81242 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 136 and 437

[FRL–6863–8]

RIN 2040–AB78

Effluent Limitations Guidelines,

Pretreatment Standards, and New

Source Performance Standards for the

Centralized Waste Treatment Point

Source Category

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule represents the

culmination of the Agency’s effort to

develop Clean Water Act (CWA) effluent

limitations guidelines and standards for

wastewater discharges from the

centralized waste treatment industry.

This final regulation generally applies to

wastewater discharges associated with

the operation of new and existing

centralized waste treatment facilities

which accept hazardous or nonhazardous industrial wastes,

wastewater, and/or used material from

off-site for treatment of the wastes and/

or recovery of materials from the wastes.

EPA expects compliance with this

regulation to reduce the discharge of

conventional pollutants by at least 9.7

million pounds per year and toxic and

non-conventional pollutants by at least

9.3 million pounds per year. EPA

estimates the annual cost of the rule will

be $35.1 million (pre-tax $1997). EPA

estimates that the annual benefits of the

rule will range from $2.56 million to

$8.09 million ($1997).

This final rule also amends EPA’s

Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures

for the Analysis of Pollutants (40 CFR

Part 136) to add 10 semivolatile organic

pollutants to Method 625 and 6

semivolatile organic pollutants to

Method 1625.

DATES: This regulation shall become

effective January 22, 2001. In

accordance with 40 CFR 23.2, this

action is considered promulgated for

purposes of judicial review as of 1 pm

Eastern Daylight Time on January 5,

2001.

ADDRESSES: The public record for this

rulemaking has been established under

docket number W–98–21 and is located

in the Water Docket, East Tower

Basement, 401 M St. SW, Washington,

DC 20460. The record is available for

inspection from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays. For access to the docket

materials, call (202) 260–3027 to

schedule an appointment. You may

have to pay a reasonable fee for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

technical information concerning

today’s final rule, contact Ms. Jan

Matuszko at (202) 260–9126 or Mr.

Timothy Connor at (202) 260–3164. For

economic information contact Dr.

William Wheeler at (202) 260–7905.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

Entities potentially regulated by this

action include facilities of the following

types that discharge pollutants to waters

of the U.S.:

Category Examples of regulated entities

Industry ............. • Discharges from stand-alone waste treatment and recovery facilities receiving materials from off-site. These facilities may

treat hazardous or non-hazardous waste, hazardous or non-hazardous wastewater, and/or used material from off-site, for

disposal, recycling, or recovery.

• Certain discharges from waste treatment systems at facilities primarily engaged in other industrial operations. Thus, industrial facilities which process their own, on-site generated, process wastewater with hazardous or non-hazardous wastes,

wastewaters, and/or used material received from off-site, in certain circumstances, may be subject to this rule with respect

to a portion of their discharge.

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 aware

could potentially be regulated by this

action. Other types of entities not listed

in the table could also be regulated. To

determine whether your facility is

regulated by this action, you should

carefully examine the applicability

criteria listed in Section 437.1 and the

definitions in Section 437.2 of the rule

and detailed further in Section V of this

preamble. If you still have questions

regarding the applicability of this action

to a particular entity (after consulting

Section V), consult one of the persons

listed for technical information in the

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section.

Compliance Dates

Existing direct dischargers must

comply with limitations based on the

best practicable technology currently

available, the best conventional

pollutant control technology, and the

best available technology economically

achievable as soon as their National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NDPES) permits includes such

limitations. Existing indirect dischargers

subject to today’s regulations must

comply with the pretreatment standards

for existing sources no later than

December 22, 2003. New direct and

indirect discharging sources must

comply with applicable guidelines and

standards on the date the new sources

begin discharging.

Supporting Documentation

The final regulations are supported by

several major documents:

1. ‘‘Development Document for Final

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and

Standards for the Centralized Waste

Treatment Industry’’ (EPA–821–R–00–

020) referred to in the preamble as the

final technical development document

(TDD). This TDD presents the technical

information that formed the basis for

EPA’s decisions concerning the final

rule. In it, EPA describes, among other

things, the data collection activities, the

wastewater treatment technology

options considered, the pollutants

found in CWT wastewaters, and the

estimation of costs to the industry to

comply with final limitations and

standards.

2. ‘‘Economic Analysis of Final

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and

Standards for the Centralized Waste

Treatment Industry’’ (EPA–821–R–00–

024) referred to in this preamble as the

Final EA. The EA estimates the

economic and financial costs of

compliance with the final regulation on

individual process lines, facilities and

companies.

3. ‘‘Detailed Costing Document for the

Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines

and Standards for the Centralized Waste

Treatment Industry’’ (EPA–821–R–00–

021) referred to in this preamble as the

Final Costing Document. This document

presents the methodology used to

estimate compliance costs for this final

rule.

4. ‘‘Cost Effectiveness Analysis of

Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines

and Standards for the Centralized Waste

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 81243

Treatment Industry’’ (EPA–821–R–00–

023) referred to in this preamble as the

Cost Effectiveness Report.

5. ‘‘Environmental Assessment for the

Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines

and Standards for the Centralized Waste

Treatment Industry’’ (EPA–821–R–00–

022) referred to as the Final

Environmental Assessment in this

preamble.

How To Obtain Supporting Documents

All of the supporting documents are

available from the Office of Water

Resource Center, MC–4100, U.S. EPA,

401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC

20460; telephone (202) 260–7786 for

publication requests.

Organization of This Document

I. Legal Authority

II. Background

A. Clean Water Act

1. Best Practicable Control Technology

Currently Available (BPT)—Section

304(b)(1) of the CWA

2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control

Technology (BCT)—Section 304(b)(4) of

the CWA

3. Best Available Technology Economically

Achievable (BAT)—Section 304(b)(2) of

the CWA

4. New Source Performance Standards

(NSPS)—Section 306 of the CWA

5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing

Sources (PSES) —Section 307(b) of the

CWA

6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources

(PSNS)—Section 307(b) of the CWA

B. Section 304(m) Requirements

C. The Land Disposal Restrictions Program

1. Introduction to RCRA Land Disposal

Restrictions (LDR)

2. Overlap Between LDR Standards and the

Centralized Waste Treatment Industry

Effluent Guidelines

III. Centralized Waste Treatment Industry

Effluent Guideline Rulemaking History

A. January 27, 1995 Proposal

B. September 16, 1996 Notice of Data

Availability

C. January 13, 1999 Supplemental Proposal

IV. Re-consideration of Significant Proposal

Issues and Summary of Significant

Changes Since Proposal

A. Oils Subcategory—Consideration of

Regulatory Options on the Basis of the

RCRA Classification of the Waste

Receipts

B. Consideration of Regulatory Options on

the Basis of Revenue

C. Consideration of Regulatory Options on

the Basis of Flow

D. Consideration of Indicator Parameters

for the Oils Subcategory

E. Consideration of Reduced Monitoring

for Small Businesses

F. Multiple Wastestream Subcategory

Consideration

G. Analytical Methods

H. Statistical Methodology Changes

1. Metals Option 4 Long-Term Average and

Limitations Calculations

2. Variability Factors

I. Significant Changes in Treatment

Technology Cost Estimates

1. RCRA Permit Modification Costs

Removed

2. Altered DAF Costs for Oils Subcategory

Includes Increased Holding Tank

Capacity

3. Nutrient Addition, Heating, and Sludge

Disposal Costs Included in the Organic

Subcategory Compliance Cost Estimates

J. Significant Changes in the Oils

Subcategory Loadings Estimates

K. Changes in POTW Percent Removal

Estimates

V. Scope/Applicability of the Regulation

A. Overview

B. Manufacturing Facilities

C. Pipeline Transfers (Fixed Delivery

Systems)

D. Product Stewardship

E. Federally Owned Facilities

F. Publicly Owned Treatment Works

(POTWs)

G. Marine Generated Wastes

H. Thermal Drying of POTW Biosolids

I. Transporters and/or Transportation

Equipment Cleaners

J. Landfill Wastewaters

K. Incineration Activities

L. Solids, Soils, and Sludges

M. Scrap Metal Recyclers or Auto Salvage

Operations

N. Transfer Stations

O. Stabilization/Solidification

P. Waste, Wastewater, or Used Material Reuse

Q. Recovery and Recycling Operations

R. Silver Recovery Operations from Used

Photographic and X-Ray Materials

S. High Temperature Metals Recovery

T. Solvent Recycling/Fuel Blending

U. Re-refining

V. Used Oil Filter and Oily Absorbent

Recycling

W. Grease Trap/Interceptor Wastes

X. Food Processing Wastes

Y. Sanitary Waste and/or Chemical Toilet

Wastes

Z. Treatability, Research and Development,

and Analytical Studies

VI. Subcategorization

VII. Industry Description

VIII. The Final Regulation

A. Best Practicable Control Technology

(BPT)

1. Subcategory A—Metals Subcategory

2. Subcategory B—Oils Subcategory

3. Subcategory C—Organics Subcategory

4. Subcategory D—Multiple Wastestream

Subcategory

B. Best Conventional Pollutant Control

Technology (BCT)

C. Best Available Technology

Economically Achievable (BAT)

D. New Source Performance Standards

(NSPS)

E. Pretreatment Standards for Existing

Sources (PSES)

F. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources

(PSNS)

IX. Compliance Cost and Pollutant Reduction

Estimates

A. Regulatory Costs

1. BPT Costs

2. BCT/BAT Costs

3. PSES Costs

B. Pollutant Reductions

1. Conventional Pollutant Reductions

2. Priority and Non-conventional Pollutant

Reductions

a. Direct Facility Discharges

b. PSES Effluent Discharges to POTWs

X. Economic Analyses

A. Introduction

B. Annualized Compliance Cost Estimate

C. Economic Description of the CWT

Industry and Baseline Conditions

D. Economic Impact and Closure

Methodology

1. Overview of Economic Impact

Methodology

2. Comments on Economic Methodology

E. Costs and Impacts of BPT

F. Results of BCT Cost Test

G. Costs and Economic Impacts of BAT

Options

H. Costs and Economic Impacts of PSES

Options

I. Economic Impacts for New Sources

J. Firm Level Impacts

K. Community Impacts

L. Foreign Trade Impacts

M. Small Business Analysis

N. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

XI. Water Quality Analyses and

Environmental Benefits

A. Reduced Human Health Cancer Risk

B. Reduced Lead Health Risk

C. Reduced Noncarcinogenic Human

Health Hazard

D. Improved Ecological Conditions and

Recreational Activity

E. Improved POTW Operations

F. Other Benefits Not Quantified

G. Summary of Benefits

XII. Non-Water Quality Environmental

Impacts

A. Air Pollution

B. Solid Waste

C. Energy Requirements

XIII. Regulatory Implementation

A. Implementation of the Limitations and

Standards

1. Introduction

2. Compliance Dates

3. Applicability

4. Subcategorization Determination

5. Implementation for Facilities in Multiple

CWT Subcategories

a. Comply with Limitations or Standards

for Subcategory A, B, and/or C

b. Comply with Limitations or Standards

for Subcategory D

6. Implementation for Metals Subcategory

Facilities with Cyanide Subset

7. Implementation for CWT Facilities

Subject to Multiple Effluent Limitations

Guidelines or Pretreatment Standards

8. Internal Monitoring Requirements

B. Upset and Bypass Provisions

C. Variances and Modifications

1. Fundamentally Different Factors (FDF)

Variances

2. Water Quality Variances

3. Permit Modifications

XIV. Related Acts of Congress, Executive

Orders and Agency Initiatives

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory

Planning and Review

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as

Amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

81244 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 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 limitations

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

pollutants under the guidelines program. BPT

guidelines continue to include limitations to

address all pollutants.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

E. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

G. The Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act

H. Executive Order 13084: Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

I. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

J. Submission to Congress and the General

Accounting Office

Appendix 1: Definitions, Acronyms, and

Abbreviations

I. Legal Authority

The U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency 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 that

restrict pollutant discharges for those

who discharge wastewater indirectly

through sewers flowing to publiclyowned treatment works (POTWs)

(Section 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

pretreatment 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 regulations, EPA defines BPT

effluent limits for conventional,

priority,1 and non-conventional

pollutants. In specifying BPT, EPA looks

at a number of factors. EPA first

considers the cost of achieving effluent

reductions in relation to the effluent

reduction benefits. The Agency also

considers the age of the equipment and

facilities, the processes employed and

any required process changes,

engineering aspects of the control

technologies, non-water quality

environmental impacts (including

energy requirements), and such other

factors as the Agency deems appropriate

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

establishes BPT effluent limitations

based on the average of the best

performances of facilities within the

industry of various ages, sizes, processes

or other common characteristic. 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 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 for

discharges from existing industrial point

sources. In addition to other factors

specified in Section 304(b)(4)(B), the

CWA requires that EPA establish BCT

limitations after consideration of a two

part ‘‘cost-reasonableness’’ test. EPA

explained its methodology for the

development of BCT limitations in July

1986 (51 FR 24974).

Section 304(a)(4) designates the

following as conventional pollutants:

biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5),

total suspended solids (TSS), fecal

coliform, pH, and any additional

pollutants defined by the Administrator

as conventional. The Administrator

designated oil and grease as an

additional conventional pollutant on

July 30, 1979 (44 FR 44501).

3. Best Available Technology

Economically Achievable (BAT)—

Section 304(b)(2) of the CWA

In general, BAT effluent limitations

guidelines represent the best

economically achievable performance of

plants in the industrial subcategory or

category. The factors considered in

assessing BAT include the cost of

achieving BAT effluent reductions, the

age of equipment and facilities

involved, the process employed,

potential process changes, and nonwater quality environmental impacts,

including energy requirements. The

Agency retains considerable discretion

in assigning the weight to be accorded

these factors. BAT limitations may be

based on effluent reductions attainable

through changes in a facility’s processes

and operations. As with BPT, where

existing performance is uniformly

inadequate, BAT may require a higher

level of performance than is currently

being achieved based on technology

transferred from a different subcategory

or category. BAT may be based upon

process changes or internal controls,

even when these technologies are not

common industry practice.

4. New Source Performance Standards

(NSPS)—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 most

stringent controls attainable through the

application of the best available 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.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 81245

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

(POTW). 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 for existing

sources are technology-based and

analogous to BAT effluent limitations

guidelines.

The General Pretreatment

Regulations, which set forth the

framework for the implementation of

national effluent guidelines and

standards, are found at 40 CFR Part 403.

Those regulations contain a definition of

pass-through that addresses localized

rather than national instances of passthrough and establish pretreatment

standards that apply to all non-domestic

discharges.

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. Section 304(m) Requirements

Section 304(m) of the CWA, added by

the Water Quality Act of 1987, requires

EPA to establish schedules for (1)

reviewing and revising existing effluent

limitations guidelines and standards

(‘‘effluent guidelines’’) and (2)

promulgating new effluent guidelines.

On January 2, 1990, EPA published an

Effluent Guidelines Plan (55 FR 80) that

established schedules for developing

new and revised effluent guidelines for

several industry categories. One of the

industries for which the Agency

established a schedule was the

Hazardous Waste Treatment Industry.

The Natural Resources Defense

Council (NRDC) and Public Citizen, Inc.

filed suit against the Agency, alleging

violation of Section 304(m) and other

statutory authorities requiring

promulgation of effluent guidelines

(NRDC et al. v. Reilly, Civ. No. 89–2980

(D.D.C.)). Under the terms of the consent

decree in that case, as amended, EPA

agreed, among other things, to propose

effluent guidelines for the ‘‘Centralized

Waste Treatment Industry’’ category by

April 31, 1994 and take final action by

August 2000.

C. The Land Disposal Restrictions

Program

1. Introduction to RCRA Land Disposal

Restrictions (LDR)

The Hazardous and Solid Waste

Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),

enacted on November 8, 1984, largely

prohibit the land disposal of untreated

hazardous wastes. Once a hazardous

waste is prohibited from land disposal,

the statute provides only two options for

legal land disposal: Meet the treatment

standard for the waste prior to land

disposal, or dispose of the waste in a

land disposal unit that has been found

to satisfy the statutory no-migration-test.

A no-migration-unit is one from which

there will be no migration of hazardous

constituents for as long as the waste

remains hazardous (RCRA Sections

3004(d),(e),(g)(5)).

Under section 3004, the treatment

standards that EPA develops may be

expressed as either constituent

concentration levels or as specific

methods of treatment. The criteria for

these standards is that they must

substantially diminish the toxicity of

the waste or substantially reduce the

likelihood of migration of hazardous

constituents from the waste so that

short-term and long-term threats to

human health and the environment are

minimized (RCRA Section 3004(m)(1)).

For purposes of the restrictions, the

RCRA program defines land disposal to

include any placement of hazardous

waste in a landfill, surface

impoundment, waste pile, injection

well, land treatment facility, salt dome

formation, salt bed formation, or

underground mine or cave. Land

disposal restrictions are published in 40

CFR Part 268.

EPA has used hazardous waste

treatability data as the basis for land

disposal restrictions standards. First,

EPA has identified Best Demonstrated

Available Treatment Technology

(BDAT) for each listed hazardous waste.

BDAT is that treatment technology that

EPA finds to be the most effective for a

waste, which is also readily available to

generators and treaters. In some cases,

EPA has designated, for a particular

wastestream, a treatment technology

which has been shown to successfully

treat a similar, but more difficult to

treat, wastestream. This ensured that the

land disposal restrictions standards for

a listed wastestream were achievable

since they always reflected the actual

treatability of the waste itself or of a

more refractory waste.

As part of the Land Disposal

Restrictions (LDR), Universal Treatment

Standards (UTS) were promulgated as

part of the RCRA phase two final rule

(July 27,1994). The UTS are a series of

concentrations for wastewaters and nonwastewaters that provide a single

treatment standard for each constituent.

Previously, the LDR regulated

constituents according to the identity of

the original waste; thus, several

numerical treatment standards might

exist for each constituent. The UTS

simplified the standards by having only

one treatment standard for each

constituent in any waste residue.

The LDR treatment standards

established under RCRA may differ from

the Clean Water Act effluent guidelines

published here today both in their

format and in the numerical values set

for each constituent. The differences

result from the use of different legal

criteria for developing the limits and

resulting differences in the technical

and economic criteria and data sets used

for establishing the respective limits.

The difference in format between the

LDR and effluent guidelines is that LDR

establishes a single daily limit for each

pollutant parameter whereas the

effluent guidelines generally establish

monthly and daily limits. Additionally,

the effluent guidelines provide for

several types of discharge, including

new vs. existing sources, and indirect

vs. direct discharge.

The differences in numerical limits

established under the Clean Water Act

may differ, not only from LDR and UTS,

but also from point-source category to

point-source category (for example,

Electroplating, 40 CFR Part 413; and

Metal Finishing, 40 CFR Part 433). The

effluent guidelines and standards are

industry-specific, subcategory-specific,

and technology-based. The numerical

limits are typically based on different

data sets that reflect the performance of

specific wastewater management and

treatment practices. Differences in the

limits reflect consideration of the CWA

statutory factors that the Administrator

is required to evaluate in developing

technically and economically

achievable limitations and standards. A

consequence of these differing

approaches is that similar wastestreams

can be regulated at different levels.

81246 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

2. Overlap Between LDR Standards and

the Centralized Waste Treatment

Industry Effluent Guidelines

EPA’s survey for this guideline

identified no facilities discharging

wastewater effluent to land disposal

units. There is, consequently, no

overlap between this regulation for the

CWT Industry and the Universal

Treatment Standards. Any CWT facility,

however, discharging effluent to a land

disposal unit that meets these

limitations and standards would meet

the Universal Treatment Standards.

