatment standards for existing

sources (PSES).

442.16 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS).

Subpart B—Rail Tank Cars Transporting

Chemical and Petroleum Cargos

442.20 Applicability.

442.21 Effluent limitations attainable by the

application of best practicable control

technology currently available (BPT).

442.22 Effluent limitations attainable by the

best conventional pollutant control

technology (BCT).

442.23 Effluent limitations attainable by the

application of best available technology

economically achievable (BAT).

442.24 New source performance standards

(NSPS).

442.25 Pretreatment standards for existing

sources (PSES).

442.26 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS).

Subpart C—Tank Barges and Ocean/Sea

Tankers Transporting Chemical and

Petroleum Cargos

442.30 Applicability.

442.31 Effluent limitations attainable by the

application of best practicable control

technology currently available (BPT).

442.32 Effluent limitations attainable by the

best conventional pollutant control

technology (BCT).

442.33 Effluent limitations attainable by the

application of best available technology

economically achievable (BAT).

442.34 New source performance standards

(NSPS).

442.35 Pretreatment standards for existing

sources (PSES).

442.36 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS).

Subpart D—Tanks Transporting Food Grade

Cargos

442.40 Applicability.

442.41 Effluent limitations attainable by the

application of best practicable control

technology currently available (BPT).

442.42 Effluent limitations attainable by the

best conventional pollutant control

technology (BCT).

442.43 Effluent limitations attainable by the

application of best available technology

economically achievable (BAT).

[Reserved]

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 49701

442.44 New source performance standards

(NSPS).

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316,

1317, 1318, 1342 and 1361.

§ 442.1 General applicability.

(a) As defined more specifically in

each subpart, and except for discharges

specified in paragraph (b) of this

section, this part applies to discharges

resulting from cleaning the interior of

tanks used to transport chemical,

petroleum or food grade cargos. This

part does not apply to facilities that

clean only the exteriors of

transportation equipment. Operations

which may be subject to this part

typically are reported under a wide

variety of Standard Industrial

Classification (SIC) codes. Several of the

most common SIC codes include: SIC

7699, SIC 4741, or SIC 4491 (1987 SIC

Manual).

(b) This part is not applicable to the

following discharges:

(1) Wastewaters associated with tank

cleanings operated in conjunction with

other industrial, commercial, or

Publicly Owned Treatment Works

(POTW) operations, provided that the

cleaning is limited to tanks that

previously contained raw materials, byproducts, or finished products that are

associated with the facility’s on-site

processes.

(2) Wastewaters resulting from

cleaning the interiors of drums,

intermediate bulk containers, or closedtop hoppers.

(3) Wastewater from a facility that

discharges less than 100,000 gallons per

year of transportation equipment

cleaning process wastewater.

§ 442.2 General definitions.

(a) In addition to the general

definitions and abbreviations at 40 CFR

part 401, the following definitions shall

apply to this part:

Chemical cargos mean, but are not

limited to, the following: latex, rubber,

plastics, plasticizers, resins, soaps,

detergents, surfactants, agricultural

chemicals and pesticides, hazardous

waste, organic chemicals including:

alcohols, aldehydes, formaldehydes,

phenols, peroxides, organic salts,

amines, amides, other nitrogen

compounds, other aromatic compounds,

aliphatic organic chemicals, glycols,

glycerines, and organic polymers;

refractory organic compounds

including: ketones, nitriles, organometallic compounds containing

chromium, cadmium, mercury, copper,

zinc; and inorganic chemicals

including: aluminum sulfate, ammonia,

ammonium nitrate, ammonium sulfate,

and bleach. Cargos which are not

considered to be food grade or

petroleum cargos are considered to be

chemical cargos.

Closed-top hopper means a

completely enclosed storage vessel used

to transport dry bulk cargos, either by

truck, rail, or barge. Closed-top hoppers

are not designed or constructed to carry

liquid cargos and are typically used to

transport grain, soybeans, soy meal,

soda ash, lime, fertilizer, plastic pellets,

flour, sugar, and similar commodities or

cargos. The cargos transported come in

direct contact with the hopper interior.

Closed-top hoppers are also commonly

referred to as dry bulk hoppers.