III. Centralized Waste Treatment

Industry Effluent Guideline

Rulemaking History

A. January 27, 1995 Proposal

On January 27, 1995, EPA proposed

regulations (60 FR 5464) to reduce

discharges to navigable waters of toxic,

conventional, and non-conventional

pollutants in wastewater from facilities

defined in the proposal as ‘‘centralized

waste treatment facilities.’’ As proposed,

these effluent limitations guidelines and

standards would have applied to ‘‘any

facility that treats any hazardous or nonhazardous industrial waste received

from off-site by tanker truck, trailer/rolloff bins, drums, barge or other forms of

shipment.’’ The proposal did not extend

to facilities that received waste from offsite solely via pipeline. Facilities

proposed for regulation included both

stand-alone waste treatment and

recovery facilities that treat waste

received from off-site, as well as those

facilities that treat on-site generated

process wastewater with wastes

received from off-site.

The Agency proposed limitations and

standards for an estimated 85 facilities

in three subcategories. EPA proposed

limitations and standards for three

subcategories for the centralized waste

treatment (CWT) industry: metal-bearing

waste treatment and recovery, oily

waste treatment and recovery, and

organic waste treatment and recovery.

EPA based the BPT effluent limitations

proposed in 1995 on the technologies

listed in Table III.A–1 below. EPA based

BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS on

the same technologies as BPT.

TABLE III.A–1.—TECHNOLOGY BASIS FOR 1995 PROPOSAL

Proposed subpart Name of subcategory Technology basis

A ......................... Metal-Bearing Waste Treatment and Recovery ...................... Selective Metals Precipitation, Pressure Filtration, Secondary

Precipitation, Solid-Liquid Separation, and Tertiary Precipitation.

For Metal-Bearing Waste Which Includes Concentrated Cyanide Streams: Pretreatment by Alkaline Chlorination at Elevated Operating Conditions.

B ......................... Oily Waste Treatment and Recovery ....................................... Emulsion Breaking/Gravity Separation and Ultrafiltration; or

Emulsion Breaking/Gravity Separation, Ultrafiltration, Carbon Adsorption, and Reverse Osmosis.

C ......................... Organic Waste Treatment and Recovery ................................ Equalization, Air Stripping, Biological Treatment, and Multimedia Filtration.

B. September 16, 1996 Notice of Data

Availability

Based on comments received on the

1995 proposal and new information,

EPA reexamined its conclusions about

the Oily Waste Treatment and Recovery

subcategory, or ‘‘oils subcategory.’’ (The

1995 proposal had defined facilities in

this subcategory as ‘‘facilities that treat,

and/or recover oil from oily waste

received from off-site.’’) Subsequently,

in September 1996 EPA announced the

availability of the new data on this

subcategory (61 FR 48800). EPA

explained that it had underestimated

the size of the oils subcategory, and that

the data used to develop the original

proposal may have mischaracterized

this portion of the CWT industry. EPA

had based its original estimates on the

size of this segment of the industry on

information obtained from the 1991

Waste Treatment Industry

Questionnaire. The basis year for the

questionnaire was 1989. However, many

of the new oils facilities discussed in

this notice began operation after 1989.

EPA concluded that many of these

facilities may have started up or

modified their existing operations in

response to requirements in EPA

regulations, specifically, the provisions

of 40 CFR 279, promulgated on

September 10, 1992 (Standards for the

Management of Used Oil). These

regulations govern the handling of used

oils under the Solid Waste Disposal Act

and the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act (CERCLA). EPA’s 1996 notice

discussed the additional facilities,

provided a revised description of the

subcategory, and described how the

1995 proposal limitations and

standards, if promulgated, would have

affected such facilities. The notice,

among other items, also solicited

comments on the use of dissolved air

flotation as a treatment technology for

this subcategory.

C. January 13, 1999 Supplemental

Proposal

On January 13, 1999 (64 FR 2280),

EPA published a supplemental proposal

that represented the Agency’s second

look at Clean Water Act national

effluent guidelines and standards for

wastewater discharges from centralized

waste treatment facilities. The

supplemental proposal presented

revised limitations and standards based

on the new information obtained from

comments to the 1996 Notice of Data

Availability and additional field

sampling data. It also included changes

to the scope of the rule.

In the supplemental proposal, the

Agency proposed limitations and

standards that EPA estimated would

apply to 206 facilities in three

subcategories. These subcategories were

the same as those proposed in 1995:

metal-bearing waste treatment and

recovery, used/waste oil treatment and

recovery, and organic waste treatment.

EPA based the BPT effluent limitations

proposed in 1999 on different

technologies than those selected at the

time of the 1995 proposal. The

technology bases for the supplemental

proposal are listed in Table III.C–1

below.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 81247

TABLE III.C–1.—TECHNOLOGY BASIS FOR 1999 PROPOSAL

Proposed subpart Name of subcategory Technology basis

A ......................... Metal-Bearing Waste Treatment and Recovery ...................... Batch Precipitation, Liquid-Solid Separation, Secondary Precipitation, Clarification, and Sand Filtration.

For Metal-Bearing Waste Which Includes Concentrated Cyanide Streams: Alkaline Chlorination in a two step process.

B ......................... Used/Waste Oil Treatment and Recovery ............................... Emulsion Breaking/Gravity Separation, Secondary Gravity

Separation and Dissolved Air Flotation.

C ......................... Organic Waste Treatment ........................................................ Equalization and Biological Treatment.

For the metals subcategory, EPA

proposed limitations and standards for

BCT, BAT, and PSES based on the same

technologies as BPT, but based NSPS

and PSNS on a different technology:

selective metals precipitation, liquidsolid separation, secondary

precipitation, liquid-solid separation,

tertiary precipitation, and clarification.

For the oils subcategory, EPA

proposed to base BCT, BAT, NSPS, and

PSNS on the same technologies as BPT,

but based PSES on a different

technology: emulsion breaking/gravity

separation and dissolved air flotation.

For the organics subcategory, EPA

proposed to base BCT, BAT, NSPS,

PSES, and PSNS on the same

technologies as BPT.

IV. Re-Consideration of Significant

Proposal Issues and Summary of

Significant Changes Since Proposal

A. Oils Subcategory—Consideration of

Regulatory Options on the Basis of the

RCRA Classification of the Waste

Receipts

As explained in the 1999 proposal,

among other alternatives, EPA was

considering whether it should develop

limitations and standards for two

categories (rather than a single category)

of oils treatment facilities. The Small

Business Advocacy Review (SBAR)

Panel for this rule, convened by EPA in

November 1997, discussed this option.

For a detailed summary of the panel’s

findings and discussion, see the 1999

proposal and ‘‘Final Report of the

SBREFA Small Business Advocacy

Review Panel on EPA’s Planned

Proposed Rule for Effluent Limitations

Guidelines and Standards for the

Centralized Waste Treatment Industry’’

(DCN 21.5.1). Under this approach EPA

would establish different limitations

and standards for oils subcategory

facilities depending on whether they

treat RCRA subtitle C hazardous wastes

(either exclusively or in combination

with non-hazardous wastes) or treat

only non-hazardous wastes.

At the time of the SBAR Panel, EPA

had collected certain information on

facilities that treat a mixture of

hazardous and non-hazardous wastes as

well as facilities that treat nonhazardous wastes only. The bulk of the

data was from RCRA facilities treating

RCRA subtitle C hazardous waste

together with non-hazardous waste. The

data on wastestreams did not show a

significant difference in the types of

pollutants for the streams being treated

at RCRA and at non-RCRA permitted

facilities or the treatability of those

pollutants. Although the data did

suggest that pollutant concentrations

tended to be somewhat higher in raw

waste going to RCRA permitted

facilities, which in turn suggested that

treatment would be more cost-effective

at such facilities, the information EPA

had collected from non-RCRA permitted

facilities was insufficient to support the

conclusion that EPA should

differentiate between oils facilities on

the basis of RCRA classification of the

wastes treated at the facility.

Consequently, EPA did not propose

different regulatory requirements for

facilities based on distinctions between

hazardous and non-hazardous wastes.

EPA, following the SBAR panel,

collected wastewater samples at twelve

other facilities that treat only nonhazardous materials. EPA collected the

samples in order to broaden the

database with additional information on

the pollutant profiles of the wastes that

are treated at these facilities. While EPA

included the analytical results of the

sampling efforts in the Appendix of the

technical development document for the

proposal, EPA had not, at the time of the

proposal, reviewed the data in detail or

compared the data to the earlier data it

had collected. As the proposal also

explained, EPA planned to review the

data in detail and present a preliminary

assessment of its findings at a public

hearing during the comment period for

the proposal.

At a public hearing on February 18,

1999, EPA described the relevant

sampling data, the constraints of

evaluating this data, and a comparison

of data from hazardous and nonhazardous wastestreams. This data

showed that, while the mean and

median values of influent concentration

of hazardous wastestream data are

greater than for non-hazardous

wastestreams for most pollutants

examined, the ranges of concentration

for the hazardous and non-hazardous

wastestreams overlap for most

pollutants. In its presentation, EPA

indicated that it planned to re-examine

the oils subcategory in terms of

pollutant loadings, removals, limitations

and standards, costs, impacts, and

benefits. EPA requested comment on

this issue, and extended the comment

period for this issue to 30 days after the

public hearing. EPA’s presentation is

included in the public record for this

rulemaking as DCN 28.1.1. [Other

supporting information is in Section

28.]

Five commenters provided specific

input on basing regulatory options for

the oils subcategory on the RCRA

classification of the waste receipts. Two

commenters supported differentiation

on this basis. They asserted that there

are significant differences between

facilities that accept non-hazardous

wastes and those that accept a

combination of hazardous and nonhazardous waste in terms of pollutant

loadings and the number and type of

pollutants, the types of treatment

methods employed, and price

structures. Three commenters opposed

differentiation based on RCRA

classification. These commenters do not

believe that RCRA classification is a

critical distinction, but rather believe

that RCRA classification often has no

impact on the treatability of the waste

or final effluent quality. They

commented that non-hazardous waste

receipts have approximately the same

constituents as hazardous waste

receipts. From an environmental

perspective, they believe that it is

irrelevant whether the source of the

pollutants of concern is a hazardous or

non-hazardous facility.

EPA has reexamined this data using

the same standards it applied earlier in

this rulemaking for determining

pollutants of concern for this industry

(see Chapter 6 of the Final Technical

81248 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Development Document). Based on this

review, EPA determined that the

pollutants of concern for non-hazardous

facilities are largely the same as those

previously identified for the oils

subcategory (EPA had based its earlier

conclusion on data from facilities

processing a mix of hazardous and nonhazardous waste receipts).

EPA also looked to see if the

treatment technologies at strictly nonhazardous facilities differ from those at

facilities that accept both hazardous and

non-hazardous wastes. EPA’s database

shows that the range of treatment

technologies employed at both types of

facilities is similar.

Essentially, the only operational

difference EPA has observed between

hazardous and non-hazardous oils

treatment facilities is that hazardous oils

waste facilities treat wastes with higher

influent concentrations. EPA’s data

show that the average pollutant

concentrations in non-hazardous wastes

are lower than in hazardous wastes.

Consequently, pollutant loadings,

removals and treatment cost estimates

will differ to some extent depending on

the RCRA classification of the wastes

that are treated. As explained above,

however, both types of facilities treat for

the same pollutants and the

concentration ranges of these pollutants

overlap at hazardous and non-hazardous

operations. In these circumstances, the

characteristics of wastes treated at

hazardous operations do not require a

different treatment technology from that

used at non-hazardous operations. The

choice of treatment technology for a

particular facility is a function primarily

of the effluent concentration required,

not of any inherent differences in the

wastes being treated. As a result, EPA

concluded that there is no basis in the

chemistry of the wastewaters being

treated which supported development

of different limitations and standards for

hazardous and non-hazardous oils

facilities. Furthermore, after evaluating

treatment technology costs, EPA found

that the costs for RCRA permitted

facilities were equivalent to those for

non-RCRA facilities, although, as noted

above, loadings reductions at the nonRCRA permitted facilities will generally

be lower. Given these factors, EPA

decided that it should not develop

different limitations and standards for

RCRA hazardous and non-hazardous

oils facilities. DCN 33.1.1 discusses the

determination in more detail. EPA

notes, however, that its estimates of

loadings, removals, and revenue

generated from treating the different

types of wastes take account of

differences in the type of wastes treated.

B. Consideration of Regulatory Options

on the Basis of Revenue

As detailed in the 1999 proposal,

among other alternatives, EPA looked at

whether it should develop alternative

regulatory requirements for the oils

subcategory facilities based on revenue

because of potential adverse economic

consequences to small businesses. The

SBAR Panel, convened by EPA,

discussed this option. Among the

regulatory alternatives discussed by the

panel and detailed in the 1999 proposal

was limiting the scope of the rule to

minimize impacts. Under this approach,

EPA would not establish national

pretreatment standards for indirect

dischargers owned by small companies

with less than $6 million in annual

revenue. EPA did not propose to limit

the scope of the rule based on this

approach but did request comment on

the issue.

Concerning the recommendation that

EPA establish alternative limitations

and standards on the basis of revenue,

commenters largely supported EPA’s

conclusion that this approach should

not be adopted. Commenters stated that

small businesses should be subject to

the same standards and requirements as

other industrial users in this category

because:

• The limitations and standards are

economically achievable for small CWT

facilities;

• The perception that small CWT

facilities do not have the potential to

cause significant impacts to the

environment is not true;

• The quantity of pollutants present

and the toxicity of the pollutants are the

only relevant factors for determining

impacts to receiving streams and

POTWs from CWT discharges;

• The business size is irrelevant to

the impact of a facility’s discharges;

• A small facility can have as great an

impact on the environment as a large

facility;

• There would be no incentive to

ensure wastes are adequately treated at

all CWT facilities;

• Small facilities could operate at a

fraction of the cost (since they would

not have to meet the limitations and

standards) and capture more market

share leading to more wastes going to

the POTW untreated; and

• Large facilities could easily

manipulate their corporate structure to

take advantage of small business

exemptions.

None of the commenters supported a

small business exclusion, but a few

noted that EPA should look at reducing

monitoring requirements for small

businesses in order to reduce their costs

of compliance without compromising

effective treatment. None of the

commenters provided EPA with any

other suggestions on ways to mitigate

small business concerns that EPA had

not already considered. After careful

consideration of the comments and its

database, EPA has decided that it

should not limit the scope of today’s

rule based on revenue . EPA did

reassess the costs for all of the

alternatives discussed in the proposal

for the final rule. Chapter 8 of the Final

EA includes a full presentation of the

costs of the alternatives.

C. Consideration of Regulatory Options

on the Basis of Flow

As detailed in the 1999 proposal,

among other alternatives, EPA looked at

whether it should develop alternative

regulatory requirements for the oils

subcategory facilities based on

wastewater flow level because of

potential adverse economic

consequences to small businesses. The

SBAR Panel, convened by EPA,

discussed this option. Among the

regulatory alternatives discussed by the

panel and detailed in the 1999 proposal

was limiting the scope of the rule to

minimize impacts. Under this approach,

EPA would not establish national

pretreatment standards for indirect oils

dischargers with flows under 3.5

million gallons per year, or alternately

for non-hazardous oils facilities with

flows under either 3.5 or 7.5 MGY. The

SBAR Panel noted, in particular, that

excluding indirect dischargers with

flows of less than 3.5 MGY would

significantly reduce the economic

impact of the rule on small businesses

while reducing pollutant removals by an

estimated 6%. (See Section X.M of this

preamble for a more detailed discussion

of regulatory flexibility options and

their projected impacts.) EPA did not

propose to limit the scope of the rule

based on these approaches but did

request comment on the issue.

Concerning the recommendation that

EPA establish alternative limitations

and standards on the basis of flow,

commenters largely supported EPA’s

conclusion that this approach should

not be adopted. Commenters stated that

low flow facilities should be subject to

the same standards and requirements as

other industrial users in this category

because:

• The perception that small CWT

facilities do not have the potential to

cause significant impacts to the

environment is not true;

• The amount of pollutants in

wastewater for a CWT facility is not a

function solely of the volume of wastes

that the facility receives;

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 81249

• The quantity of pollutants present

and the toxicity of the pollutants are the

only relevant factors for determining

impacts to receiving streams and

POTWs from CWT discharges;

• A small facility can have as great an

impact on the environment as a large

facility;

• There would be no incentive to

ensure wastes are adequately treated at

all CWT facilities; and

• Small facilities could operate at a

fraction of the cost (since they would

not have to meet the limitations and

standards) and capture more market

share leading to more wastes going to

the POTW untreated.

None of the commenters supported an

exclusion based on flow, but a few

noted that EPA should look at reducing

monitoring requirements for small

businesses in order to reduce their costs

of compliance without compromising

effective treatment. None of the

commenters provided EPA with any

other suggestions on ways to mitigate

small business concerns that EPA had

not already considered. After careful

consideration of the comments and its

database, EPA has decided that it

should not limit the scope of today’s

rule based on flow. EPA did reassess the

costs for all of the alternatives discussed

in the proposal for the final rule.

Chapter 8 of the Final EA includes a full

presentation of the costs of the

alternatives.

D. Consideration of Indicator

Parameters for the Oils Subcategory

As detailed in the proposal, EPA

looked at various ways to reduce the

costs of this rule (particularly the costs

to small businesses) while ensuring

proper treatment of off-site wastes. One

of the options considered by EPA and

discussed in the proposal was providing

an alternative compliance-monitoring

regime for indirect discharging facilities.

Under this alternative monitoring

approach, facilities could choose to (1)

monitor for all regulated pollutants, or

(2) monitor for the conventional

parameters, metal parameters, and

monitor for the regulated organic

pollutants in this subcategory using an

indicator parameter such as hexane

extractable material (HEM) or silica gel

treated-hexane extractable material

(SGT–HEM). The proposal further noted

that EPA was conducting a study to

determine which organic pollutants are

measured by SGT–HEM and HEM and

solicited comment on the use of

indicator parameters.

Many commenters responded to

EPA’s request with essentially an

equivalent number opposing and

favoring the use of indicator parameters.

The commenters that supported its use

cited the decreased analytical costs and

the wide range of organic compounds

that can be measured with these

analyses. Commenters that did not

support the use of SGT–HEM or HEM as

indicator pollutants raised a number of

concerns including the following:

• These measurements are nonspecific and highly subject to

interferences;

• No direct and quantified correlation

has ever been developed between HEM

(or SGT–HEM) and specific organic

pollutants;

• There is no evidence that regulating

HEM or SGT–HEM would result in

adequate regulation of toxics;

• The determination has not been

made that the organic pollutants of

interest are measured by either HEM or

SGT–HEM; and

• SGT–HEM does not measure all of

the regulated pollutants, particularly

polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).

None of the commenters suggested

possible alternative indicator

parameters.

During its development of proposed

effluent limitations guidelines and

pretreatment standards for the industrial

laundries point source category, EPA

evaluated the suitability of SGT–HEM

and HEM as indicator parameters for

that rulemaking. EPA presented the

results of its study in a Notice of Data

Availability on December 23, 1998 (63

FR 71054). In the study, EPA attempted

to identify compounds present in HEM/

SGT–HEM extracts from industrial

laundry wastewaters using gas

chromatography/mass spectroscopy

(GC/MS) in order to determine which

pollutants of concern might be

components of, and therefore measured

by, HEM or SGT–HEM. However, EPA

was only able to identify approximately

two percent of the constituents present

in the wastestream. Most of these

constituents identified were alkanes. In

general, the data from this study also do

not support the use of SGT–HEM as an

appropriate indicator parameter for the

organic pollutants present in CWT

wastewaters since few of these

pollutants were identified in the HEM/

SGT–HEM extract.