Drums mean metal or plastic

cylindrical containers with either an

open-head or a tight-head (also known

as bung-type top) used to hold liquid,

solid, or gaseous commodities or cargos

which are in direct contact with the

container interior. Drums typically

range in capacity from 30 to 55 gallons.

Food grade cargos mean edible and

non-edible food products. Specific

examples of food grade cargos include,

but are not limited to, the following:

alcoholic beverages, animal byproducts, animal fats, animal oils,

caramel, caramel coloring, chocolate,

corn syrup and other corn products,

dairy products, dietary supplements,

eggs, flavorings, food preservatives, food

products that are not suitable for human

consumption, fruit juices, honey, lard,

molasses, non-alcoholic beverages,

sweeteners, tallow, vegetable oils, and

vinegar.

Heel means any material remaining in

a tank following unloading, delivery, or

discharge of the transported cargo. Heels

may also be referred to as container

residue, residual materials or residuals.

Intermediate bulk container (‘‘IBC’’ or

‘‘Tote’’) means a completely enclosed

storage vessel used to hold liquid, solid,

or gaseous commodities or cargos which

are in direct contact with the container

interior. IBCs may be loaded onto flat

beds for either truck or rail transport, or

onto ship decks for water transport.

IBCs are portable containers with 450

liters (119 gallons) to 3000 liters (793

gallons) capacity. IBCs are also

commonly referred to as totes or tote

bins.

Intermodal tank container means a

completely enclosed storage vessel used

to hold liquid, solid, or gaseous

commodities or cargos which come in

direct contact with the tank interior.

Intermodal tank containers may be

loaded onto flat beds for either truck or

rail transport, or onto ship decks for

water transport. Containers larger than

3000 liters capacity are considered

intermodal tank containers. Containers

smaller than 3000 liters capacity are

considered IBCs.

Ocean/sea tanker means a self or nonself-propelled vessel constructed or

adapted to transport liquid, solid or

gaseous commodities or cargos in bulk

in cargo spaces (or tanks) through

oceans and seas, where the commodity

or cargo carried comes in direct contact

with the tank interior. There are no

maximum or minimum vessel or tank

volumes.

On-site means within the contiguous

and non-contiguous established

boundaries of a facility.

Petroleum cargos mean products of

the fractionation or straight distillation

of crude oil, redistillation of unfinished

petroleum derivatives, cracking, or other

refining processes. For purposes of this

rule, petroleum cargos also include

products obtained from the refining or

processing of natural gas and coal. For

purposes of this rule, specific examples

of petroleum products include but are

not limited to: asphalt; benzene; coal

tar; crude oil; cutting oil; ethyl benzene;

diesel fuel; fuel additives; fuel oils;

gasoline; greases; heavy, medium, and

light oils; hydraulic fluids, jet fuel;

kerosene; liquid petroleum gases (LPG)

including butane and propane;

lubrication oils; mineral spirits;

naphtha; olefin, paraffin, and other

waxes; tall oil; tar; toluene; xylene; and

waste oil.

Pollution Prevention Allowable

Discharge for this subpart means the

quantity of/concentrations of pollutants

in wastewaters being discharged to

publicly owned treatment works after a

facility has demonstrated compliance

with the Pollutant Management Plan

provisions in §§ 442.15(b), 442.16(b),

442.25(b), or 442.26(b) of this part.

Prerinse/presteam means a rinse,

typically with hot or cold water,

performed at the beginning of the

cleaning sequence to remove residual

material from the tank interior.

Presolve wash means the use of diesel,

kerosene, gasoline, or any other type of

fuel or solvent as a tank interior

cleaning solution.

Rail Tank Car means a completely

enclosed storage vessel pulled by a

locomotive that is used to transport

liquid, solid, or gaseous commodities or

cargos over railway access lines. A rail

tank car storage vessel may have one or

more storage compartments and the

stored commodities or cargos come in

direct contact with the tank interior.

There are no maximum or minimum

vessel or tank volumes.