As part of its consideration of the use

of an indicator parameter for this rule,

EPA again reviewed the data from the

industrial laundries study as well as the

data collected here. EPA statistically

analyzed the relationship between seven

organic pollutants and SGT–HEM or

HEM. EPA’s data show general trends of

increasing concentrations of HEM and

SGT–HEM with increasing

concentrations of organic pollutants.

However, the data demonstrate

substantial variability and, despite this

general trend, EPA noted that the nondetected values for organics were

associated with just about every level of

HEM and SGT–HEM and conversely,

that high levels of some organic

pollutants were associated with low

levels of HEM/SGT–HEM. As a result,

EPA cannot demonstrate that

establishing a numerical limit for SGT–

HEM or HEM would provide consistent

control of the organic pollutants by the

model treatment technologies.

Therefore, while EPA is cognizant of

the cost savings that can be achieved in

some instances by using indicator

parameters, EPA has rejected this

alternative monitoring approach for

CWT wastewaters.

E. Consideration of Reduced Monitoring

for Small Businesses

Another alternative discussed in the

proposal which could reduce costs to

small businesses was to develop

different limitations and pretreatment

standards for small businesses based on

an assumption of less frequent

monitoring for facilities owned and

operated by small businesses. The

proposal explained that there were three

major issues presented by this approach.

First, EPA NDPES and pretreatment

regulations (applicable to Stateauthorized program as well) do not

require facilities to indicate whether

they are small or large businesses in

obtaining NPDES or POTW local

pretreatment program discharge

permits. EPA was concerned about the

manner in which the small business

determination could be made. Second,

EPA does not generally establish

nationally applicable monitoring

frequency requirements. EPA expressed

concern that permitting authorities

would be reluctant to reduce monitoring

frequencies on EPA’s recommendation

alone. Third, while the technology basis

and the long-term averages for the

limitations would be the same, the

monthly average limitations based upon

reduced monitoring assumptions would

be higher. EPA expressed concern that

higher monthly average limitations for

facilities with less frequent required

monitoring might allow these facilities

to target a less stringent level of

treatment than that reflected by the

long-term average. EPA solicited

comment on all these issues as well as

ways to ensure that any monitoring

relief the Agency might provide would

not jeopardize treatment performance or

the environment.

EPA only received direct comments

on this issue from state and local control

authorities. These commenters did not

support reduced monitoring frequencies

81250 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

for small businesses. They believe that

the control authority should continue to

establish monitoring frequencies on a

case by case basis taking into account

the probable impact of the discharge to

the surface water or POTW, compliance

history of the facility, and other relevant

factors. Further they expressed concern

over the burden of verifying and

maintaining the confidentiality of the

economic information provided by

facilities claiming the small business

status.

Therefore, after careful consideration

of comments and its database, EPA has

rejected adopting alternative limitations

and standards based on reduced

monitoring requirements for small

businesses.

F. Multiple Wastestream Subcategory

Consideration

In the 1999 proposal, EPA proposed

to establish limitations and standards

for three subcategories of CWT facilities:

facilities treating either metal, oily, or

organic wastes and wastewater. Section

VII of the proposal detailed this

subcategorization scheme. See 64 FR

2300 (1999). While EPA did not propose

limitations and standards for a multiple

wastestream subcategory, the proposal

did discuss EPA’s consideration of a

multiple wastestream subcategory. The

proposal explained that multiple

wastestream subcategory limitations, if

adopted, would apply to facilities that

treat wastes in more than one

subcategory. EPA would establish

limitations and standards for the

multiple wastestream subcategory by

combining pollutant limitations from

the three subcategories, where relevant,

and selecting the most stringent value

where they overlap.

EPA’s consideration of this option

responded to comments to the 1995

proposal and the 1996 Notice of Data

Availability. The primary reason some

members of the waste treatment

industry favored development of a

multiple wastestream subcategory was

to simplify implementation for facilities

treating wastes covered by multiple

subcategories. As detailed in the

proposal, EPA’s primary reason for not

proposing (and adopting) this option

was its concern that facilities that accept

wastes in multiple subcategories need to

provide effective treatment of all waste

receipts. This concern was based on

EPA’s data that showed such facilities

did not currently have adequate

treatment-in-place. While these facilities

meet their permit limitations, EPA

concluded that compliance was likely

achieved through co-dilution of

dissimilar wastes rather than treatment.

As a result, EPA determined that

adoption of ‘‘multiple wastestream

subcategory’’ limitations as described

above could arguably encourage

ineffective treatment.

EPA solicited comments on ways to

develop a ‘‘multiple wastestream

subcategory’’ which ensures treatment

rather than dilution. The vast majority

of comments on the 1999 proposal

supported the establishment of a

multiple wastestream subcategory for

this rule, and re-iterated their concerns

about implementing the threesubcategory scheme at multiplesubcategory facilities. One commenter

suggested a way to implement a fourth

subcategory while ensuring treatment.

This commenter suggested that EPA

follow the approach taken for the

Pesticide Formulating, Packaging and

Repackaging (PFPR) Point Source

category (40 CFR Part 455). Under this

approach, multiple wastestream

subcategory facilities would have the

option of (1) monitoring for compliance

with the appropriate subcategory

limitations after each treatment step or

(2) monitoring for compliance with the

multiple wastestream subcategory

limitations at a combined discharge

point and certifying that equivalent

treatment to that which would be

required for each subcategory waste

separately is installed and properly

designed, maintained, and operated.

This option would eliminate the use of

the combined wastestream formula or

building block approach in calculating

limits or standards for multiple

wastestream subcategory CWT facilities

(The combined wastestream formula

and the building block approach are

discussed in more detail in Chapter 14

of the Final Technical Development

Document). Commenters suggested that

an equivalent treatment system could be

defined as a wastewater treatment

system that is demonstrated to achieve

comparable removals to the treatment

system on which EPA based the

limitations and standards. Ways of

demonstrating equivalence might

include data from recognized sources of

information on pollution control,

treatability tests, or self-monitoring data

showing comparable removals to the

applicable pollution control technology.

EPA has now concluded that the

approaches adopted in the PFPR rule

address the concerns identified earlier.

EPA agrees with commenters that

developing appropriate limitations on a

site-specific basis for multiple

wastestream facilities presents many

challenges and that the use of a multiple

wastestream subcategory would

simplify implementation of the rule.

Moreover, the limits applied to multiple

wastestream treaters would be a

compilation of the most stringent limits

from each applicable subcategory and

would generally be similar to or stricter

than the limits calculated via the

application of the combined

wastestream formula or building block

approach. Most significantly, the

equivalent treatment certification

requirement would address EPA’s

concerns that the wastes receive

adequate treatment.

Therefore, for today’s final rule, EPA

has established a fourth subcategory: the

multiple wastestream subcategory.

Section XIII.A.5.b details the manner in

which EPA envisions the multiple

wastestream subcategory will be

implemented. Further, EPA is preparing

a guidance manual to aid permit

writers/control authorities and CWT

facilities in implementing the

certification process.

G. Analytical Methods

Section 304(h) of the Clean Water Act

directs EPA to promulgate guidelines

establishing test procedures for the

analysis of pollutants. These test

procedures (methods) are used to

determine the presence and

concentration of pollutants in

wastewater, and are used for

compliance monitoring and for filing

applications for the NPDES program

under 40 CFR 122.21, 122.41, 122.44

and 123.25, and for the implementation

of the pretreatment standards under 40

CFR 403.10 and 403.12. EPA publishes

test procedures for the wastewater

program at 40 CFR 136.3. Currently

approved methods for metals and

cyanide are included in the table of

approved inorganic test procedures at

40 CFR 136.3, Table I–B. Table I–C at 40

CFR 136.3 lists approved methods for

measurement of non-pesticide organic

pollutants, and Table I–D lists approved

methods for the toxic pesticide

pollutants and for other pesticide

pollutants. 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 the centralized waste

treatment (CWT) industry, unless

specified otherwise in part 437 or by the

permitting authority.

Today’s final rule amends 40 CFR Part

136, Appendix A, to specify the

applicability of certain methods for

specific wastestreams. The amendments

accomplish several objectives, which

are outlined in the following

paragraphs. Briefly, the amendments

clarify EPA’s intent regarding the

applicability of Methods 625 and 1625

for some of the pollutant parameters in

today’s rule for Centralized Waste

Treatment facilities and also for some of

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 81251

the pollutant parameters in 40 CFR 445

(Landfills Point Source Category).

The 1999 CWT proposal (at 64 FR

2297) stated that 11 CWT semivolatile

organic pollutants and two CWT volatile

organic pollutants (2-butanone and 2-

propanone) were not listed in Table I–

C at 40 CFR 136.3. Even though these

13 analytes were not shown in Table I–

C, there were already approved test

methods for six of these 13, as follows:

EPA Method 1624 lists 2-butanone and

2-propanone, provides performance data

for these two analytes, and is an

approved method for these two analytes.

EPA Method 1625 lists four of the 11

CWT semivolatile organic pollutants

with relevant performance data and is

an approved method for these four

analytes (alpha-terpineol, carbazole, ndecane, and n-octadecane).

In the 1999 CWT proposal, EPA

proposed to expand the analyte list for

the already-approved methods and also

to allow modified versions of Methods

625 and 1625. The Docket for the

proposed rulemaking included the

proposed modifications to Methods 625

and 1625 regarding expansion of the

analyte list. The expanded list covered

17 pollutants in total, including all of

the proposed CWT semivolatile organic

pollutants. For 7 of those analytes,

performance data were not available for

either method and these data were not

included in the Docket at proposal. EPA

also noted its plans for further

validation of the method modifications.

Since proposal, EPA has gathered

performance data on the additional

seven CWT analytes and additional

analytes of interest for other industry

categories. In January 2000, EPA

amended Methods 625 and 1625 by

adding the performance data for the

additional analytes. The amendments

consist of text, performance data, and

quality control (QC) acceptance criteria

for the additional analytes. This

information will allow a laboratory to

practice the methods with the

additional analytes as an integral part.

The QC acceptance criteria for the

additional analytes were validated in

single-laboratory studies. The January

2000 amendments were part of the

rulemaking notice for the effluent

limitations guidelines and standards for

the Landfills Point Source Category (65

FR 3008, January 19, 2000). EPA’s intent

was to promulgate amendments to

Methods 625 and 1625 that would allow

the use of those methods for specific

pollutants regulated in 40 CFR Part 445

(i.e., Landfills) for purposes of that rule

only. Some of the pollutants had also

been included in the CWT proposal.

Subsequent to the Landfills

promulgation, EPA received inquiries

about the scope and applicability of the

amendments to the test methods. In

response to those inquiries, EPA

published a notice of data availability

(NODA) and request for comment on the

data collected for the additional

analytes (see 65 FR 41391, July 5, 2000).

The NODA clarified EPA’s intent

regarding the method amendments by

explaining that the amendments

published on January 19, 2000 ‘‘* * *

are applicable only to the five regulated

pollutants in the Landfills rule when

found in the wastestreams regulated

under that rule.’’ (65 FR 41392) The

NODA also announced EPA’s plans to

further amend the methods in the final

CWT rulemaking (i.e., today’s

rulemaking) to specify that the revisions

to Methods 625 and 1625 apply to the

pollutants promulgated in today’s rule

and only for the wastestreams regulated

in today’s rule. In today’s amendments

to 40 CFR Part 136, Appendix A, EPA

thus clarifies its intent regarding the

scope of method amendments.

Specifically, the amendments include

additional text to the Introduction

section of the attachment at the end of

Methods 625 and 1625 and footnotes to

Tables in the attachment. The

amendments delineate the scope of

Methods 625 and 1625 regarding

compliance with monitoring

requirements for the wastestreams

covered by 40 CFR Parts 437 and 445.

In addition, EPA deleted from the

attachment to the methods those

analytes not covered by the Landfills

and CWT final rules.

H. Statistical Methodology Changes

Chapter 10 of the Final Technical

Development Document provides a

detailed description of the data and

methodology used to develop long-term

averages, variability factors and

limitations and standards for today’s

final rule. Today’s final rule

encompasses the following changes in

the statistical methodology since the

1999 proposal.

1. Metals Option 4 Long-Term Average

and Limitations Calculations

EPA used two different data sets

collected at a single facility in

developing long-term averages and

limitations for Option 4 in the Metals

Subcategory. At the time of the

proposal, EPA analyzed these data sets

separately. That is, even though these

data were collected from the same

facility, EPA averaged each data set

separately and then used the medians of

the two sets of averages, just as if the

data were from two different facilities.

In other effluent guidelines, EPA has

often taken this approach when the data

were collected by two different data

sources. Following comment on this

issue, EPA reviewed the data and

determined that the data were collected

in overlapping time periods. As such,

for the final rule, EPA has combined

this data together into a single data set

and calculated averages accordingly.

This has the effect of giving more weight

than in the original analysis to the data

set with more observations and the

result, in most instances, is that the final

metals subcategory limitations are less

stringent than those proposed in January

1999.

2. Variability Factors

The proposal discussed two different

approaches to calculating variability

factors—one based on pollutant

variability factors and one based on

group variability factors. The pollutant

variability factor is the average of the

variability factors from facilities with

the model technologies for the option,

and the group variability factor is the

median of the pollutant variability

factors from pollutants with similar

chemical structures. At the time of the

proposal, EPA generally used the

product of the group variability factor

and the pollutant long-term average in

calculating each pollutant limitation

and solicited comment on this

approach. After receiving comments

that supported using the pollutant

variability factors, EPA assessed the

range of values for the pollutant

variability factors within each group.

Contrary to EPA’s expectations for

chemically similar pollutants to be

treated similarly by each treatment

technology, EPA noted a wide range of

values for the pollutant variability

factors within each group. EPA

determined that it is more likely that

such ranges resulted from unique

features in the data rather than

differences in treatment between

chemically similar pollutants. But,

because of the range in values, EPA

concluded that pollutant limitations

would be best calculated using the

pollutant variability factors. Because it

determined that pollutant variability

factors were the most appropriate choice

for calculating limitations, EPA relaxed

its dataset requirements slightly to allow

calculation of a few additional pollutant

variability factors beyond those in the

proposal. For the few pollutants where

pollutant variability factors still could

not be calculated because the datasets

contained too few detected values

(which are used to establish variance

estimates for the variability factors),

EPA concluded that its use of group

variability factors provides reasonable

estimates of pollutant specific

81252 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

variability factors. After a final review

and evaluation of the data and resulting

limitations, EPA determined that the

final limitations appropriately

incorporate the variability of the

pollutant concentrations discharged by

the CWT industry.

I. Significant Changes in Treatment

Technology Cost Estimates

Chapter 11 of the Final Technical

Development Document provides a

detailed description of the data and

methodology used to develop

compliance cost estimates for the final

CWT regulation. This section provides a

summary of major changes in the

costing methodology since the 1999

proposal.

1. RCRA Permit Modification Costs

Removed

In estimating compliance costs for the

proposed regulation, EPA included

RCRA permit modification capital costs

as one component of the total capital

costs. This was an error. The wastewater

treatment unit exemption at 40 CFR

264.1(g)(6), 40 CFR 265.1(c)(10), and 40

CFR 270.1(c)(2)(v) exempts, from RCRA

permit modification requirements,

wastewater treatment units at facilities

that are subject to NPDES or

pretreatment requirements under the

Clean Water Act. Thus, CWT facilities

would not need to modify their RCRA

permits as a result of this rule and

would not incur these RCRA permit

modification costs. The final rule does

not include these RCRA permit

modification costs.

2. Altered DAF Costs for Oils

Subcategory Includes Increased Holding

Tank Capacity

At the time of the proposal, for

facilities with flow rates less than 20

gallons per minute (gpm), EPA included

cost estimates for a holding tank. EPA

included the holding tank because it

assumed that facilities with flow rates

less than 20 gpm would not operate

their DAF systems every day.

Regardless of the flow rate, EPA’s

design assumption for the holding tank

was one day of storage. EPA received

comment that many oils subcategory

facilities may require more than 24

hours of storage and thus, EPA did not

allow adequate holding capacity for all

facilities. In response to this comment,

EPA has altered the DAF capital costs to

include holding tanks capable of

retaining enough flow volume to operate

the minimum size DAF system for one

24-hour period, in addition to the

holding tank capacity costed at

proposal.

3. Nutrient Addition, Heating, and

Sludge Disposal Costs Included in the

Organic Subcategory Compliance Cost

Estimates

At the time of the proposal, EPA

estimated operational costs for the

technology option selected as the basis

for the organics subcategory limitations

on the actual practices used at the

facility sampled during EPA’s sampling

episode. This did not include chemical

addition or heating of wastes. In

response to public comment concerning

the need, on occasion, for chemical

addition (nutrient addition, pH control,

etc.) and heating of the waste during

cold temperature months, EPA modified

its capital and O&M cost estimates for

sequencing batch reactor (SBR)

treatment to include costs for nutrient

addition and adjustments for cold

operating conditions. These adjustments

are detailed in Section 3.1 of the ‘‘Final

Costing Document.’’

Additionally, at the time of the

proposal, EPA included capital costs

and O&M costs for sludge processing

equipment associated with the organics

subcategory, but failed to include costs

for sludge disposal. EPA has corrected

this oversight, and added a separate cost

estimate for SBR system sludge

disposal.

J. Significant Changes in Oils

Subcategory Loadings Estimates

At the time of the 1999 proposal, EPA

did not distinguish between facilities

with RCRA permits and facilities

without RCRA permits when it

estimated current pollutant loadings for

the oils subcategory. Rather, EPA had

seven sets of data representing effluent

from emulsion breaking/gravity

separation that were collected at various

types of oils subcategory facilities. For

each pollutant of concern, and for each

data set, EPA calculated the mean

concentration of the data collected over

the sampling episode. Then, for the

remaining facilities in the oils

subcategory (i.e., those facilities for

which EPA did not have facility-specific

information), EPA randomly assigned

one of the seven data sets. For facilities

that had additional treatment-in-place,

EPA then reduced these current

loadings estimates as detailed in

Chapter 12 of the Final Technical

Development Document.

For the final CWT rule, EPA has

altered this approach. In estimating

loadings and removals for the oils

subcategory, EPA used data specific to

either RCRA or non-RCRA permitted

facilities. EPA no longer estimates

current performance by randomly

assigning a data set as described above.

Rather, for each pollutant of concern,

EPA has calculated a single

concentration value for RCRA permitted

facilities and a single concentration

value for non-RCRA permitted facilities;

both values represent effluent from

emulsion breaking/gravity separation.

(This is assumed to be the minimum

treatment in-place at all oils facilities;

only removals beyond this and any

other in-place treatment are projected to

result from this rule.) The specific

methodology used to calculate these

values and EPA’s final methodology

used to estimate pollutant loadings and

removals for the entire CWT industry

are detailed in Chapter 12 of the Final

Technical Development Document.

K. Changes in POTW Percent Removal

Estimates

EPA establishes pretreatment

standards for those BAT pollutants that

pass through POTWs. Therefore, for

indirect dischargers, before establishing

pretreatment standards, EPA examines

whether the pollutants discharged by

the industry ‘‘pass through’’ POTWs to

waters of the U.S. or interfere with

POTW operations or sludge disposal

practices. Generally, to determine if

pollutants pass through POTWs, EPA

compares the percentage of the

pollutant removed by well-operated

POTWs achieving secondary treatment

with the percentage of the pollutant

removed by facilities meeting BAT

effluent limitations.

The primary source of the POTW

percent removal data is the ‘‘Fate of

Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned

Treatment Works’’ (EPA 440/1–82/303,

September 1982), commonly referred to

as the ‘‘50–POTW Study.’’ The 50–

POTW Study presents data on the

performance of 50 well-operated

POTWs that employ secondary

biological treatment in removing

pollutants.

At the time of the 50–POTW sampling

program, which spanned approximately

21⁄2 years (July 1978 to November 1980),

EPA collected samples at selected

POTWs across the U.S. The samples

were subsequently analyzed by either

EPA or EPA-contract laboratories using

test procedures (analytical methods)

specified by the Agency or in use at the

laboratories. Laboratories typically

reported the analytical method used

along with the test results. However, for

those cases in which the laboratory

specified no analytical method, EPA

was able to identify the method based

on the nature of the results and

knowledge of the methods available at

the time.

Each laboratory reported results for

the pollutants for which it tested. If the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 81253

2EPA has already established national effluent

guidelines and standards for certain metals recovery

operations. See, for example, subpart C of 40 CFR

part 421—Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Point

Source Category that establishes limitations and

standards applicable to discharges resulting from

the recovery, processing and remelting of aluminum

scraps to produce metallic aluminum alloys.

laboratory found a pollutant to be

present, the laboratory reported a result.

If the laboratory found the pollutant not

to be present, the laboratory reported

either that the pollutant was ‘‘not

detected’’ or a value with a ‘‘less than’’

sign (<) indicating that the pollutant

was below that value. The value

reported along with the ‘‘less than’’ sign

was the lowest level to which the

laboratory believed it could reliably

measure. EPA subsequently established

these lowest levels as the ‘‘minimum

levels’’ of quantitation (MLs). In some

instances, different laboratories reported

different MLs for the same pollutant

using the same analytical method.

Because of the variety of reporting

protocols among the 50–POTW Study

laboratories (pages 27 to 30, 50–POTW

Study), EPA reviewed the percent

removal calculations used in the passthrough analysis for previous industry

studies, including those performed

when developing the CWT proposal and

effluent guidelines for Organic

Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic

Fibers Manufacturing, Landfills, and

Commercial Hazardous Waste

Combustors. EPA found that, for 12

parameters, different analytical MLs

were reported for different rulemaking

studies (10 of the 25 metals, cyanide,

and one of the 41 organics).

To provide consistency for data

analysis and establishment of removal

efficiencies, EPA reviewed the 50–

POTW Study, standardized the reported

MLs for use in the CWT final rules and

other rulemaking efforts. (This review of

the 50–POTW Study analytical

laboratory reporting practices and

standardization of ML values is

described further in DCN 33.3.1).

In using the 50–POTW Study data to

estimate percent removals, EPA has

established data editing criteria for

determining pollutant percent removals.

Some of the editing criteria are based on

differences between POTW and industry

BAT treatment system influent

concentrations. For many toxic

pollutants, POTW influent

concentrations were much lower than

those of BAT treatment systems. For

many pollutants, particularly organic

pollutants, the effluent concentrations

from both POTW and BAT treatment

systems, were below the level that could

be found or measured. As noted in the

50–POTW Study, analytical laboratories

reported pollutant concentrations below

the analytical ML, qualitatively, as ‘‘not

detected’’ or ‘‘trace,’’ and reported a

measured value above this level.

Subsequent rulemaking studies such as

the 1987 OCPSF study used the

analytical method ML established in 40

CFR Part 136 for laboratory data

reported below the analytical ML. Use

of the nominal ML may overestimate the

effluent concentration and

underestimate the percent removal.

Because the data collected for

evaluating POTW percent removals

included both effluent and influent

levels that were close to the analytical

MLs, EPA devised hierarchal data

editing criteria to exclude data with low

influent concentration levels, thereby

minimizing the possibility that low

POTW removals might simply reflect

low influent concentrations instead of

being a true measure of treatment

effectiveness.

EPA has generally used hierarchic

data editing criteria for the pollutants in

the 50–POTW Study. For the final CWT

rule, the editing criteria include

(1) Substitute the standardized

pollutant-specific analytical ML for

values reported as ‘‘not detected,’’

‘‘trace,’’ ‘‘less than [followed by a

number],’’ or a number less than the

standardized analytical ML,

(2) Retain pollutant influent and

corresponding effluent values if the

average pollutant influent level is

greater than or equal to 10 times the

pollutant ML (10xML), and

(3) If none of the average pollutant

influent concentrations are at least 10

times the ML, then retain average

influent values greater than or equal to

two times the ML (2xML) along with the

corresponding average effluent values.

(EPA used 2xML for the final rule,

instead of the 20 μg/l criterion used at

proposal, because it more accurately

reflects the pollutant-specific data than

using a fixed numerical cut-off. For 67

percent of the of pollutants, 2xML is 20

μg/l.)

EPA then calculates each POTW

percent removal for each pollutant

based on its average influent and its

average effluent values. The national

POTW percent removal used for each

pollutant in the pass-through test is the

median value of all the POTW pollutant

specific percent removals.

The 50–POTW study provided

performance data for 48 pollutants of

concern for both the 1999 proposal and

today’s final rule (15 metals, 31

organics, cyanide, and ammonia). These

corrections resulted in lower national

POTW performance (median percent

removal) for 5 metals and ammonia; in

higher performance for 5 metals; and no

change for the remaining 5 metals, 31

organics, and cyanide.

V. Scope/Applicability of the

Regulation

Many of the commenters had

questions about what waste treatment

facilities were subject to the guideline

and in what circumstances. The sections

which follow address these issues.

A. Overview

A broad spectrum of facilities engage

in waste treatment and waste recovery

operations. For some, waste treatment

and recovery is their only business.

Many of these facilities treat wastes

generated in a variety of industries. In

addition, there are also a significant

number of facilities that are dedicated

exclusively to the recovery of a single

metal. For other facilities, waste

treatment is merely an ancillary

component of the industrial operation at

the facility. There are still others

engaged in industrial activities that the

acceptance and treatment of waste (not

generated in their own production

operations) represents a substantial and

integral aspect of the business.

EPA has always intended that these

guidelines would regulate the first

category of waste treaters. It has

struggled, however, with how to draw

the line, for purposes of applying this

rule between the other types of

operations. For example, as noted

above, there are certain industries that

recover a single metal. EPA has already

developed guidelines specifically

addressing their particular industrial

processes and pollutants. In those

circumstances it would make little sense

to subject them to regulations developed

for waste treatment operations treating a

mixture of different wastes.2 The data

collected for this effort, however, clearly

show that there are other industrial

operations whose waste treatment

operations treat a variety of wastes from

on-site and off-site sources. The wastes

treated at these industries do not look

substantially different from those being

treated at facilities engaged exclusively

in waste treatment. The discussion

below explains how EPA has decided to

strike the balance.

The universe of facilities which are

potentially subject to this guideline

generally includes the following. First,

except where noted otherwise, EPA is

establishing limitations and standards

for stand-alone waste treatment and

recovery facilities receiving materials

from off-site—classic ‘‘centralized waste

treaters.’’ These facilities may treat

either for disposal or for recovery or

recycle hazardous or non-hazardous

waste, hazardous or non-hazardous

81254 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

wastewater, or used material received

from off-site. Second, while EPA is

generally not subjecting discharges from

waste treatment systems at facilities

primarily engaged in other industrial

operations to the scope of this rule, the

rule will regulate at least a portion of

their wastewater in certain

circumstances. Thus, industrial

facilities which process their own, onsite generated, process wastewater along

with hazardous or non-hazardous

wastes, wastewaters, and/or used

material received from off-site may be

subject to this rule with respect to a

portion of their discharge unless certain

conditions are met.

The wastewater flows covered by this

rule include some or all flows related to

off-site waste receipts and on-site CWT

wastewater generated as a result of CWT

operations. The kinds of on-site CWT

wastewater generated at these facilities

include, for example, the following:

solubilization wastewater, emulsion

breaking/gravity separation wastewater,

used oil processing wastewater,

treatment equipment washes, transport

washes (tanker truck, drum, and roll-off

boxes), laboratory-derived wastewater,

air pollution control wastewater,

landfill wastewater from on-site

landfills, and contaminated storm water.

Chapter 14 of the technical development

document provides detailed discussion

of CWT wastewaters.

The way EPA has expressed the

applicability provisions of the final rule

is to apply the provisions of this rule to

all wastewater discharges to a receiving

stream or the introduction of wastewater

to a publicly owned treatment works

from a facility that this regulation

defines as a centralized waste treatment

facility unless specifically excluded.

The following sections discuss the

applicability of the CWT rule to various

wastewater discharges associated with

centralized waste treatment operations.

EPA received numerous comments on

the 1995 proposal and 1996 Notice of

Data Availability concerning the

applicability of this rule to various

operations. Consequently, EPA devoted

significant discussion in the 1999

supplemental proposal to applicability

issues. Again, in response, EPA received

numerous comments on applicability

issues. Many commenters were simply

seeking clarification of the coverage of

this rule to a specific operation. Table

V.A–1 below provides a general

summary of regulated and non-regulated

CWT operations. EPA presents a

detailed discussion of these operations

in V.B through V.Z.

TABLE V.A–1.—EXAMPLES OF REGULATED AND NON-REGULATED CWT OPERATIONS

Centralized waste

treatment activity Regulated by this rule Not regulated by this rule For further information see

Those performed at federally owned facilities.All federally owned CWT operations ....... None ........................................................ V.E

POTWs ..................................................... None ........................................................ All ............................................................. V.F

Thermal drying of POTW biosolids .......... None ........................................................ All ............................................................. V.H

Sanitary wastes or toilet wastes .............. None ........................................................ All ............................................................. V.Y

Food processing wastes .......................... None ........................................................ All ............................................................. V.X

Manufacturing facilities ............................. Those that accept off-site wastes for

treatment and/or recovery that are not

generated in a manufacturing process

subject to the same limitations/standards as on-site generated waste and

that the permit writer determines are

not similar to, and compatible with

treatment of, the on-site waste.

All others .................................................. V.B

Product stewardship ................................. Those that accept waste materials from

use of their products that are not similar to, and compatible with, treatment

of waste generated on-site.

Those that accept back their unused

products, shipping and storage containers with product residues, and offspecification products.

V.D

Petroleum refineries (SIC Code 2911)

and petroleum distribution terminals

(SIC Code 4612, 4613, 5171, 5172).

For off-site materials other than those

listed in the next column, see discussion for manufacturing facilities.

Those that receive and manage off-site

petroleum-containing materials generated by petroleum exploration, production, transportation, refining and

marketing activities.

V.B

Pulp and paper off-site landfill leachates Those that accept off-site landfill

leachates for treatment and/or recovery that are not generated in a manufacturing process subject to the same

limitations/standards as on-site generated waste and that the permit writer

determines are not similar to, and

compatible with, the on-site waste.

All others .................................................. V.B

Pipeline materials ..................................... Materials received via pipeline from

waste consolidators or commingled

with other covered CWT wastewaters.

All other piped materials and POTWs ..... V.C

Recycle/recovery activities ....................... All unless specifically excluded elsewhere................................................................... V.Q

Traditional solvent recovery ..................... None ........................................................ All ............................................................. V.T

Fuel blenders ........................................... Those that generate a wastewater .......... ‘‘Dry’’ operations ...................................... V.T

Scrap metals recyclers ............................. None ........................................................ All ............................................................. V.M

Silver recovery ......................................... Only included where wastewater generated from these activities is commingled with other covered wastes.All others .................................................. V.R

Used oil filters & only absorbent recycling Those that generate a wastewater .......... ‘‘Dry’’ operations ...................................... V.V

High Temperature Metals Recovery

(HTMR).

Those that generate a wastewater .......... ‘‘Dry’’ operations ...................................... V.S

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 81255

TABLE V.A–1.—EXAMPLES OF REGULATED AND NON-REGULATED CWT OPERATIONS—Continued

Centralized waste

treatment activity Regulated by this rule Not regulated by this rule For further information see

Used glycol recovery ................................ All ............................................................. None ........................................................ V.Q

Re-refining ................................................ All ............................................................. None ........................................................ V.U

Solids, soils, and sludges ........................ Those activities which generate a wastewater unless specifically excluded.‘‘Dry’’ operations ...................................... V.L

Stabilization/Solidification ......................... Those that generate a wastewater .......... ‘‘Dry’’ operations ...................................... V.O

Transfer stations and recycling centers ... None ........................................................ All ............................................................. V.N

Incineration activities ................................ Only included when the wastewater generated from these activities is received

from off-site and commingled with

other covered wastewater.

All others .................................................. V.K

Transportation and/or transportation

equipment cleaning.

Only included where wastewater generated from these activities is commingled with other covered waters.All others .................................................. V.I

Landfills .................................................... Only included where wastewater generated from these activities is commingled with other covered waters.All others .................................................. V.J

Grease trap/interceptor wastes ................ Those which contain petroleum based

oils.

Those which contain animal or vegetable

fats/oils.

V.W

Marine generated wastes ......................... Off-loaded and subsequently sent to a

CWT facility at a separate location and

commingled with other covered wastewater.

All others .................................................. V.G

Waste, wastewater or used material reuse.Those activities not listed in the next column or excluded elsewhere.Not covered if the wastewater is accepted for use in place of potable water or

if materials are accepted in place of

virgin treatment chemicals.

V.P

Treatability, research and development,

or analytical activities.

Only included where wastewater generated from these activities is commingled with other covered waters.All others .................................................. V.Z

B. Manufacturing Facilities

Throughout the development of this

rule, EPA has contemplated that the rule

would apply to wastewater discharges

from facilities that, while primarily

engaged in other industrial operations,

also may treat and/or treat for recovery

or recycle off-site wastes or used

materials. These facilities primarily treat

wastes generated as a result of their own

on-site manufacturing operations. Their

wastewater discharges are, by and large,

already subject to effluent guidelines

and standards. (Some treatment

operations, however, may be located at

manufacturing facilities which are not

subject to effluent guidelines and

standards). All of these facilities also

accept off-site generated wastes for

treatment. In some instances, a facility

under the same corporate ownership

generates these off-site wastes. The

facility treats these intra-company

transfers on a non-commercial basis. In

other instances, the off-site

wastestreams originate from a company

under a different ownership— an intercompany transfer. In some instances,

the off-site wastes received at these

industrial facilities are generated by a

facility performing the same

manufacturing operations, while in

other instances, the off-site

wastestreams are generated by facilities

engaged in entirely unrelated

manufacturing operations. Some receive

a constant wastestream from only a

handful of customers and some receive

a wide variety of wastestreams from

hundreds of customers.

EPA received extensive comment

concerning how the CWT rule should

apply to facilities that provide waste

treatment and/or recovery operations for

off-site generated wastes, but whose

primary business is something other

than waste treatment or recovery. In

general, commenters urged EPA to limit

the scope of the regulation in one of

several ways. Commenters suggested

restricting the scope either to:

• Facilities whose sole purpose is the

treatment of off-site wastes and

wastewaters; or

• Facilities which only accept off-site

wastes on a commercial basis; or

• Facilities which accept off-site

wastes which are not produced as a

result of industrial operations subject to

the same effluent guidelines and

standards as the on-site generated

wastes or off-site wastes which are not

compatible with the on-site generated

wastes and the on-site wastewater

treatment system; or

• Manufacturing facilities which

accept off-site wastes in excess of a de

minimis level.

In the supplemental proposal, EPA

proposed subjecting centralized waste

treatment operations at manufacturing

facilities to the provisions of the rule

unless one of the following conditions

was met:

• In the case of manufacturing

facilities subject to national effluent

limitations guidelines for existing

sources, standards of performance for

new sources, or pretreatment standards

for new and existing sources (national

effluent guidelines and standards), if the

process or operation generating the

wastes received from off-site for

treatment is subject to the same national

effluent guidelines and standards as the

process or operation generating the onsite wastes; or

• In the case of manufacturing

facilities not subject to existing national

effluent guidelines and standards, if the

process or operation generating the

waste received from off-site is from the

same industry (other than the waste

treatment industry) and of a similar

nature to the waste generated on-site.

After careful consideration of

comments and further review of its

database, EPA continues to regard this

approach as appropriate, with some

modifications. EPA has concluded that

many manufacturing facilities, even

though they are engaged primarily in

another business, are also engaged in

traditional CWT activities and,

therefore, should be subject to this rule.

81256 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

EPA has been unable to establish any

direct correlation between the source of

the off-site waste (intra-company or

inter-company) and the similarity (or

compatibility with) of the off-site waste

to the on-site generated wastes that

would support a blanket exclusion from

this rule for intra-company waste

treatment. EPA further concludes that

all off-site wastewaters should be

treated effectively irrespective of their

volume, or their volume in relation to

the volume of on-site generated waste

and, thus, has rejected any exception for

small volumes. As explained in the

1999 proposal, EPA’s primary concern

is that the effluent guidelines and

standards currently in place for one

industry may not ensure adequate

treatment for wastes generated at

another industry.

EPA has, however, concluded that

there are circumstances where an offsite waste will receive adequate

treatment at the treating facility even

though the off-site waste may be

generated by a manufacturing process

that (if treated at the generating

location) would be subject to a different

set of effluent guidelines and standards

than the effluent guidelines and

standards applicable to the treating site.

The record for this rule provides

information and data on such facilities

that support EPA’s conclusion. An

example is a pesticide formulating and

packaging facility (PFPR), subject to 40

CFR 455 Subpart C, which sends its

wastewaters off-site for treatment to a

facility which manufactures the

pesticide active ingredients. (The

manufacturing facility is subject to a

separate set of effluent guidelines and

standards specific to pesticide

manufacturers, 40 CFR 455 Subpart A

and B). In this case, the same pollutants

are likely to be present in the off-site

and on-site generated wastewaters, even

though the wastewaters are subject to

different regulations. Therefore, the

treating facility will need to use

treatment appropriate for efficient

removal of these pollutants. This

situation would not be covered by this

rule.

As a second example, consider a

petroleum refinery that accepts off-site

wastewaters. If the petroleum refinery

(SIC Code 2911) accepts wastes

generated off-site at petroleum

distribution terminals (SIC Code 4612,

4613, 5171, and 5172), then the former

is subject to effluent guidelines and

standards for petroleum refineries (40

CFR 419), but the latter is not currently

subject to any national effluent

guidelines. However, the wastewaters

generated at petroleum marketing

terminals are based on materials

manufactured at the refineries, and

therefore would likely reflect the same

pollutant profile. This situation would

not be covered by this rule.

A third example involves clean-up

activities at manufacturing sites. As part

of clean-up operations at its facility, one

commenter (called facility A) noted that

it accepts contaminated groundwater

from a different manufacturing facility

located next door (facility B). The

contaminated groundwater site (while

not located on facility A, the treating

facility) was contaminated by the

manufacturing process at the treating

site (facility A) and not at the site where

located (facility B). As such, the

contaminated wastewater would be

similar and compatible with the on-site

generated wastewater at facility A. In

this case, the CWT rule would not

apply.

EPA received information on each of

the examples provided in comment on

the rule. The comments detail instances

in which the off-site wastewaters, while

not subject to the same national effluent

guidelines and standards as the

wastewater generated on-site, are

similar to the on-site generated

manufacturing wastewaters and

compatible with the on-site treatment

system. In these cases, EPA concluded

that the application of the CWT rule

may not result in increased

environmental protection, but simply

add an additional layer of complexity

for the treating facility and the permit

writer or control authority.

Furthermore, EPA determined there

are other instances of off-site waste

acceptance at manufacturing facilities in

which the off-site wastes, while not

from the same industrial category, are

similar to the on-site generated

manufacturing wastewaters and

compatible with the manufacturing

wastewater treatment system.