Tank barge means a non-selfpropelled vessel constructed or adapted

primarily to carry liquid, solid or

gaseous commodities or cargos in bulk

49702 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

in cargo spaces (or tanks) through rivers

and inland waterways, and may

occasionally carry commodities or

cargos through oceans and seas when in

transit from one inland waterway to

another. The commodities or cargos

transported are in direct contact with

the tank interior. There are no

maximum or minimum vessel or tank

volumes.

Tank truck means a motor-driven

vehicle with a completely enclosed

storage vessel used to transport liquid,

solid or gaseous materials over roads

and highways. The storage vessel or

tank may be detachable, as with tank

trailers, or permanently attached. The

commodities or cargos transported come

in direct contact with the tank interior.

A tank truck may have one or more

storage compartments. There are no

maximum or minimum vessel or tank

volumes. Tank trucks are also

commonly referred to as cargo tanks or

tankers.

Transportation equipment cleaning

(TEC) process wastewater means all

wastewaters associated with cleaning

the interiors of tanks including: tank

trucks; rail tank cars; intermodal tank

containers; tank barges; and ocean/sea

tankers used to transport commodities

or cargos that come into direct contact

with the interior of the tank or

container. At those facilities that clean

tank interiors, TEC process wastewater

also includes wastewater generated from

washing vehicle exteriors, equipment

and floor washings, TEC-contaminated

stormwater, wastewater prerinse

cleaning solutions, chemical cleaning

solutions, and final rinse solutions. TEC

process wastewater is defined to include

only wastewater generated from a

regulated TEC subcategory. Therefore,

TEC process wastewater does not

include wastewater generated from

cleaning hopper cars, or from food grade

facilities discharging to a POTW.

Wastewater generated from cleaning

tank interiors for purposes of shipping

products (i.e., cleaned for purposes

other than maintenance and repair) is

considered TEC process wastewater.

Wastewater generated from cleaning

tank interiors for the purposes of

maintenance and repair on the tank is

not considered TEC process wastewater.

Facilities that clean tank interiors solely

for the purposes of repair and

maintenance are not regulated under

this Part.

(b) The parameters regulated in this

part and listed with approved methods

of analysis in Table IB at 40 CFR 136.3,

are defined as follows:

(1) BOD5 means 5-day biochemical

oxygen demand.

(2) Cadmium means total cadmium.

(3) Chromium means total chromium.

(4) Copper means total copper.

(5) Lead means total lead.

(6) Mercury means total mercury

(7) Nickel means total nickel.

(8) Oil and Grease (HEM) means oil

and grease (Hexane-Extractable

Material) measured by Method 1664.

(9) Non-polar material (SGT–HEM)

means the non-polar fraction of oil and

grease (Silica Gel Treated HexaneExtractable Material) measured by

Method 1664.

(10) TSS means total suspended

solids.

(11) Zinc means total zinc.

(c) The parameters regulated in this

part and listed with approved methods

of analysis in Table IC at 40 CFR 136.3,

are as follows:

(1) Fluoranthene.

(2) Phenanthrene.

§ 442.3 General pretreatment standards.

Any source subject to this part that

introduces process wastewater

pollutants into a publicly owned

treatment works (POTW) must comply

with 40 CFR part 403.

Subpart A—Tank Trucks and

Intermodal Tank Containers

Transporting Chemical and Petroleum

Cargos

§ 442.10 Applicability.

This subpart applies to discharges

resulting from the cleaning of tank

trucks and intermodal tank containers

which have been used to transport

chemical or petroleum cargos.

§ 442.11 Effluent limitations attainable by

the application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the application

of BPT:

(a) Effluent Limitations

Regulated parameterMaximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly

avg.1

BOD5 ............... 61 22

TSS ................. 58 26

Oil and grease

(HEM) .......... 36 16

Copper ............ 0.84 ....................

Mercury ........... 0.0031 ....................

pH ................... (2) (2)

1 Mg/L (ppm)

2Within 6 to 9 at all times.

§ 442.12 Effluent limitations attainable by

the application of the best conventional

pollutant control technology (BCT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the application

of BCT: Limitations for BOD5, TSS, oil

and grease (HEM) and pH are the same

as the corresponding limitation

specified in § 442.11.

§ 442.13 Effluent limitations attainable by

the application of best available technology

economically achievable (BAT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the application

of BAT: Limitations for copper,

mercury, and oil and grease (HEM) are

the same as the corresponding

limitation specified in § 442.11.