Consequently, for purposes of this rule,

EPA has decided that, where the

dischargers establishes that the wastes

being treated are of similar nature and

compatible with treatment of the on-site

wastes, the CWT limitations and

standards will not apply to the resulting

discharge. EPA concluded that, in those

circumstances, the permit writer or

control authority should instead apply

the limitations or standards applicable

to the treatment of on-site wastewater to

wastewaters generated through

treatment of the off-site waste. Under

the approach adopted for the final rule,

the permit writer or control authority

will determine whether the off-site

generated waste accepted for treatment

and/or recovery at a manufacturing

facility (whether subject to national

effluent guidelines and standards or not)

and commingled for treatment in the onsite treatment system is similar to the

on-site generated wastes and compatible

with the on-site treatment system. If it

is, then the discharge of the treated

effluent should be subject to the

applicable on-site limitations (or

standards) even if the off-site wastes

would be subject to a different set of

national effluent guidelines and

standards as the on-site generated

wastes (or no national effluent

guidelines and standards) if treated

where generated. In the event that the

permit writer or control authority makes

this determination, the treating facility

would be subject to the on-site limits

only and not subject to the CWT

guideline.

For this final rule, EPA has not rigidly

defined when a waste is of similar

character and the treatment of it is

compatible with the treatment of the onsite wastes, believing that permit writers

and control authorities are in the best

position to determine this term. Permit

writers and control authorities should

compare the wastewaters at the

manufacturing facility to the off-site

generated wastewaters (constituents and

concentrations) and the appropriateness

of the treatment system to the off-site

generated wastewaters on a case by case

basis. The final guideline commits the

decision that an off-site wastewater is

similar and compatible (and thus

whether CWT limitations or standards

would apply) to the permit writer or

control authority. A treating facility

must submit information demonstrating

to the permit writer or control authority

that the off-site waste is similar and

compatible. EPA cautions permit writers

and control authorities that the

judgment of ‘‘similar and compatible’’

should be made based only on the

development of a full record on this

issue. If the treating facility has not

clearly established that the off-site

wastewaters are similar to the on-site

generated manufacturing wastewaters

and compatible with the treatment

system in the permit writer’s or control

authority’s best judgment, the permit

writer or control authority must apply

the CWT limitations (or standards) to

the treating facility.

Therefore, EPA has concluded that

centralized waste treatment operations

at manufacturing facilities will be

subject to provisions of the rule unless

one of the following conditions is met:

• In the case of a facility subject to

national effluent limitation guidelines

for existing sources, standards of

performance for new sources, or

pretreatment standards for new and

existing sources, if the facility

demonstrates that the wastes received

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 81257

from off-site for treatment and/or

recovery are generated in a process or

operation that would be subject to the

same national effluent guidelines and

standards as the process or operation

generating the on-site wastes; or

• In the case of a facility subject to

national effluent guidelines and

standards if the facility demonstrates

that the waste received from off-site is

similar in nature to the waste generated

on-site and compatible with the on-site

treatment system; or

• In the case of a facility not subject

to national effluent limitations and

standards, if the facility demonstrates

that the waste received from off-site is

similar in nature to the waste generated

on-site and compatible with the on-site

treatment system.

EPA contemplates that this approach

would be implemented in the following

manner. A facility that is currently

subject to national effluent limitation

guidelines or pretreatment standards

receives wastewater from off-site for

treatment. The wastewater is

commingled for treatment with

manufacturing wastewater generated onsite. If the off-site wastewater is subject

to the same limitations or standards as

the onsite wastewater (or would be if

treated where generated) or if the off-site

wastewater is similar to the onsite

wastewater and compatible with the

treatment system, the CWT limitations

or standards would not apply to the

discharge associated with the off-site

wastewater flows. In that case, another

guideline or standard applies. If,

however, the off-site wastewater is not

subject to the same national limitation

guidelines or standards (or if none exist)

and if the off-site wastewater is not

similar to the onsite wastewater and

compatible with the treatment system,

that portion of the discharge associated

with the off-site flow would be subject

to CWT requirements. (Of course, the

portion of the wastewater generated onsite remains subject to applicable

limitations and standards for the

facility. If the off-site and on-site

wastewaters are commingled prior to

discharge, the permit writer or control

authority would use the ‘‘combined

wastestream formula’’ or ‘‘building

block approach’’ to determine

limitations for the commingled

wastestream).

Certain facilities that are subject to the

CWT regulations because they accept

wastes whose treatment is not

compatible with the treatment of wastes

generated on-site may nevertheless be

subject to limitations and standards

based on the otherwise applicable

provisions of 40 CFR Subchapter N.

Thus, the final regulations provide for

the permit writer or pretreatment

control authority to develop ‘‘alternative

limitations and standards’’ for certain

facilities in a narrow set of

circumstances. See e.g., 40 CFR

437.10(b). Under this approach, which

EPA discussed in the 1999 proposal,

permit writers or control authorities

could require manufacturing facilities

that treat off-site wastes to meet all

otherwise-applicable categorical

limitations and standards for the

industries from which the waste was

generated. This approach would also

determine limitations or standards for

any commingled on-site and off-site

wastewater using the ‘‘combined

wastestream formula’’ or ‘‘building

block approach.’’ The permit writer or

control authority would apply the

categorical limitations or standards from

the industries generating the

wastewater, rather than the CWT

limitations or standards, to the off-site

portion of the commingled wastestream.

The use of the combined wastestream

formula and building block approaches

for CWT wastes is discussed further in

Section XIV.F of the 1999 proposal (64

FR 2342–2343). The permit writer (or

pretreatment control authority) may

establish alternative limitations and

standards only when a facility receives

continuous flows of process

wastewaters with relatively consistent

pollutant profiles from no more than

five customers. EPA’s information

shows that, in practice, permit writers

are currently following this approach for

facilities that treat off-site waste for no

more than five facilities. This approach

is not appropriate for facilities that

receive variable off-site wastewaters or

that service more than a handful of

customers.

After further consideration of the

above described alternative and careful

consideration of comments received on

this alternative, EPA determined that

the permit writer (or local pretreatment

authority) should have the option in a

limited set of circumstances of applying

the applicable categorical limitations or

standards to the off-site wastestreams.

This is the approach described above.

Thus, the final rule authorizes permit

writers or control authorities (at their

discretion) to subject the wastewater

associated with the treatment of the offsite wastes to limitations or standards

based on the categorical limitations or

standards from the industries generating

the wastewater, rather than applying the

CWT limitations or standards to the offsite portion of the commingled

wastestream. Consequently, the

applicability provisions of Subparts A,

B, C and D provide for such authority.

See 40 CFR 437.10(b), 437.20(b),

437.30(b) & 437.40(b).

C. Pipeline Transfers (Fixed Delivery

Systems)

EPA did not propose to apply CWT

limitations and standards to facilities

that receive off-site wastes for treatment

solely via an open or enclosed conduit

(for example, pipeline, channels,

ditches, trenches, etc.). EPA did not

propose to include pipeline facilities

because, based on information obtained

by the Agency, facilities that receive all

their wastes through a pipeline or

trench (fixed delivery systems) from the

original source of waste generation

receive continuous flows of process

wastewater with relatively consistent

pollutant profiles. These wastewaters

are traditional wastewaters from the

applicable industrial category that

generally remain constant from day to

day in terms of the concentration and

type of pollutant parameters. Unlike

traditional CWT facilities, their

customers and wastewater sources do

not change and are limited by the

physical and monetary constraints

associated with pipelines. The preamble

to the 1999 proposal provides additional

detail on the characteristics of CWT

facilities that accept waste for treatment

through pipelines only (64 FR 2286–

2287). The preamble also explained that

permit writers were applying the

‘‘building block approach,’’ in writing

current discharge permits for pipeline

facilities and that in all cases examined,

the treating facility was required to

comply with otherwise applicable

effluent guidelines and standards.

EPA did not receive any information

in response to the 1999 proposed rule

that has convinced the Agency to

change its treatment of pipeline

facilities for purposes of this rule.

Consequently, the scope of this final

rule excludes wastes that are piped to

waste treatment facilities. See 40 CFR

437.1(b)(3). These wastes will continue

to be subject to otherwise applicable

effluent guidelines and standards. In

EPA’s view, it is more appropriate for

permit writers and control authorities to

develop restrictions for treatment

facilities that receive wastewater by

pipeline on an individual basis by

applying the ‘‘combined wastestream

formula’’ or ‘‘building block’’ approach.

There are two exceptions to this

approach. The first is for facilities that

receive waste via conduit (that is,

pipeline, trenches, ditches, etc.) from

facilities that are acting merely as waste

collection or consolidation centers that

are not the original source of the waste.

These wastewaters are subject to the

CWT rule. The basis for EPA’s exclusion

81258 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

of waste treatment facilities receiving

wastes by pipeline from the scope of the

rule was that such facilities did not

receive the same types of varying wastes

as CWT facilities receiving wastes by

truck or tanker. Pipeline facilities

receive flows of wastes with consistent

pollutant profiles. Waste consolidators,

on the other hand, which send their

flows to a treatment facility via pipeline

are delivering wastes like those

typically received by CWT facilities in

tanks or trucks. See 40 CFR 437.1(b)(3).

The second is for facilities that serve as

both CWT facilities and pipeline

facilities (i.e., receive waste from off-site

via pipeline as well as some other mode

of transportation such as trucks). If this

type of facility commingles the trucked

and piped waste prior to discharge, then

both the trucked and piped wastewaters

at these facilities are subject to the CWT

rule. The basis for the pipeline

exclusion no longer applies because the

addition of hauled waste introduces

variability in pollutant concentrations

and characteristics that are not true for

the piped wastes. See 40 CFR

437.1(b)(3). However, if such a facility

discharges these wastewaters separately,

then only the trucked off-site

wastewater is subject to provisions of

the CWT rule and the piped waste

subject to limitations and standards

based on the applicable 40 CFR

Subchapter N limitations and standards.

POTWs are not considered CWTs and

are not subject to the limitations and

standards of this rule. However, as

discussed more fully in Section V.F,

POTWs should not be receiving wastes

from industrial users subject to national

effluent guidelines and standards (either

by pipeline or otherwise) that do not

comply with applicable pretreament

standards.

D. Product Stewardship

As detailed in the proposed rule (64

FR 2287), many members of the

manufacturing community have

adopted ‘‘product stewardship’’

programs as an additional service for

their customers to promote recycling

and reuse of products and to reduce the

potential for adverse environmental

impacts from chemical products.

Commenters defined ‘‘product

stewardship’’ in this way: ‘‘Taking back

spent, used, or unused products,

shipping and storage containers with

product residues, off-specification

products and waste materials from use

of products.’’ Generally, whenever

possible, these manufacturing plants

recover and reuse materials from these

products in chemical processes at their

facilities. Manufacturing companies that

cannot reuse the spent, used, or unused

materials treat these materials/

wastewaters in their wastewater

treatment plants. EPA’s review of the

comments suggests that, with few

exceptions, the materials treated in the

on-site wastewater treatment systems

were produced at facilities subject to the

same effluent limitations guidelines as

the materials being manufactured onsite. In industry’s view, such materials

are inherently compatible with the

treatment system.

In the proposal, EPA explained that it

had decided it would treat wastewater

generated from materials that are taken

back for recycle or re-use under a

product stewardship program in the

same way it proposed to treat

wastewater generated in treating any

other off-site waste. If the materials

received from off-site under the product

stewardship program are produced at an

industrial operation subject to the same

limitations and standards in 40 CFR

Subchapter N as the on-site generated

manufacturing wastes, the treating

facility would not be subject to CWT

requirements with respect to the

resulting wastewaters. Because EPA

remained concerned that circumstances

exist in which used materials or waste

products may not be compatible with

the otherwise existing treatment system,

EPA did not propose a blanket

exemption for product stewardship

activities from the scope of this

rulemaking. Under the proposal,

wastewater from the treatment of used

products or waste materials would be

subject to the CWT rule if it were not

produced at facilities subject to the

same provisions of Subchapter N as

wastewater from the treatment of the

other on-site generated wastes.

EPA received numerous comments on

this approach. Many commenters

claimed that the proposed rule would

deter product stewardship activities,

and that EPA should not extend the rule

to cover wastewater from certain

product stewardship activities. Some

commented that these materials are

generally not ‘‘treated,’’ but re-used or

recovered, and for that reason they were

fundamentally different from other

wastes in the CWT industry. Others

commented that while EPA’s intent

seemed to be appropriate, the language

was much too restrictive. For example,

commenters noted that when a product

goes off-site to another manufacturing

facility that is subject to different

effluent limitation guidelines and

standards, the product (while it remains

unchanged) would then be subject to a

different set of effluent limitations or

standards. If the manufacturing facilities

which originally produced the product

took back the off-spec product from its

customer, the proposal as written,

would require that the treating facility

be subject to CWT even though the offspec waste would clearly be the same as

those generated on-site.

EPA applauds the efforts of

manufacturing facilities to reduce

pollution and the environmental

impacts of their products and does not

want to discourage these practices.

Consequently, the final rule does not

cover product stewardship activities in

certain circumstances. Product

stewardship activities at a

manufacturing facility which involve

taking back their unused products,

shipping and storage containers with

product residues, and off-spec products

will not be subject to provisions of the

CWT rule.

Certain other recovery activities may,

however, remain subject to this rule.

EPA is concerned about the treatment of

spent, used or waste materials returned

to the original manufacturer when it is

treated with on-site wastewater. In some

cases, wastewater from these recovery

processes may not be compatible with

the existing treatment system. The mere

fact that these materials may be

accepted for re-use or recycling rather

than ‘‘treatment’’ does not ensure that

resulting wastewaters would be

inherently compatible with the

treatment system. EPA is unable to see

how such activities differ from waste

recovery operations that the Agency has

concluded should be subject to these

guidelines. Here is an illustrative

example. An inorganic chemical

manufacturer produces industrial

chemicals that one of its customers uses

in the manufacture of printed circuit

boards. The chemical manufacturer

accepts spent etchants (waste materials

from use of product) from its customer

for recovery and re-use of certain metals

in its inorganic chemical manufacturing

process. (Note that CWT facilities not

located at manufacturing sites also

accept spent etchants). The recovery

process generates a wastewater.

Recovery may have introduced into the

wastewater many pollutants that were

not present in the wastewater generated

in producing the inorganic chemical.

These pollutants may not be compatible

with, or effectively treated, in the

treatment process at the inorganic

chemical manufacturing facility. The

same may be true if the accepting

facility determined that spent etchant

could not be effectively reused and

recovered and directed the material to

their wastewater treatment system.

Therefore, EPA has concluded that

product stewardship activities that

involve taking back spent, used or waste

materials from use of products should,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 81259

as a general matter, be subject to

provisions of this rule unless any of the

exclusions established for

manufacturing facilities as explained in

V.B. would apply. See 40 CFR

§ 437.1(b)(2) & (4). Thus, those activities

that involve used products or waste

materials that are not subject to effluent

guidelines or standards from the same

category as the on-site generated wastes

or that are not similar to the on-site

generated manufacturing wastes and

compatible with the treatment systems

(as determined by the permit writer or

control authority) are subject to today’s

rulemaking under 40 CFR § 437.1(b)(2).

EPA concluded that this approach will

not curtail product stewardship

activities, in general, but will ensure

that all wastes are treated effectively.

E. Federally Owned Facilities

Throughout development of this rule,

EPA’s database has included

information on CWT facilities owned by

the federal government. It has always

been EPA’s intention that federal

facilities which accept wastes,

wastewater, or used material from offsite for treatment and/or recovery of

materials would be subject to provisions

of this rule unless they meet the

conditions under which the rule would

not apply, e.g. treated off-site wastes

subject to the same 40 CFR Subchapter

N provisions as the federal facility.

EPA’s database contains information

on 23 federally owned facilities that

operate treatment systems. EPA has

determined that 15 of these facilities are

not subject to provisions of the CWT

rule because they do not accept off-site

wastes. Of the remaining facilities, 6 are

not subject to provisions of the CWT

rule because they perform CWT

activities to which the rule would not

apply. Therefore, EPA has identified 1

federally owned CWT facility that is

subject to this rule. EPA has included

this facility in all of its analyses.

F. Publicly Owned Treatment Works

(POTWs)

Comments to the 1995 and 1999 CWT

proposals establish that large and small

POTWs accept a large volume of hauled

wastes. A special discharge survey

conducted by the Association of

Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies

(AMSA) indicates that 42.5 percent of

POTW respondents accept hauled

industrial wastes. More recent

comments suggest that this may

underestimate the volume of hauled

wastes POTWs receive.

A large quantity of the wastes trucked

to POTWs is septage and chemical toilet

wastes. EPA did not evaluate these

wastes for regulation and they are not

subject to this rule. EPA would expect

that POTWs would adequately treat

these sanitary waste flows because EPA

would expect septage and chemical

toilet wastes to closely resemble sewage

with respect to organic content.

POTWs also receive significant

volumes of trucked industrial and

commercial wastes. Examples of these

include wastes subject to pretreatment

standards under 40 CFR subchapter N,

as well as wastes not subject to national

effluent guidelines and standards. These

wastes may include oil-water emulsions

or mixtures, coolants, tank cleaning

water, bilge water, restaurant grease trap

wastes, groundwater remediation water,

contaminated storm water run-off,

interceptor wastewaters, and used

glycols. CWT facilities also treat many

of these wastes and discharges from

these operations may be subject to the

final CWT limits.

EPA received numerous comments on

how the CWT rule should apply to

POTWs. Commenters were largely

divided on the applicability of the CWT

rule to POTWs. All of the POTWs that

commented on the proposal agreed that

the CWT rule should not apply to

POTWs. They stated that under the

CWA, effluent guidelines and

pretreatment standards do not apply to

POTWs. Rather, as established by the

CWA, POTWs are subject to secondary

treatment and water quality standards.

These commenters further stated that

POTWs generally accept trucked wastes

as a service to their community to

insure that these wastes receive proper

treatment. Commenting POTWs further

cited that trucked wastes comprise a de

minimis portion of the total volume of

wastewater treated at their facilities.

Non-POTW commenters were, on the

other hand, unanimously of the view

that the CWT rule should apply to

POTWs. These commenters asserted

that POTWs and CWT facilities are

competing for many of the same

wastestreams, and therefore POTWs

should be subject to the same standards

as CWT facilities. These commenters

stated that POTWs are actively

competing for wastestreams not subject

to national effluent guidelines and

standards, and cautioned that EPA

should be concerned that this hauled

waste is being accepted with little or no

documentation regarding the source,

little or no monitoring of the shipments

when they arrive, and no pretreatment

before mixing with the normal POTW

influent. They also expressed concern

that POTWs often do not have

equivalent treatment compared to CWT

facilities and that pollutant reductions

are often due to dilution rather than

treatment. Finally, many CWT facilities

commented that by not including

POTWs in the scope of the CWT rule,

EPA might actually increase the

discharge of pollutants to the nation’s

waters since waste generators will have

an incentive to ship directly to POTWs

thus skipping what would have been

effective pretreatment at the CWT

facility.

It is clear from reviewing the

comments that many commenters may

misunderstand the interaction between

effluent guidelines and pretreatment

standards, and they are consequently

confused about how this guideline will

affect POTW operations. The following

discussion is intended as clarification.

Under the CWA, all direct dischargers

must comply with technology-based

effluent guidelines and any more

stringent limitations necessary to meet

State water quality standards. In the

case of certain pollutants and for certain

categories and classes of direct

dischargers, EPA promulgates

guidelines that establish these

technology-based limitations. In the

case of POTWs, the CWA specifically

identifies the technology—secondary

treatment that is the basis for POTW

effluent limitations.

In addition, the CWA also requires

EPA to establish pretreatment standards

for indirect dischargers—those

introducing wastewater to a POTW

either by pipe or sewer or by

transporting the waste by truck or rail to

the POTW. These standards are

designed to prevent the discharges of

pollutants that pass-through, interfere or

are otherwise incompatible with POTW

operations. The standards are

technology-based and analogous to

technology-based effluent limitations

applicable to direct dischargers. Once

EPA has established pretreatment

standards, no indirect discharger may

introduce wastewater to a POTW for

which there are pretreatment standards

except in compliance with the standard.

The CWA specifically prohibits the

owner or operator of any source from

violating a pretreatment standard. See

section 307(d) of the CWA. This

prohibition applies whether the

wastewater is discharged through a

sewer system or sent to a POTW by

truck or rail.

The CWA does authorize a POTW, in

limited circumstances, to revise

pretreatment standards for a discharger

to take account of the POTW’s actual

removal of a particular pollutant.

‘‘Removal credits’’ may be available to

a discharger generally under the

following conditions. First, the granting

of the removal credit by the POTW must

not cause a violation of the POTW’s

permit limitations or conditions.

81260 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Second, the POTW’s treatment of the

pollutant must not result in a sewage

sludge that cannot be use of disposed of

in accordance with sewage sludge

regulations promulgated pursuant to

section 405 of the CWA. See section

307(b) of the CWA.

EPA has promulgated regulations at

40 CFR Part 403 (General Pretreatment

Regulations for Existing and New

Sources of Pollution) that establish

pretreatment standards and

requirements that apply to any source

introducing pollutants from a nondomestic source into a POTW. These

standards include a general prohibition

on the introduction of any pollutant that

might pass through or interfere as well

as prohibitions on specific pollutants

such as those that may create a fire or

explosion hazard or corrosive structural

damage. EPA has also promulgated

national effluent pretreatment standards

(like the pretreatment standards

promulgated here today) for specific

industry categories as separate

regulations at 40 CFR subchapter N.

The regulations at 40 CFR Part 403

also require all POTWs with a design

flow greater than 5 MGD per day to

develop a pretreatment program.

Moreover, EPA or a State may require a

POTW with a design flow that is less

than or equal to 5 MGD to develop a

pretreatment program if warranted by

circumstances in order to prevent pass

through or interference. See 40 CFR

403.8(a). These pretreatment programs

must require compliance with all

applicable pretreatment standards and

requirements by industrial users of the

POTW. See 40 CFR 403.8(f)(ii).

Furthermore, each POTW developing a

pretreatment program must develop and

enforce specific local limits to

implement the general and specific

prohibition against pass-through and

interference. See 40 CFR 403.5(c). Thus,

any POTW subject to the requirement to

develop a pretreatment program that

accepts waste that does not comply with

a general or specific prohibition or with

national effluent pretreatment standards

is in violation of the regulations.

Consequently, following

promulgation of today’s rule, POTWs

with pretreatment programs that receive

wastestreams both subject to and not

regulated by national effluent standards

and limitations must ensure the

wastestreams do not violate these

requirements. In practice, with respect

to the wastestreams discussed by

commenters, this means that a POTW

may not accept untreated wastestreams

subject to national effluent guidelines

and standards. These would include

wastestreams subject to pretreatment

standards in 40 CFR subchapter N (e.g.,

electroplating wastes). Moreover, a

POTW may not accept certain other

streams not subject to national

guidelines and standards such as oilwater emulsions or mixtures if those

streams contain pollutants that would

pass through or interfere with POTW

operation. Note that 40 CFR 403.5(b)(5)

specifically prohibits the introduction

into a POTW of petroleum oil that will

cause pass-through or interference.

Given EPA’s conclusion here that oily

wastewaters contain pollutants that will

pass through POTWs, it is likely that

many POTWs are accepting wastes for

treatment that contain pollutants that

will pass through.

EPA is concerned that wastestreams

accepted at POTWs, both those subject

to and those not regulated by national

effluent guidelines and standards,

receive proper treatment. In 1999, EPA’s

Office of Wastewater Management

published the ‘‘Guidance Manual for the

Control of Wastes Hauled to Publicly

Owned Treatment Works’’ (EPA 833-B–

98–003, September 1999). This

document again stresses that national

effluent pretreatment standards apply to

waste generated by national effluent

guidelines and standards (40 CFR parts

401 to 471), whether the waste is

introduced to the POTW through the

sewer system or hauled to the POTW.

Moreover, EPA regulations require that

POTWs must ensure pretreatment of

wastes subject to national effluent

standards received at the POTW

regardless of the mode of transportation.

Similarly, because a POTW must

ensure that no user is introducing

pollutants into the POTW that would

pass-through the POTW into the

receiving waters or interfere with the

POTW operation, EPA strongly

recommends that each POTW should

document and monitor all hauled

wastestreams to ensure that necessary

pretreatment steps have been

performed. The guidance establishes a

waste acceptance procedure that clearly

resembles that generally performed at

CWT facilities. Further, in the case of

wastestreams not subject to national

guidelines and standards, the POTW

should also monitor the hauled

wastestreams to ensure that pollutant

reductions at the POTW will be

achieved through treatment and not

dilution.

Based on the types of hauled

wastewater that commenters have

indicated POTWs accept, EPA shares

the concern of many commenters that

pollutant reductions in these hauled

wastewaters at POTWs are largely due

to dilution. EPA reminds POTWs that

wastewaters that contain significant

quantities of metal pollutants,

significant quantities of petroleumbased oil and grease, or significant

quantities of non-biodegradable organic

constituents should be pretreated by the

generating facility or an appropriate

treatment facility prior to acceptance at

the POTW. EPA further reminds POTWs

that this remains true regardless of

whether or not these wastewaters

comprise a de minimis portion of the

total volume of the wastewaters treated

at their facility. EPA concluded that if

POTWs monitor hauled wastes

appropriately and additionally ensure

that all hauled wastes not subject to

national effluent guidelines and

standards can be effectively treated with

their biological treatment systems then

many of the issues raised by non-POTW

commenters will be alleviated.

EPA is aware of a POTW that plans

to open a wastewater treatment system

to operate in conjunction with its POTW

operations. This facility would accept

wastewaters subject to national

guidelines and standards, treat them,

and then discharge them to the POTW’s

treatment plant. The acceptance by a

POTW of wastes subject to national

effluent guidelines and standards that

do not comply with pretreatment

standards would seem to violate the

requirements noted above unless the

POTW has revised the applicable

standards to take account of its removal

of certain pollutants. EPA’s regulations

at 40 CFR § 403.7 describe the process

for obtaining removal credits and

identifying the pollutants for which

removal credits may be available. Under

the current regulations, removal credits

are only available for a limited number

of pollutants. The 1999 notice described

the removal credits program and when

and for what pollutants such credits

might be available at 64 FR 2339–10.

EPA would note that the new

wastewater treatment system would

itself be a POTW (or part of the POTW)

and, thus, any wastewater introduced to

it must meet all applicable pretreatment

standards. However, because POTWs

are already covered by the technology

requirements (i.e., secondary treatment)

specified in the CWA (40 CFR 133), they

are not considered CWT facilities and

are not within the scope of today’s rule.

G. Marine Generated Wastes

In the proposed rule (64 FR 2291),

EPA defined marine waste as waste

generated as part of the normal

maintenance and operation of a ship,

boat, or barge operating on inland,

coastal or open waters. Such wastes may

include ballast water, bilge water, and

other wastes generated as part of routine

ship operations. The proposal further

explained that EPA considered

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 81261

wastewater off-loaded from a ship as

being generated on-site at the point

where it is off-loaded provided that the

waste is generated as part of the routine

maintenance and operation of the ship

on which it originated while at sea. The

waste is not considered an off-site

generated waste (and thus subject to

CWT requirements) as long as it is

treated and discharged at the ship

servicing facility where it is off-loaded.

Therefore, EPA proposed not to include

these facilities as CWT facilities. The

proposal further clarified that if marine

generated wastes are off-loaded and

subsequently sent to a CWT facility at

a separate location and commingled

with other covered wastewater, these

facilities and their wastestreams would

be subject to provisions of this rule.

After careful consideration of

comments, EPA has not modified its

approach for marine generated waste

with one exception. For today’s rule,

EPA defines marine waste as waste

generated as part of the normal

maintenance and operation of a ship,

boat, or barge operating on inland,

coastal or open waters, or while berthed.

See 40 CFR § 437.1(c)(2). In response to

commenters’ requests for clarification,

EPA has changed the definition to

clarify that wastes generated while ships

are berthed are part of normal

maintenance and operational activities

and are thus ‘‘on-site.’’ As a further

point of clarification, waste generated

while a ship is berthed is not an off-site

generated waste so long as it is treated

and discharged at the ship servicing

facility where it is off-loaded. If,

however, marine generated wastes are

off-loaded and subsequently sent to a

CWT facility at a separate location and

commingled with other covered

wastewater, these facilities and their

wastestreams are subject to provisions

of this rule.

H. Thermal Drying of POTW Biosolids

The thermal drying of POTW

biosolids was not a focus of EPA’s

initial regulatory effort to develop this

guideline. Consequently, EPA did not

target thermal dryers during its data

collection activities. However,

commenters to the 1999 proposal

provided information on thermal drying

activities and requested EPA’s views as

to whether such operations would be

subject to this rule. Thermal dryers

accept off-site generated POTW

biosolids (sludges that remain after

wastewater treatment at a POTW) and

treat these biosolids with a variety of

technologies (e.g. rotary drum dryers) to

form pellets. These biosolids can then

be land applied. The thermal drying

process generates two primary

wastewater streams: facility water wash

down and blowdown from wet

scrubbers. These wastewaters are

discharged back to the POTW that

produced the biosolids.

Commenters to the 1999 proposal

requested that EPA not include these

activities within the scope of this rule

for the following reasons:

• The POTW and the thermal dryer

form a closed loop system. POTWs are

the sole source of off-site waste received

by thermal dryers. All wastewaters

generated from the treatment of these

biosolids are returned to the generator

(the POTW).

• All storage and processing areas at

these facilities are enclosed. Therefore,

this material poses very little or no

threat to storm water.

• Thermal drying activities bear little

resemblance to the other regulated

activities. Mandated testing parameters

and other requirements under the CWT

rule have little applicability to biosolids

processing.

EPA agrees with commenters that

thermal drying of biosolids should not

be subject to provisions of the CWT

rule. Because the only source of off-site

wastes received at these drying facilities

is biosolids produced at the POTW, the

wastewater being generated from

thermal drying of these biosolids should

contain the same pollutants being

treated at the POTW. As a result, the

wastewater should be completely

compatible with the treatment system at

the POTW and should not cause any

pass-through or interference.

Consequently, thermal drying of POTW

biosolids is not subject to provisions of

the CWT rule. See 40 CFR 437.1(b)(4).

I. Transporters and/or Transportation

Equipment Cleaners

Facilities that treat wastewater that

results from cleaning tanker trucks, rail

tank cars, or barges may be subject to

the provisions of this rule if not subject

to the Transportation Equipment

Cleaning (TEC) Point Source Category

guidelines (40 CFR Part 442). Thus, for

example, the CWT rule does not apply

to discharges from wastewater treatment

at facilities engaged exclusively in

cleaning the interiors of transportation

equipment covered by the TEC

regulation. EPA promulgated these

guidelines on August 14, 2000 at 65 FR

49666. The TEC regulation applies to

facilities that solely accept tanks which

have been previously emptied or that

contain a small amount of product,

called a ‘‘heel,’’ typically accounting for

less than one percent of the volume of

the tank. A facility that accepts for

cleaning a tank truck, rail tank car, or

barge not ‘‘empty’’ for purposes of TEC

may be subject to the provisions

established for the CWT rule.

There are some facilities that are

engaged in traditional CWT activities

and also engaged in traditional TEC

activities. If the wastewaters from the

two operations are commingled, under

the approach adopted for TEC, the

commingled wastewater flow from the

transportation equipment cleaning

activities would be subject to CWT

limits. Therefore, a facility performing

transportation equipment cleaning as

well as other CWT services that

commingles these wastes is a CWT

facility and all of the wastewater

discharges are subject to provisions of

this rule. If, however, a facility is

performing both operations and the

wastestreams are not commingled (that

is, transportation equipment cleaning

process wastewater is treated in one

system and CWT wastes are treated in

a second, separate system), both the TEC

rule and CWT rule apply to the

respective wastewaters. See 40 CFR

437.1(b)(10).

As a further point of clarification, the

CWT rule does apply to transportation

equipment cleaning wastewater

received from off-site. Transportation

equipment cleaning wastes received

from off-site that are treated at CWT

facilities along with other off-site wastes

are subject to provisions of this rule.

J. Landfill Wastewaters

EPA published effluent limitations

guidelines for Landfills, (40 CFR Part

445) at 65 FR 3007, (January 19, 2000).

There, EPA established limits for

facilities which operate landfills subject

to the provisions established in 40 CFR

Parts 257, 258, 264, and 265. The final

Landfills rule limitations do not apply

to wastewater associated with landfills

operated in conjunction with other

industrial or commercial operations in

most circumstances.

In the CWT industry, there are some

facilities that are engaged both in CWT

activities and in operating landfills. For

the CWT final rule, EPA’s approach to

facilities which treat mixtures of CWT

wastewater and landfill wastewater is

consistent with that established for the

landfill guideline. Therefore, a facility

performing landfill activities as well as

other CWT services that commingles the

wastewater is a CWT facility only, and

all of the wastewater discharges are

subject to the provisions of this rule. If

a facility is performing both operations

and the wastestreams are not

commingled (that is, landfill wastewater

is treated in one treatment system and

CWT wastewater is treated in a second,

separate, treatment system), the

provisions of the Landfill rule and CWT

81262 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

rule apply to their respective

wastewater.

Additionally, under the approach

established in the Landfills rulemaking,

CWT facilities which are dedicated to

landfill wastewater only, whether they

are located at a landfill site or not, are

subject to the effluent limitations for

Landfills. These dedicated landfill CWT

facilities are not subject to provisions of

the CWT rulemaking.

As a further point of clarification,

landfill wastewater is not specifically

excluded from provisions of this rule.

Landfill wastewater that is treated at

CWT facilities along with other covered

off-site wastestreams are subject to

provisions of this rule. Furthermore, a

landfill that commingles for treatment

its own landfill wastewater with other

landfill wastewater only is subject to the

Landfill limits in the circumstances

described in V.B above.

K. Incineration Activities

In January of this year, EPA

promulgated effluent guidelines and

pretreatment standards for wastewater

discharges from a limited segment of the

waste combustion industry. 65 FR 4360

(January 27, 2000). This regulation,

codified at 40 CFR Part 444, applies to

the discharge from a ‘‘commercial

hazardous waste combustor’’ (CHWC).

CHWCs are commercial incinerators

that treat or recover energy from

hazardous industrial waste.

There may be certain industrial

facilities (for whom EPA has established

guidelines limitations or standards in 40

CFR subpart N) which are subject to the

CWT regulation that also operate

incinerators or CHWCs. For the CWT

final rule, EPA has adopted the same

approach it has followed for other

industrial facilities subject to national

limitations and standards. Where a

facility treats CHWC (or other

incinerator wastewater) with CWT

wastewater, the permit writer (or local

control authority) would establish

discharge limitations (or pretreatment

standards) by using a flow-weighted

combination of the CHWC limitations/

standards (or BPJ incinerator wastewater

limitations/standards) and the CWT

limitations/standards. Thus, an organic

chemical facility with an on-site CHWC

(or other incinerator) that is also a CWT

would be subject to combined

wastestream formula pretreatment

standards or building block limitations

based on all three 40 CFR subpart N

regulations.

Additionally, a facility which only

treats CHWC wastewater (or other

incinerator wastewaters or waste that is

similar in nature as determined by the

permitting authority, see Section V.B),

whether located at a CHWC site or not,

would be subject not to the CWT

regulations but to the otherwise

applicable limitations or standards

(either CHWC or, in the case of nonCHWC incinerator wastewater,

limitations or standards developed by

the permit writer or local control

authority). EPA notes, however, that it

has not identified any CWT facilities

that are dedicated to CHWC (or other

incineration) wastewaters only.

Further, incineration wastewaters are

not specifically excluded from

provisions of this rule. Incineration

wastewaters received from off-site that

are treated at CWT facilities along with

other covered off-site wastestreams are

subject to CWT limitations and

provisions of this rule.

L. Solids, Soils and Sludges

EPA did not distinguish in its

information gathering efforts between

those waste treatment and recovery

facilities treating aqueous waste and

those treating non-aqueous wastes or a

combination of both. Thus, EPA’s 308

Waste Treatment Industry

Questionnaire and related CWT Detailed

Monitoring Questionnaire (DMQ) asked

for information on CWT operations

without regard to the type of waste

treated. EPA’s sampling program also

included facilities that accepted both

aqueous and solid wastes for treatment

and/or recovery. In fact, the facility that

forms the technology basis for the

metals subcategory limitations treats

both liquid and solid wastes. A facility

that accepts wastes from off-site for

treatment and/or recovery that generates

a wastewater is subject to the CWT rule

regardless of whether the wastes are

aqueous or non-aqueous. Therefore,

wastewater generated in the treatment of

solids received from off-site is subject to

the CWT rule.

As a further point of clarification, the

main concern in the treatment or

recycling of off-site ‘‘solid wastes’’ is

that pollutants contained in the solid

waste may be transferred to a process or

contact water resulting in a wastewater

that may require treatment. Examples of

such wastewaters include, but are not

limited to:

• Entrained water directly removed

through dewatering operations (for

example, sludge dewatering);

• Contact water added to wash or

leach contaminants from the waste

material; and

• Storm water that comes in direct

contact with waste material which

contain liquids.

The treatment or recovery of solids

that remain in solid form when

contacted with water and which do not

leach any chemicals into the water are

not subject to this rule. Examples of

excluded solids recovery operations are

the recycling of aluminum cans, glass

and plastic bottles. As a further point of

clarification, any wastewater generated

at a municipal recycling center is not

subject to provisions of this rule.

M. Scrap Metal Processors and Auto

Salvage Operations

During development of this

regulation, EPA did not examine

facilities engaged in scrap metal

processing or auto salvage operations as

part of its study. EPA did not attempt to

collect information on these types of

operations. However, commenters to the

1999 proposal provided some

information on these activities.

Commenters noted that these operations

often generate contaminated

wastewaters as a secondary part of their

operations. As described by

commenters, wastewater is often

produced when rainwater comes in

contact with the scrap metal and/or

automobiles during collection and

storage. This rainwater then becomes

contaminated with oily residue from the

scrap metal and/or automobiles.

Contaminated storm water is the only

wastewater resulting from these

operations.

Because contaminated storm water

generated from centralized scrap metal

processing or auto salvage operations

would, as the regulatory language is

specified, be subject to regulation, EPA

considered whether it had a basis for

regulating wastewaters from these

operations. Other than the limited

information supplied by commenters,

EPA has very little data concerning

these activities and the facilities that

conduct these activities. As a result,

EPA concluded that it should not

include within the scope of the

guideline wastewaters generated from

centralized scrap metal processing or

auto salvage at this time. EPA would

expect that permit writers and control

authorities would develop limitations or

local limits to establish site-specific

permit requirements for any centralized

scrap metal processing or auto salvage

operations generating and discharging a

contaminated stormwater.

N. Transfer Stations

During the initial stages of

development of this rule, EPA did not

envision transfer stations as part of the

centralized waste treatment industry. As

such, EPA did not attempt to collect

information on the operation of transfer

stations. However, EPA received

comment to the 1999 proposal asking

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 81263

that EPA clarify its coverage of these

facilities by this rule.

EPA has very little information on the

operation of transfer stations. Based on

comments, while transfer stations could

fall within the definition of a CWT since

they accept off-site industrial wastes,

they do not perform any treatment or

recovery of the off-site wastes. Transfer

stations simply facilitate the

distribution of wastes for disposal.