§ 442.14 New source performance

standards (NSPS).

Any new point source subject to this

subpart must achieve the following

performance standards: Standards for

BOD5, TSS, oil and grease (HEM),

copper, mercury, and pH are the same

as the corresponding limitation

specified in § 442.11.

§ 442.15 Pretreatment standards for

existing sources (PSES).

(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR

403.7 and 403.13 or in paragraph (b) of

this section, no later than August 14,

2003, any existing source subject to this

subpart which introduces pollutants

into a publicly owned treatment works

must achieve PSES as follows:

TABLE—PRETREATMENT STANDARDS

Regulated parameter Maximum

daily 1

Non-polar material (SGT–

HEM) ................................... 26

Copper .................................... 0.84

Mercury ................................... 0.0031

1 Mg/L (ppm).

(b) As an alternative to achieving

PSES as defined in paragraph (a) of this

section, any existing source subject to

paragraph (a) of this section may have

a pollution prevention allowable

discharge of wastewater pollutants, as

defined in § 442.2, if the source agrees

to control mechanism with the control

authority as follows:

(1) The discharger shall prepare a

Pollutant Management Plan that

satisfies the requirements as specified in

paragraph (b)(5) of this section, and the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 49703

discharger shall conduct its operations

in accordance with that plan.

(2) The discharger shall notify its

local control authority prior to renewing

or modifying its individual control

mechanism or pretreatment agreement

of its intent to achieve the pollution

prevention allowable discharge

pretreatment standard by submitting to

the local control authority a certification

statement of its intent to utilize a

Pollutant Management Plan as specified

in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. The

certification statement must be signed

by the responsible corporate officer as

defined in 40 CFR 403.12(l);

(3) The discharger shall submit a copy

of its Pollutant Management Plan as

described in paragraph (b)(1) of this

section to the appropriate control

authority at the time he/she applies to

renew, or modify its individual control

mechanism or pretreatment agreement;

and

(4) The discharger shall maintain at

the offices of the facility and make

available for inspection the Pollutant

Management Plan as described in

paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

(5) The Pollutant Manager Plan shall

include:

(i) procedures for identifying cargos,

the cleaning of which is likely to result

in discharges of pollutants that would

be incompatible with treatment at the

POTW;

(ii) for cargos identified as being

incompatible with treatment at the

POTW, the Plan shall provide that heels

be fully drained, segregated from other

wastewaters, and handled in an

appropriate manner;

(iii) for cargos identified as being

incompatible with treatment at the

POTW, the Plan shall provide that the

tank be prerinsed or presteamed as

appropriate and the wastewater

segregated from wastewaters to be

discharged to the POTW and handled in

an appropriate manner, where necessary

to ensure that they do not cause or

contribute to a discharge that would be

incompatible with treatment at the

POTW;

(iv) all spent cleaning solutions,

including interior caustic washes,

interior presolve washes, interior

detergent washes, interior acid washes,

and exterior acid brightener washes

shall be segregated from other

wastewaters and handled in an

appropriate manner, where necessary to

ensure that they do not cause or

contribute to a discharge that would be

incompatible with treatment at the

POTW;

(v) provisions for appropriate

recycling or reuse of cleaning agents;

(vi) provisions for minimizing the use

of toxic cleaning agents (solvents,

detergents, or other cleaning or

brightening solutions);

(vii) provisions for appropriate

recycling or reuse of segregated

wastewaters (including heels and

prerinse/pre-steam wastes);

(viii) provisions for off-site treatment

or disposal, or effective pre-treatment of

segregated wastewaters (including heels,

prerinse/pre-steam wastes, spent

cleaning solutions);

(ix) information on the volumes,

content, and chemical characteristics of

cleaning agents used in cleaning or

brightening operations; and

(x) provisions for maintaining

appropriate records of heel management

procedures, prerinse/pre-steam

management procedures, cleaning agent

management procedures, operator

training, and proper operation and

maintenance of any pre-treatment

system;

§ 442.16 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS).

(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR

403.7 and 403.13 or in paragraph (b) of

this section, any new source subject to

this subpart which introduces

pollutants into a publicly owned

treatment works must achieve PSNS as

follows:

TABLE—PRETREATMENT STANDARDS

Regulated parameter Maximum

daily 1

Non-polar material (SGT–

HEM) ................................... 26

Copper .................................... 0.84

Mercury ................................... 0.0031

1 Mg/L (ppm).

(b) As an alternative to achieving

PSNS as defined in paragraph (a) of this

section, any existing source subject to

paragraph (a) of this section may have

a pollution prevention allowable

discharge of wastewater pollutants, as

defined in § 442.2, if the source agrees

to a control mechanism with the control

authority as follows:

(1) The discharger shall prepare a

Pollutant Management Plan that

satisfies the requirements as specified in

paragraph (b)(5) of this section, and the

discharger shall conduct its operations

in accordance with that plan.

(2) The discharger shall notify its

local control authority prior to

obtaining, renewing, or modifying its

individual control mechanism or

pretreatment agreement of its intent to

achieve the pollution prevention

allowable discharge pretreatment

standard by submitting to the local

control authority a certification

statement of its intent to utilize a

Pollutant Management Plan as specified

in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. The

certification statement must be signed

by the responsible corporate officer as

defined in 40 CFR 403.12(l);

(3) The discharger shall submit a copy

of its Pollutant Management Plan as

described in paragraph (b)(1) of this

section to the appropriate control

authority at the time he/she applies to

renew, or modify its individual control

mechanism or pretreatment agreement;

and

(4) The discharger shall maintain at

the offices of the facility and make

available for inspection the Pollutant

Management Plan as described in

paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

(5) The Pollutant Management Plan

shall include:

(i) Procedures for identifying cargos,

the cleaning of which is likely to result

in discharges of pollutants that would

be incompatible with treatment at the

POTW;

(ii) For cargos identified as being

incompatible with treatment at the

POTW, the Plan shall provide that heels

be fully drained, segregated from other

wastewaters, and handled in an

appropriate manner;

(iii) For cargos identified as being

incompatible with treatment at the

POTW, the Plan shall provide that the

tank be prerinsed or presteamed as

appropriate and the wastewater

segregated from wastewaters to be

discharged to the POTW and handled in

an appropriate manner, where necessary

to ensure that they do not cause or

contribute to a discharge that would be

incompatible with treatment at the

POTW;

(iv) All spent cleaning solutions,

including interior caustic washes,

interior presolve washes, interior

detergent washes, interior acid washes,

and exterior acid brightener washes

shall be segregated from other

wastewaters and handled in an

appropriate manner, where necessary to

ensure that they do not cause or

contribute to a discharge that would be

incompatible with treatment at the

POTW;

(v) Provisions for appropriate

recycling or reuse of cleaning agents;

(vi) Provisions for minimizing the use

of toxic cleaning agents (solvents,

detergents, or other cleaning or

brightening solutions);

(vii) Provisions for appropriate

recycling or reuse of segregated

wastewaters (including heels and

prerinse/pre-steam wastes);

(viii) Provisions for off-site treatment

or disposal, or effective pre-treatment of

49704 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

segregated wastewaters (including heels,

prerinse/pre-steam wastes, spent

cleaning solutions);

(ix) Information on the volumes,

content, and chemical characteristics of

cleaning agents used in cleaning or

brightening operations; and

(x) Provisions for maintaining

appropriate records of heel management

procedures, prerinse/pre-steam

management procedures, cleaning agent

management procedures, operator

training, and proper operation and

maintenance of any pre-treatment

system;

Subpart B—Rail Tank Cars

Transporting Chemical and Petroleum

Cargos

§ 442.20 Applicability.

This subpart applies to discharges

resulting from the cleaning of rail tank

cars which have been used to transport

chemical or petroleum cargos.

§ 442.21 Effluent limitations attainable by

the application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the application

of BPT:

TABLE—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

Regulated parameterMaximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly

avg.1

BOD5 ............... 61 22

TSS ................. 58 26

Oil and grease

(HEM) .......... 36 16

Fluoranthene ... 0.076

Phenanthrene 0.34

pH ................... (2) (2)

1 Mg/L (ppm).

2Within 6 to 9 at all times.