Consequently, EPA has concluded that

transfer stations should not be subject to

provisions of the CWT rule.

O. Stabilization/Solidification

As explained in the 1999 proposal,

EPA concluded that, by definition,

stabilization/solidification operations

are ‘‘dry’’ and do not produce any

wastewater. As such, EPA did not

propose to include stabilization/

solidification processes in the CWT

rule. At that time, EPA also explained

that it was considering a subcategory for

stabilization operations with a zero

discharge requirement, and requested

comment on this approach.

EPA received very little comment on

stabilization/solidification and no new

data from industry following the 1999

proposal. One commenter suggested

EPA require stabilization/solidification

operations to be zero discharge. Another

suggested EPA use the same approach

proposed for facilities handling used oil

filters. A third commented that EPA

should not promulgate a zero discharge

requirement because, in the event that a

wastewater is produced by stabilization/

solidification operations, the facility

would not have the option to treat the

wastewater on-site.

EPA re-examined its database and

concluded that while ‘‘solidification/

stabilization’’ processes do not

themselves produce any wastewater,

there are often wastewaters associated

with these processes. The major

wastewater reported by questionnaire

respondents associated with

stabilization/solidification operations is

equipment wash down. Further, the

database shows that many of the wastes

accepted from off-site for stabilization/

solidification are the same or similar to

wastes accepted for other covered CWT

operations.

Consequently, EPA is not

promulgating a subcategory for

stabilization/solidification with a zero

discharge requirement. EPA agrees with

commenters that, in the event that there

are wastewaters produced by or

associated with these operations,

facilities should have the option of

choosing whether to treat the wastes onsite or through other means. If these

operations produce a wastewater, then

the discharge of wastewater from these

facilities should be subject to provisions

of this rule. Therefore, ‘‘dry’’

stabilization/solidification operations

themselves are not subject to provisions

of the CWT rule. However, wastewater

discharges from stabilization/

solidification operations that are

performed on waste received from off

site are subject to provisions of this rule.

This approach is consistent with EPA’s

approach to fuel blending operations

and used oil filter management.

P. Waste, Wastewater, or Used Material

Re-Use

EPA recognizes that some facilities

accept wastewater from off-site for reuse rather than treatment or recovery.

The intent in accepting these off-site

‘‘treated’’ wastewaters is to replace

potable water or more expensive pure

water obtained from wells, surface

waters, etc. Examples include, but are

not limited to:

• The acceptance of wastewater from

off-site for use in place of potable water

in industrial processes;

• The use of secondary POTW

effluents as non-contact cooling water;

and

• The use of storm water in place of

potable water at shared industrial

facilities located in industrial parks.

Likewise, EPA is also aware that some

facilities accept used materials such as

spent pickle liquor for re-use as a

treatment chemical in place of virgin

treatment chemicals.

EPA applauds all pollution

prevention activities, especially those

that allow treated wastewater or spent

chemicals to be re-used rather than

discharged. EPA does not define this

type of activity as treatment or recovery.

Therefore, the acceptance of off-site

wastewater or spent chemicals for re-use

in the treatment system or other

industrial process is not a CWT activity

and is not subject to provisions of this

rule.

Q. Recovery and Recycling Operations

Many CWT facilities perform recovery

activities that lead to recycling of

materials either at the recovering site or

at another location. The purpose of

these activities is to recycle product

back into a use for which it was

originally intended, not the treatment

and disposal of wastewater streams.

Examples of such activities include but

are not limited to: used oil processing,

used glycol recovery, fuel blending,

metals recovery, and re-refining. Many

commenters to both the 1995 proposal

and the 1999 proposal noted that these

activities should not be included under

the scope of this rule because they are

not ‘‘treatment,’’ but ‘‘recovery’’

activities.

EPA applauds efforts to reduce

pollution and the ancillary adverse

consequences to the environment

associated with product disposal and

does not want to discourage these

practices. However, EPA also recognizes

that while the intent of these activities

is not treatment of a ‘‘wastewater,’’ but

rather recovery of a used or waste

material, wastewater is usually

generated from these recovery

processes. Generally, the facility

performing the recovery activity also

performs on-site treatment of the

resulting wastewater. EPA wants to

ensure that these wastewaters receive

appropriate treatment.

From the beginning of its data

gathering activities associated with the

development of this rule, EPA has

included recycling and recovery

activities along with wastewater

treatment activities. In fact, EPA

developed sections of the 308

Questionnaire to specifically target the

collection of information on metals,

solids, oils, and organics recovery

activities. Many of the facilities visited

and sampled by EPA perform recovery

operations. Some of these facilities refer

to themselves as ‘‘recyclers’’ and not

‘‘wastewater treatment facilities.’’ EPA’s

sampling data show that in many

instances the pollutants and

concentrations of pollutants in

wastewaters generated from recycling/

recovery activities are very similar or

more concentrated than wastewaters

accepted for ‘‘treatment’’ only. In fact,

many facilities that perform recovery

operations combine the wastewater

generated from the recovery operations

with other off-site wastewater received

for treatment. Consequently, EPA has

concluded that recovery operations are

included in the scope of this rule.

Therefore, unless specifically stated

elsewhere, facilities that recycle and

recover off-site waste, wastewaters and/

or used materials are considered

‘‘centralized waste treatment facilities’’

and are subject to provisions of this

rule. However, if metals recovery

operations are subject to the secondary

metals provisions of 40 CFR 421, the

Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Point

Source Category, then the provisions of

this part do not apply. These secondary

metals subcategories are Subpart C

(Secondary Aluminum Smelting

Subcategory), Subpart F (Secondary

Copper Subcategory), Subpart L

(Secondary Silver Subcategory), Subpart

M (Secondary Lead Subcategory),

Subpart P (Primary and Secondary

Germanium and Gallium Subcategory),

Subpart Q (Secondary Indium

81264 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Subcategory), Subpart R (Secondary

Mercury Subcategory), Subpart T

(Secondary Molybdenum and Vanadium

Subcategory), Subpart V (Secondary

Nickel Subcategory), Subpart X

(Secondary Precious Metals

Subcategory), Subpart Z (Secondary

Tantalum Subcategory), Subpart AA

(Secondary Tin Subcategory), Subpart

AB (Primary and Secondary Titanium

Subcategory), Subpart AC (Secondary

Tungsten and Cobalt Subcategory), and

Subpart AD (Secondary Uranium

Subcategory).

R. Silver Recovery Operations From

Used Photographic and X-Ray Materials

At the time of the 1999 proposal, EPA

proposed not to include electrolytic

plating/metallic replacement silver

recovery operations of used

photographic and x-ray materials within

the scope of this rule. The Agency based

its conclusion on the fundamental

difference in technology used to recover

silver at facilities devoted exclusively to

treatment of photographic and x-ray

wastes. However, for off-site wastes that

are treated/recovered at these facilities

through any other process and/or waste

generated at these facilities as a result of

any other centralized treatment/

recovery process, the Agency proposed

that these wastewaters would be subject

to provisions of this rule.

The Agency received many comments

to the 1999 proposal that supported

EPA’s decision to not include

electrolytic plating/metallic

replacement silver recovery operation of

used photographic and x-ray materials

within the scope of this rule. However,

commenters additionally noted that

while many of these facilities primarily

use electrolytic plating followed by

metallic replacement in silver recovery

operations, there are other processes

that are also utilized. Commenters

further noted that new silver recovery

technologies are emerging and being

studied and developed on a regular

basis. As such, commenters asked EPA

to not include silver recovery operations

from used photographic and x-ray

materials regardless of the method used

to recover the silver.

EPA agrees with commenters that

facilities that are devoted exclusively to

the centralized recovery of silver from

photographic and x-ray wastes should

not be covered by this rule, regardless

of the type of process used to recover

the silver. As such, facilities that

exclusively perform centralized silver

recovery from used photographic and xray wastes are not subject to provisions

of this rule. EPA would expect that, as

is the case now with wastewater

discharges associated with this

operation, the control authority or

permit writer would determine whether

to apply the provisions of 40 CFR part

421, Subpart L (the Secondary Silver

Subcategory of the Nonferrous Metals

Manufacturing Regulation) or establish

BPJ, site-specific permit requirements.

There are some facilities, however,

which are engaged in traditional CWT

activities and also engaged in

centralized silver recovery from

photographic and x-ray materials. If the

wastewaters from the two operations are

commingled, the commingled silver

recovery wastewater flow would be

subject to CWT limitations or standards.

Therefore, a facility performing

centralized silver recovery from used

photographic and x-ray materials as

well as some other covered CWT

services that commingles these wastes

are subject to provision of the CWT rule.

All of the wastewater discharges are

subject to provisions of this rule. If,

however, a facility is performing both

operations and the wastestreams are not

commingled (that is, silver recovery

wastewater is treated in one system and

CWT wastes are treated in a second,

separate system), the permit writer or

control authority should apply the

provision of 40 CFR part 421, if

applicable, or continue to establish BPJ,

site-specific permit requirements for the

discharge associated with the silver

recovery operations and apply the CWT

rule to the wastewaters associated with

the other covered CWT activities.

As a further point of clarification,

wastewater generated as a result of

centralized silver recovery operations

are not specifically excluded from

provisions of this rule. Silver recovery

wastewaters that are treated at CWT

facilities with other covered off-site

wastestreams are subject to provisions

of this rule.

S. High Temperature Metals Recovery

EPA is aware of three facilities in the

U.S. that recover metal using a ‘‘high

temperature metals recovery’’ process

(HTMR). HTMR facilities recycle metalbearing materials in a pyrometallurgical

process that employs very high

temperature furnaces. These facilities do

not use the water-based precipitation/

filtration technologies to recover metals

from wastewater observed at metals

subcategory facilities throughout the

CWT industry. At the time of the

proposal, EPA believed that all HTMR

processes were ‘‘dry’’ (i.e., did not

produce a wastewater). Consequently, in

the 1999 proposal, EPA proposed not to

include facilities that perform high

temperature metals recovery (HTMR)

within the coverage of this rule. EPA

further requested comment on whether

EPA should promulgate a zero discharge

requirement for facilities that utilize the

HTMR process.

Based on comment to the proposal,

EPA has concluded that while most

HTMR processes are dry, one of the

three known HTMR facilities produces

a wastewater (scrubber blowdown). As

such, EPA has concluded that a zero

discharge requirement for HTMR

facilities is inappropriate and has not

included it in the final CWT rule.

However, upon further examination of

the comments and its database, EPA has

concluded that HTMR facilities that

generate a wastewater should be

included within the scope of the CWT

rule. While the HTMR process is

different from other recycling

technologies studied by EPA for this

rulemaking, EPA has concluded that the

wastewater produced from HTMR

operations contains many of the CWT

metals subcategory pollutants of

concern and that the concentration of

these pollutants falls solidly within the

range of wastewaters in the CWT metals

subcategory. As such, while the HTMR

process may be different from waterbased precipitation technologies, the

resulting wastewaters are similar (see

DCN 33.2.1). Therefore, it is appropriate

for EPA to establish limits for HTMR

wastewaters using the metals

subcategory technology basis and these

limits will be achievable. EPA has

revised all of its analysis to reflect the

inclusion of these ‘‘non-dry’’ HTMR

facilities within the scope of the CWT

rule. However, if high temperature

metals recovery operations are subject to

any of the secondary metals provisions

of 40 CFR 421, the Nonferrous Metals

Manufacturing Point Source Category,

then the provisions of this part do not

apply. See Section V.Q for a list of the

secondary metals subcategories.

T. Solvent Recycling/Fuel Blending

EPA studied the solvent recycling

industry in the 1980s. EPA published its

findings in the ‘‘Preliminary Data

Summary for the Solvent Recycling

Industry’’ (EPA 440/1–89/102) in

September 1989 that describes this

industry and its recycling processes.

There, EPA has explained solvent

recovery as ‘‘the recycling of spent

solvents that are not the byproduct or

waste product of a manufacturing

process or cleaning operation located on

the same site.’’ Facilities generally

recycle spent solvents in two main

operations. Traditional solvent recovery

involves pretreatment of the

wastestream (in some cases) and

separation of the solvent mixtures by

specially constructed distillation

columns. In most cases, traditional

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 81265

solvent recovery is performed at organic

chemical manufacturing facilities. As a

result, wastewater discharges resulting

from this process are subject to effluent

limitations guidelines and standards for

the organic chemicals industry (often

abbreviated as OCPSF) (40 CFR part

414).

EPA is aware that there are a few

facilities that accept solvents from other

facilities for commercial solvent

recovery operations. Some perform

solvent recovery of spent or

contaminated chemicals received from

pharmaceutical and other chemical

manufacturing companies. Some recycle

spent solvents generated by parts

washers and other cleaning devices

operated by automotive shops, dry

cleaners, and other small businesses.

Because these commercial solvent

recovery facilities are not located at an

organic manufacturing facility, the

provisions of 40 CFR 414, as written, do

not apply to them.

Based on comments to the 1999 CWT

proposal, EPA considered whether it

should regulate commercial solvent

recovery facilities under the provisions

of this rule. EPA has determined,

however, not to include these

commercial solvent recovery operations

within the scope of this rule at this time.

Throughout the development of this

rule, EPA has clearly stated that

traditional solvent recovery operations

would not be included within the scope

of this rule. In developing its database

to support this rule, while EPA did

collect limited information on these

activities, EPA intentionally excluded

known solvent recoverers from its data

collection activities. As such, EPA has

only limited data on solvent recovery

activities that are not already subject to

OCPSF. It did not obtain information to

characterize the wastewaters generated

at such operations. Thus, EPA has no

basis for determining whether or not

such operations are sufficiently similar

to the organic waste subcategory so that

they may properly be regulated as

organic wastestreams. Therefore,

wastewaters resulting from traditional

solvent recovery activities as defined

above are not subject to these effluent

guidelines.

For wastewaters associated with

traditional solvent recovery activities

located at organic chemical

manufacturing facilities, permit writers

(and local control authorities) will, of

course, use the Organic Chemicals,

Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF)

guideline to establish discharge

requirements. For commercial

traditional solvent recovery activities

(not located at an organic chemical

manufacturing site), permit writers (and

local control authorities) should

carefully examine the wastewater to see

if it also contains pollutants regulated

by the OCPSF guidelines when the

permit writer establishes case-by-case

limitations under NPDES regulations at

40 CFR 125.3 or the control authority

establishes local limits under the

General Pretreatment Regulations at 40

CFR 403.5. Permit writers or local

control authorities must include

technology-based limits for any toxic

pollutant which is or may be discharged

at a level greater than the level which

can be achieved by treatment

requirements appropriate to the

permittee, or any pollutant which may

pass through or interfere with POTW

operations. (See 40 CFR 122.44(e),

125.3. See also 40 CFR 403.5).

Fuel blending is a type of solvent

recovery. Fuel blending is the process of

mixing wastes for the purpose of

regenerating a fuel for reuse. At the time

of the 1995 proposal, EPA did not

include fuel-blending operations within

the scope of the CWT rule because EPA

believed the fuel blending process was

‘‘dry’’ (that is, no wastewaters were

produced). Based on comments to the

original proposal and the Notice of Data

Availability and its review of data it has

obtained, EPA has reconfirmed its

conclusion that true fuel blenders do

not generate any process wastewaters

and are, therefore, zero dischargers. EPA

is concerned, however, that the term

‘‘fuel blending’’ may be loosely applied

to any process where recovered

hydrocarbons are combined as a fuel

product. Such operations occur at

nearly all used oil and fuel recovery

facilities.

EPA has, therefore, not included

‘‘dry’’ fuel blending operations within

the scope of the CWT rule. In the event

that wastewater is generated at a CWT

fuel blending facility, the discharge of

wastewaters associated with these

operations is subject to this rule.

U. Re-Refining

When EPA initially proposed

guidelines and standards for CWT

facilities, the regulations would have

limited discharges from used oil

reprocessors/reclaimers, but did not

specifically include or exclude

discharges from used oil re-refiners.

During review of information received

on the 1995 proposal and assessment of

the information collected, the Agency,

at one point, considered limiting the

scope of this regulation to reprocessors/

reclaimers only because it was not clear

whether re-refiners actually generated

wastewater. However, further data

gathering efforts have revealed that rerefiners may generate wastewater and

that the principal sources of re-refining

wastewaters are essentially the same as

for reprocessors/reclaimers.

Consequently, the final guidelines will

apply to re-refining wastewater.

EPA studied the used oil reclamation

and re-refining industry in the 1980s. In

September 1989, EPA published the

‘‘Preliminary Data Summary for the

Used Oil Reclamation and Re-Refining

Industry’’ (EPA 440/1–89/014) that

describes this industry and the

processes utilized. This document

generally characterizes the industry in

terms of the types of equipment used to

process the used oil. Minor processors

(reclaimers) generally separate water

and solids from the used oil using

simple settling technology, primarily inline filtering, and gravity settling with

or without heat addition. Major

processors (reclaimers) generally use

various combinations of more

sophisticated technology including

screen filtration, heated settling,

centrifugation, and light fraction

distillation primarily to remove water.

Re-refiners generally use the most

sophisticated systems that include, in

addition to the previous technologies, a

vacuum distillation step to separate the

oil into different components.

Today’s final rule applies to the

process wastewater discharges from

used oil re-refining operations. The

principal sources of wastewater include

oil-water gravity separation (often

accompanied by chemical/thermal

emulsion breaking) and dehydration

unit operations (including light

distillation and the first stage of vacuum

distillation). EPA has, to date, identified

two re-refining facilities.

V. Used Oil Filter and Oily Absorbent

Recycling

EPA did not obtain information on

used oil filter or oily-absorbent (oil

soaked or contaminated disposable rags,

paper, or pads) recycling through the

Waste Treatment Industry

Questionnaire. However, in response to

the September 1996 Notice of Data

Availability and the 1999 proposal, EPA

received comments from facilities

which recycle used oil filters and oily

absorbents. In addition, EPA also visited

several used oil reprocessors that

recycle used oil filters or oily absorbents

as part of their operations.

Used oil filter and oily absorbent

recycling processes range from simple

crushing and draining of entrained oil to

more involved processes where filters or

absorbent materials are shredded and

the metal and filter material are

separated. Generally, the resulting used

oil is recycled, the separated metal

product is sold to a smelter, and the

81266 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

separated filter material is sold as a

solid fuel. Based on information

collected during EPA’s site visits and

comments on the 1999 proposal,

wastewater may be generated during all

phases of the recycling activity

including collection activities, plant

maintenance, and air pollution control.

EPA notes, however, that based on its

observations, many of these activities

are ‘‘dry’’ and do not produce associated

wastewaters. In fact, at the time of the

1999 proposal, EPA believed these

activities were largely ‘‘dry’’ and

requested comment on whether EPA

should promulgate a zero discharge

requirement for facilities performing

used oil filter recovery.

As detailed above, based on comment

on the proposal, EPA has learned that

not all used oil filter and absorbent

recycling activities are dry.

Consequently, EPA has decided that it

should not adopt a zero discharge

requirement for these activities. Upon

further examination of the comments

and its database, EPA has concluded

that it should include used oil filter and

absorbent recovery facilities that

generate a wastewater within the scope

of the CWT rule. While EPA does not

have data specific to used oil filter

recovery on the characteristics of these

wastewaters, these wastewaters are

often combined with other covered

CWT wastewaters for treatment.

Further, since the material being

recovered is primarily used oil, EPA has

concluded that any resulting

wastewaters will be similar (in terms of

constituents and concentration) to

wastewaters generated from used oil

recovery. As a result, EPA has

concluded that these operations should

be regulated as are other centralized

used oil recovery activities. Where

information is available to EPA on these

operations, EPA has revised its analysis

to reflect the inclusion of these ‘‘nondry’’ used oil filter and absorbent

facilities within the scope of the CWT

rule.