§ 442.22 Effluent limitations attainable by

the application of the best conventional

pollutant control technology (BCT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the application

of BCT: Limitations for BOD5, TSS, oil

and grease (HEM) and pH are the same

as the corresponding limitation

specified in § 442.21.

§ 442.23 Effluent limitations attainable by

the application of best available technology

economically achievable (BAT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the application

of BAT: Limitations for fluoranthene,

phenanthrene, and oil and grease (HEM)

are the same as the corresponding

limitation specified in § 442.21.

§ 442.24 New source performance

standards (NSPS).

Any new point source subject to this

subpart must achieve the following

performance standards: Standards for

BOD5, TSS, oil and grease (HEM),

fluoranthene, phenanthrene and pH are

the same as the corresponding

limitation specified in § 442.21.

§ 442.25 Pretreatment standards for

existing sources (PSES).

(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR

403.7 and 403.13 or in paragraph (b) of

this section, no later than August 14,

2003 any existing source subject to this

subpart which introduces pollutants

into a publicly owned treatment works

must achieve PSES as follows:

TABLE—PRETREATMENT STANDARDS’

Regulated parameter Maximum

daily1

Non-polar material (SGT–

HEM) ................................... 26

Fluoranthene ........................... 0.076

Phenanthrene ......................... 0.34

1 Mg/L (ppm).

(b) As an alternative to achieving

PSES as defined in paragraph (a) of this

section, any existing source subject to

paragraph (a) of this section may have

a pollution prevention allowable

discharge of wastewater pollutants, as

defined in § 442.2, if the source agrees

to a control mechanism with the control

authority as follows:

(1) The discharger shall prepare a

Pollutant Management Plan that

satisfies the requirements as specified in

paragraph (b)(5) of this section, and the

discharger shall conduct its operations

in accordance with that plan.

(2) The discharger shall notify its

local control authority prior to renewing

or modifying its individual control

mechanism or pretreatment agreement

of its intent to achieve the pollution

prevention allowable discharge

pretreatment standard by submitting to

the local control authority a certification

statement of its intent to utilize a

Pollutant Management Plan as specified

in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. The

certification statement must be signed

by the responsible corporate officer as

defined in 40 CFR 403.12(l);

(3) The discharger shall submit a copy

of its Pollutant Management Plan as

described in paragraph (b)(1) of this

section to the appropriate control

authority at the time he/she applies to

renew, or modify its individual control

mechanism or pretreatment agreement;

and

(4) The discharger shall maintain at

the offices of the facility and make

available for inspection the Pollutant

Management Plan as described in

paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

(5) The Pollutant Management Plan

shall include:

(i) Procedures for identifying cargos,

the cleaning of which is likely to result

in discharges of pollutants that would

be incompatible with treatment at the

POTW;

(ii) For cargos identified as being

incompatible with treatment at the

POTW, the Plan shall provide that heels

be fully drained, segregated from other

wastewaters, and handled in an

appropriate manner;

(iii) For cargos identified as being

incompatible with treatment at the

POTW, the Plan shall provide that the

tank be prerinsed or presteamed as

appropriate and the wastewater

segregated from wastewaters to be

discharged to the POTW and handled in

an appropriate manner, where necessary

to ensure that they do not cause or

contribute to a discharge that would be

incompatible with treatment at the

POTW;

(iv) All spent cleaning solutions,

including interior caustic washes,

interior presolve washes, interior

detergent washes, interior acid washes,

and exterior acid brightener washes

shall be segregated from other

wastewaters and handled in an

appropriate manner, where necessary to

ensure that they do not cause or

contribute to a discharge that would be

incompatible with treatment at the

POTW;

(v) Provisions for appropriate

recycling or reuse of cleaning agents;

(vi) Provisions for minimizing the use

of toxic cleaning agents (solvents,

detergents, or other cleaning or

brightening solutions);

(vii) Provisions for appropriate

recycling or reuse of segregated

wastewaters (including heels and

prerinse/pre-steam wastes);

(viii) Provisions for off-site treatment

or disposal, or effective pre-treatment of

segregated wastewaters (including heels,

prerinse/pre-steam wastes, spent

cleaning solutions);

(ix) Information on the volumes,

content, and chemical characteristics of

cleaning agents used in cleaning or

brightening operations; and

(x) Provisions for maintaining

appropriate records of heel management

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 49705

procedures, prerinse/pre-steam

management procedures, cleaning agent

management procedures, operator

training, and proper operation and

maintenance of any pre-treatment

system;

§ 442.26 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS).

(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR

403.7 and 403.13 or in paragraph (b) of

this section, any new source subject to

this subpart which introduces

pollutants into a publicly owned

treatment works must achieve PSNS as

follows:

TABLE—PRETREATMENT STANDARDS

Regulated parameter Maximum

daily1

Non-polar material (SGT–

HEM) ................................... 26

Fluoranthene ........................... 0.076

Phenanthrene ......................... 0.34

1 Mg/L (ppm).

(b) As an alternative to achieving

PSNS as defined in paragraph (a) of this

section, any new source subject to

paragraph (a) of this section may have

a pollution prevention allowable

discharge of wastewater pollutants, as

defined in § 442.2, if the source agrees

to a control mechanism with the control

authority as follows:

(1) The discharger shall prepare a

Pollutant Management Plan that

satisfies the requirements as specified in

paragraph (b)(5) of this section, and the

discharger shall conduct its operations

in accordance with that plan.

(2) The discharger shall notify its

local control authority prior to

obtaining, renewing, or modifying its

individual control mechanism or

pretreatment agreement of its intent to

achieve the pollution prevention

allowable discharge pretreatment

standard by submitting to the local

control authority a certification

statement of its intent to utilize a

Pollutant Management Plan as specified

in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. The

certification statement must be signed

by the responsible corporate officer as

defined in 40 CFR 403.12(l);

(3) The discharger shall submit a copy

of its Pollutant Management Plan as

described in paragraph (b)(1) of this

section to the appropriate control

authority at the time he/she applies to

obtain, renew, or modify its individual

control mechanism or pretreatment

agreement; and

(4) The discharger shall maintain at

the offices of the facility and make

available for inspection the Pollutant

Management Plan as described in

paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

(5) The Pollutant Management Plan

shall include:

(i) procedures for identifying cargos,

the cleaning of which is likely to result

in discharges of pollutants that would

be incompatible with treatment at the

POTW;

(ii) for cargos identified as being

incompatible with treatment at the

POTW, the Plan shall provide that heels

be fully drained, segregated from other

wastewaters, and handled in an

appropriate manner;

(iii) for cargos identified as being

incompatible with treatment at the

POTW, the Plan shall provide that the

tank be prerinsed or presteamed as

appropriate and the wastewater

segregated from wastewaters to be

discharged to the POTW and handled in

an appropriate manner, where necessary

to ensure that they do not cause or

contribute to a discharge that would be

incompatible with treatment at the

POTW;

(iv) all spent cleaning solutions,

including interior caustic washes,

interior presolve washes, interior

detergent washes, interior acid washes,

and exterior acid brightener washes

shall be segregated from other

wastewaters and handled in an

appropriate manner, where necessary to

ensure that they do not cause or

contribute to a discharge that would be

incompatible with treatment at the

POTW;

(v) provisions for appropriate

recycling or reuse of cleaning agents;

(vi) provisions for minimizing the use

of toxic cleaning agents (solvents,

detergents, or other cleaning or

brightening solutions);

(vii) provisions for appropriate

recycling or reuse of segregated

wastewaters (including heels and

prerinse/pre-steam wastes);

(viii) provisions for off-site treatment

or disposal, or effective pre-treatment of

segregated wastewaters (including heels,

prerinse/pre-steam wastes, spent

cleaning solutions);

(ix) information on the volumes,

content, and chemical characteristics of

cleaning agents used in cleaning or

brightening operations; and

(x) provisions for maintaining

appropriate records of heel management

procedures, prerinse/pre-steam

management procedures, cleaning agent

management procedures, operator

training, and proper operation and

maintenance of any pre-treatment

system;

Subpart C—Tank Barges and Ocean/

Sea Tankers Transporting Chemical

and Petroleum Cargos

§ 442.30 Applicability.

This subpart applies to discharges

resulting from the cleaning of tank

barges or ocean/sea tankers which have

been used to transport chemical or

petroleum cargos.

§ 442.31 Effluent limitations attainable by

the application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the application

of BPT:

TABLE—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

Regulated parameterMaximum

daily1

Maximum

monthly

avg.1

BOD5 ............... 61 22

TSS ................. 58 26

Oil and grease

(HEM) .......... 36 16

Cadmium ........ 0.020 ....................

Chromium ....... 0.42 ....................

Copper ............ 0.10 ....................

Lead ................ 0.14 ....................

Mercury ........... 0.0013 ....................

Nickel .............. 0.58 ....................

Zinc ................. 8.3 ....................

pH ................... (2) (2)

1 Mg/L (ppm).

2 Within 6 to 9 at all times.

§ 442.32 Effluent limitations attainable by

the application of the best conventional

pollutant control technology (BCT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the application

of BCT: Limitations for BOD5, TSS, oil

and grease (HEM) and pH are the same

as the corresponding limitation

specified in § 442.31.

§ 442.33 Effluent limitations attainable by

the application of best available technology

economically achievable (BAT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the application

of BAT: Limitations for cadmium,

chromium, copper, lead, mercury,

nickel, and zinc are the same as the

corresponding limitation specified in

§ 442.31.

49706 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

§ 442.34 New source performance

standards (NSPS).

Any new point source subject to this

subpart must achieve the following

performance standards: Standards for

BOD5, TSS, oil and grease (HEM),

cadmium, chromium, copper, lead,

mercury, nickel, zinc and pH are the

same as the corresponding limitation

specified in § 442.31.

§ 442.35 Pretreatment standards for

existing sources (PSES).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7

and 403.13, any existing source subject

to this subpart must achieve the

following pretreatment standards:

TABLE—PRETREATMENT STANDARDS

Regulated parameter Maximum

daily1

Non-polar material (SGT–

HEM) ................................... 26

Cadmium ................................ 0.020

Chromium ............................... 0.42

Copper .................................... 0.10

Lead ........................................ 0.14

Mercury ................................... 0.0013

Nickel ...................................... 0.58

Zinc ......................................... 8.3

1 Mg/L (ppm).

§ 442.36 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7,

any new source subject to this subpart

must achieve the following pretreatment

standards: Standards for non-polar

materials (SGT–HEM), cadmium,

chromium, copper, lead, mercury,

nickel and zinc are the same as the

corresponding standard specified in

§ 442.35.

Subpart D—Tanks Transporting Food

Grade Cargos

§ 442.40 Applicability.

This subpart applies to discharges

resulting from the cleaning of tank

trucks, intermodal tank containers, rail

tank cars, tank barges and ocean/sea

tankers which have been used to

transport food grade cargos. If

wastewater generated from cleaning

tanks used to transport food grade

cargos is mixed with wastewater

resulting from cleaning tanks used to

transport chemical or petroleum cargos,

then the combined wastewater is subject

to the provisions established for the

corresponding tanks (i.e., truck, railcar

or barge) in Subparts A, B, or C of this

part.

§ 442.41 Effluent limitations attainable by

the application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the application

of BPT:

TABLE—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

Regulated parameterMaximum

daily1

Maximum

monthly avg.1

BOD5 ............... 56 24

TSS ................. 230 86

Oil and grease

(HEM) .......... 20 8.8

pH ................... (2) (2)

1 Mg/L (ppm).

2Within 6 to 9 at all times.

§ 442.42 Effluent limitations attainable by

the application of the best conventional

pollutant control technology (BCT). s

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the application

of BCT: Limitations for BOD5, TSS, oil

& grease (HEM) and pH are the same as

the corresponding limitation specified

in § 442.41.

§ 442.43 Effluent limitations attainable by

the application of best available technology

economically achievable (BAT). [Reserved]

§ 442.44 New source performance

standards (NSPS).

Any new point source subject to this

subpart must achieve the following

performance standards: Standards for

BOD5, TSS, oil and grease (HEM) and

pH are the same as the corresponding

limitation specified in § 442.41.

[FR Doc. 00–15841 Filed 8–11–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F