W. Grease Trap/Interceptor Wastes

EPA received comments suggesting

that the scope of the CWT rule should

not include grease, sand, and oil

interceptor wastes. Some of these wastes

are from non-industrial sources and

some are from industrial sources. Some

are treated at central locations designed

to treat grease trap/interceptor wastes

exclusively and some of these wastes

are treated at traditional CWT facilities

with traditional CWT wastes. Examples

of the types of customers which

generate these grease trap/interceptor

wastes include, but are not limited to

auto and truck maintenance and repair

shops; auto body and parts shops; car

washes; gas stations; commercial

bottling facilities; food and produce

distribution shops; restaurants; and tire

shops.

Throughout the development of this

rule, EPA has directed its efforts to CWT

operations that treat and/or recover offsite industrial wastes and not to foodrelated wastes. Grease trap/interceptor

wastes are defined as animal or

vegetable fats/oils from grease traps or

interceptors generated by facilities

engaged in food service activities. Such

facilities include, but are not limited to

restaurants, cafeterias, caterers,

commercial bottling facilities, and food

and distribution shops. EPA has

concluded that these wastes are

fundamentally different from the types

of wastes examined for this rule and are

outside the scope of this rule. Grease

trap/interceptor wastes should not

contain any hazardous chemicals or

materials that would prevent the fats/

oils from being recovered and recycled.

Wastewater discharges from the

centralized treatment of wastes

produced from oil interceptors,

however, which are designed to collect

petroleum-based oils, sand, etc. from

industrial type processes, are a different

case and EPA has determined that this

wastewater is properly subject to this

rule. Examples of facilities that produce

oil interceptor waste include, but are

not limited to, auto and truck

maintenance and repair shops; auto

body and parts shops; car washes; and

gas stations. EPA collected data on the

types and concentrations of pollutants

in oil interceptor wastes through

comments and EPA sampling. The data

show, that like other CWT wastes, the

concentration of pollutants can vary

greatly from one wastestream to another.

EPA’s sampling data show that these

materials can be very similar in nature

and concentration to other wastes

covered by this rule. Consequently, EPA

has determined these wastes should be

included within the scope of this rule.

X. Food Processing Wastes

During development of this rule, EPA

did not collect information from

facilities engaged in centralized waste

treatment of food processing wastes. As

detailed in V.W, EPA envisioned that

this rule would be limited to the

treatment and/or recovery of off-site

industrial wastes. While food processing

may be an ‘‘industrial’’ activity, these

wastes do not contain heavy metals,

concentrated organics, or petroleum

based oils. In terms of contaminants of

concern, these wastes are similar to

those generated by cafeterias,

restaurants, etc. Consequently, the final

guidelines will not apply to animal and

vegetable fats/oils wastewaters at CWT

facilities, specifically those generated by

food processors/manufacturers.

Y. Sanitary Wastes and/or Chemical

Toilet Wastes

The provisions of the CWT rule, as

previously explained, will not cover

sanitary wastes (such as septage), nor

will they cover chemical toilet wastes.

EPA expects that permit writers and

control authorities would develop BPJ

limitations or local limits to establish

site-specific permit requirements for any

commercial sanitary waste treatment

facility.

Similarly, sanitary wastes or chemical

toilet wastes received from off-site and

treated at an industrial facility or a CWT

facility are not subject to the provisions

of the CWT rule. If these wastes are

mixed with industrial wastes, EPA

would expect that, as is the case now

with ancillary sanitary waste flows

mixed for treatment at facilities subject

to national effluent guidelines and

standards, the permit writer would

establish BPJ, site-specific permit

requirements.

Z. Treatability, Research and

Development, and Analytical Studies

During the initial stages of

development of this rule, EPA did not

envision regulation of facilities which

accept off-site wastes for treatability

studies, research and development, or

chemical or physical analysis. As such,

EPA did not attempt to collect

information on these activities.

However, EPA received comment to its

proposals asking that EPA clarify its

coverage of these activities by this rule.

EPA has very little information on

these activities. Based on comments,

these activities, arguably, would fall

within the definition of Centralized

Waste Treatment since they accept offsite wastes. The purpose of these

activities is not treatment or recovery,

but rather the evaluation of different

treatment techniques. Consequently,

EPA has concluded that treatability,

research and development or analytical

activities should not be subject to

provisions of the CWT rule.

Permit writers and local authorities

should use their Best Professional

Judgment (BPJ) and local limits

authority to establish limitations and

standards for these wastestreams. Under

EPA’s regulations, permit writers or

local control authorities must include

technology-based limits either for any

toxic pollutant which is or may be

discharged at a level greater than the

level which can be achieved by

treatment requirements appropriate to

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 81267

the permittee or for any pollutant which

may pass through or interfere with

POTW operations. (See 40 CFR

122.44(e), 125.3.) See also 40 CFR 403.5.

EPA would expect that, in some cases,

wastewater associated with these

activities might look very much like the

wastestreams regulated under this rule.

In those circumstances, permit writers

(and local control authorities) may want

to consider the technical development

document developed for the CWT

guideline when the permit writer

establishes case-by-case limitations

under NPDES regulations at 40 CFR

125.3 or the control authority

establishes local limits under the

General Pretreatment Regulations at 40

CFR 403.5.

EPA notes that if a CWT facility

accepts off-site wastes for treatability,

research and development, or analytical

activities, and commingles any resulting

wastewaters with other covered

wastewaters prior to discharge, these

wastewaters would be subject to

provisions of this rule.

VI. Subcategorization

EPA developed different limitations

and standards for the CWT operations

depending on the type of waste received

for treatment or recovery. EPA remains

convinced this is the most appropriate

basis for subcategorizing the CWT

industry. EPA has determined that there

are four subcategories appropriate for

the CWT industry:

• Subcategory A: Facilities that treat

or recover metal from metal-bearing

waste, wastewater, or used material

received from off-site (‘‘metals

subcategory’’);

• Subcategory B: Facilities that treat

or recover oil from oily waste,

wastewater, or used material received

from off-site (‘‘oils subcategory’’);

• Subcategory C: Facilities that treat

or recover organics from organic waste,

wastewater, or used material received

from off-site (‘‘organics subcategory’’);

and

• Subcategory D: Facilities that treat

or recover some combination of metalbearing, oily, or organic waste,

wastewater, or used material received

from off-site (’’multiple wastestream

subcategory’’).

For a detailed explanation of EPA’s

subcategorization methodology and

factors considered as the basis for

today’s subcategorization, see the 1999

proposal (64 FR 2300–2301) and

Chapter 5 of the Final Technical

Development Document.

VII. Industry Description

As detailed in Section V above, the

universe of CWT facilities in the United

States is broad. The development of this

industry is largely a result of the

adoption of the increased pollution

control measures required by the CWA

and RCRA. The 1999 proposal (64 FR

2293–2294) and Chapter 4 of the

technical development document

provide a detailed description of the

development of this industry and its

operation. EPA’s 1999 proposal (64 FR

2301–2302) and Chapter 5 of the Final

Technical Development Document also

provide detailed descriptions of

operations at facilities by subcategory.

EPA now estimates that there are 223

CWT facilities. Changes in the estimate

of the total number of CWT facilities

since the proposal reflect facilities that

were included or excluded because of

scope changes/clarifications. EPA is

aware that CWT facilities have entered

or left the centralized waste treatment

market. This is expected in a service

industry. Even so, EPA is comfortable

that its estimate of facilities is

reasonable and has not adjusted it, other

than to account for scope changes/

clarifications. Of these 223 CWT

facilities, approximately 14 discharge

directly to surface waters of the U.S.,

151 discharge indirectly to POTWs, and

58 are zero or alternative dischargers.

The zero or alternative discharge

methods include (1) wastewater is

disposed of by alternate means such as

deep well injection or incineration; (2)

wastewater is sent off-site for treatment,

generally to another CWT; (3)

wastewater is evaporated; and (4) no

wastewater is generated. There are 62,

178, and 32 facilities in the metals, oils,

and organics subcategories, respectively.

Thirty-seven facilities accept wastes

from multiple subcategories and could

be subject to the multiple wastestream

subcategory.

VIII. The Final Regulation

For a detailed discussion of all

technology options considered in the

development of today’s final rule, see

the proposal (64 FR 2305–2315) and

Chapter 9 of the technical development

document.

A. Best Practicable Control Technology

(BPT)

1. Subcategory A—Metals Subcategory

EPA is establishing BPT limitations

for the metals subcategory for 19

pollutants, including cyanide. The

technology basis for these BPT

limitations is metals option 4: primary

precipitation, liquid-solid separation,

secondary precipitation, clarification,

and sand filtration. This is the same

technology that was the basis for the

1999 proposed limitations. Under

option 4, the treater varies pH levels and

treatment chemicals in order to promote

optimal removal of the wide range of

metal pollutants found in CWT metals

wastewaters. Different metals are

preferentially removed with different

treatment chemicals and different pH

levels. Generally, BPT limitations based

on option 4 will require some facilities

to more carefully control their treatment

systems, increase the quantities of

treatment chemicals they use, perform

an additional precipitation step, and

add a clarification and sand filtration

step. In the case of complex cyanide,

metal-bearing streams, EPA’s limitations

require cyanide removal prior to metals

treatment. EPA based the cyanide

limitations on cyanide option 2

treatment, which is alkaline

chlorination in a two-step process.

The Agency concluded that this

treatment system represented the best

practicable technology currently

available and should be the basis for the

BPT metals limitations for the following

reasons. First, the option 4 technology is

one that is readily applicable to all

facilities that are treating metal-bearing

wastestreams. It is based on a

technology including two-stage

chemical precipitation that is currently

used at approximately 25 percent of the

facilities in this subcategory. Second,

the adoption of this level of control

would represent a significant reduction

in pollutants discharged into the

environment by facilities in this

subcategory. Option 4 would annually

remove approximately 4.1 million

pounds of TSS and metals now

discharged to the Nation’s waters.

Third, the Agency assessed the total cost

of water pollution controls likely to be

incurred for option 4 in relation to the

effluent reduction benefits and

determined these costs were

reasonable—$0.40 per pound ($1997). In

the 1999 proposal, EPA explained why

it rejected the other options it

considered for BPT. See 64 FR 2280 at

2306.

Although EPA is not changing the

technology basis from that proposed,

EPA is revising all of the BPT metals

subcategory limitations. This is due to

changes in the statistical methodology

used to calculate pollutant long-term

averages and limitations as detailed in

Section IV.H above.

The Agency used chemical

precipitation treatment technology

performance data from the Metal

Finishing regulation (40 CFR Part 433)

to establish direct discharge limitations

for TSS because the facility from which

the option 4 limitations were derived is

an indirect discharger and the treatment

system is not necessarily designed for

81268 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

optimum removal of conventional

parameters, due to the lack of stringent

local limits for these parameters. EPA

has concluded that the transfer of this

data is appropriate given the absence of

adequate treatment technology for this

pollutant at the only otherwise welloperated BPT CWT facility examined by

EPA. Based on a review of the data, EPA

concluded that similar wastes (in terms

of TSS concentrations) are being treated

at both metal finishing and centralized

waste treatment facilities, and that the

use of the metal finishing data to derive

TSS limits for this subcategory is

warranted. Because the technology basis

for the transferred limitations includes

clarification rather than sand filtration,

the Agency also included a clarification

step prior to sand filtration (which the

option 4 facility does not have) in the

technology basis for option 4 for

facilities subject to BPT. Therefore,

because the technology basis for CWT is

based on primary chemical

precipitation, primary clarification,

secondary chemical precipitation,

secondary clarification, and sand

filtration and the technology basis for

Metal Finishing is based on primary

precipitation and clarification only, EPA

concluded that CWT facilities will

perform similarly (or better) when

treating TSS in wastes in this

subcategory.

BPT limitations established by option

4 (except TSS) are based on data from

a single, well-operated system.

Generally, for purposes of defining BPT

effluent limitations, EPA looks at the

performance of the best treatment

technology and calculates limitations

from some level of average performance

measured at facilities that employ this

‘‘best’’ treatment technology. In

reviewing technologies currently in use

in this subcategory, however, EPA

found that facilities generally utilize a

single stage chemical precipitation

step—a technology which does not

achieve adequate metals removals for

the wastestreams observed at these

operations. EPA did identify facilities

that utilize additional metals

wastewater treatment, generally

secondary chemical precipitation, but

without the final multimedia filtration

step. Also, EPA found that only the BPT

model facility accepts a full spectrum of

waste, often with extremely high metals

concentrations and provides, therefore,

a suitable basis to determine the

performance that a well-designed and

operated system can achieve for a wide

range of raw waste concentrations.

Consequently, EPA is adopting BPT

limitations based on performance data

from this facility. For further discussion,

see the 1999 proposal at 64 FR 2280–

2357.

Cyanide Subset. EPA is adopting BPT

limitations for the metals subcategory

for cyanide bearing streams. The

presence of high cyanide concentrations

detrimentally affects the performance of

metal precipitation processes due to the

formation of metal-cyanide complexes.

Effective treatment of such wastes

typically requires a cyanide destruction

step prior to any metal precipitation

steps. Consequently, in the case of metal

streams which contain concentrated

cyanide complexes, EPA based BPT

limitations on an additional treatment

step to destroy cyanide before metals

precipitation: alkaline chlorination in a

two-step process (cyanide option 2).

This is the same technology that was the

basis for the 1999 proposed limitations.

In the first step, cyanide is oxidized to

cyanate in a pH range of 9 to 11. The

second step oxidizes cyanate to carbon

dioxide and nitrogen at a controlled pH

of 8.5.

There are several reasons supporting

the selection of limitations based on

cyanide option 2, as explained in detail

in the 1999 proposal at 64 FR 2309.

First, the facility achieving cyanide

option 2 removals accepts a full

spectrum of cyanide waste.

Consequently, the treatment used by the

cyanide option 2 facility can be readily

applied to all facilities in the subset of

this subcategory. Second, adoption of

this level of control would represent a

significant reduction in pollutants

discharged into the environment by

facilities in this subset. Finally, the

Agency assessed the total cost for

cyanide option 2 in relation to the

effluent reduction benefits and

determined these costs were

economically reasonable.

2. Subcategory B—Oils Subcategory

The Agency is today adopting BPT

limitations for the oils subcategory for

22 pollutants. The technology basis for

the BPT limitations is oils option 9:

emulsion breaking/gravity separation,

secondary gravity separation and

dissolved air flotation. This is the same

technology that was the basis for the

1999 proposed limitations. EPA’s data

indicate that all oils treatment facilities

currently utilize some form of emulsion

breaking and/or gravity separation

system. Secondary gravity separation

involves using a series of tanks to

separate the oil and water and then

skimming the oily component off. The

resulting water moves to the next step.

The gravity separation steps are then

followed by dissolved air flotation

(DAF). DAF separates solid or liquid

particles from a liquid phase by

introducing air bubbles into the liquid

phase. The bubbles attach to the

particles and rise to the top of the

mixture. Often, chemicals are added to

increase the removal of metal

constituents. BPT limitations based on

this option will likely require some

facilities to more carefully control their

treatment systems, perform additional

gravity separation steps, or install and

operate a DAF system. For oils streams

with relatively high concentrations of

metals, these limitations will also

require some facilities to use increased

quantities of treatment chemicals to

enhance the removal of metals.

EPA developed the final limitations

for this option using sampling data from

facilities both with and without the

secondary gravity separation step. EPA’s

data show that the secondary gravity

separation step may not always be

necessary to meet the final limitations,

depending on the level of treatment in

the initial gravity-separation/emulsionbreaking step. EPA’s data show there is

a wide range of pollutants being

discharged from this initial treatment

step. EPA concluded that if many of the

facilities optimize treatment at this

level, the secondary gravity separation

step may not be required. However, EPA

estimated the costs to comply with the

limitations with the secondary gravity

separation step included to ensure this

technology option’s economic

achievability.

The Agency is today adopting BPT

limitations for the oils subcategory

based on Option 9, emulsion breaking/

gravity separation, secondary gravity

separation and dissolved air flotation for

two reasons. First, the adoption of this

level of control would represent a

significant reduction in pollutants

discharged into the environment by

facilities in this subcategory. Second,

the Agency assessed the total costs of

water pollution controls likely to be

incurred for this option in relation to

the effluent reduction benefits and

determined these costs were reasonable

at $0.63/lb ($1997). In the 1999

proposal, EPA explained why it rejected

the other options it considered for BPT

for this subcategory. See 64 FR 2280 at

2309–11.

EPA believes it is important to note

that BPT limitations for conventional

parameters established by Option 9 are

based on data from a single, welloperated, indirect-discharging system.

Generally, for purposes of defining BPT

effluent limitations, EPA looks at the

performance of the best treatment

technology and calculates limitations

from some level of average performance

measured at facilities that employ this

‘‘best’’ treatment technology. The

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 81269

3EPA selected the most stringent maximum

monthly average limitations and its corresponding

maximum daily limitation.

facilities sampled as the technology

basis for this subcategory, however,

were not required to optimize their oil

and grease or TSS removals because

they discharge to POTWs. Current

POTW/local permit limitations for oil

and grease in this subcategory range

from 100 mg/L to 2,000 mg/L and for

TSS from 250 mg/L to 10,000 mg/L.

Many have no oil and grease or TSS

limits at all. EPA concluded that only

one of the systems in this subcategory

for which EPA has data was designed to

remove oil and grease and TSS

effectively. EPA concluded that the oil

and grease and TSS removals are

uniformly inadequate at the other

facilities included in the BPT

limitations calculations for other

parameters. Consequently, EPA based

the oil and grease and TSS limitations

on data from a single facility.

3. Subcategory C—Organics Subcategory

The Agency is today adopting BPT

limitations for the organics subcategory

for 17 pollutants. The technology basis

for the BPT limitations is organics

option 4: equalization and biological

treatment. Biological treatment for this

option is in the form of a sequential

batch reactor. This is the same

technology that was the basis for the

1999 proposed limitations. The

preamble to the proposal provided

further explanation of EPA’s decision

(64 FR 2311–12).

The Agency concluded that this

treatment system represented the best

practicable technology currently

available and should be the basis for the

BPT organics limitations for several

reasons. The technology is already used

at the four direct discharging facilities

that treat organic wastes and results in

the removal of 28,700 lbs annually of

conventional pollutants (at baseline).

Moreover, because the treatment is in

place, the cost of compliance with the

limitations will obviously be reasonable.

Unlike the other BPT limitations

adopted today, the adoption of

limitations based on option 4 will not,

in all probability, result in any

significant change in the quantity of

pollutants discharged into the

environment by facilities in this

subcategory. As noted, EPA’s data

suggests that all direct discharging

facilities in this subcategory currently

employ equalization and biological

treatment systems, and EPA assumed

that all those facilities will be able to

meet the BPT limitations without

additional capital or operating costs. If

any facilities were to incur increased

operating costs associated with the

limits, EPA concluded these increases

are negligible and has not quantified

them. Many of these facilities are not

currently required to monitor for

organic parameters or are only required

to monitor a couple of times a year.

Thus, the estimated costs for complying

with BPT limitations for this

subcategory are associated with

additional monitoring only. The Agency

determined the additional monitoring is

warranted, and will promote more

effective and consistent treatment at

these facilities. In the 1999 proposal,

EPA explained why it rejected the other

options it considered for BPT for this

subcategory. See 64 FR 2280 at 2311–12.

The selected BPT option is based on

the performance of a single indirect

discharging facility. While EPA

identified four direct discharging

organics subcategory facilities that

utilize biological treatment, EPA did not

use data from these facilities to establish

limitations because they commingle

organics subcategory wastewaters with

other CWT subcategory wastewaters or

wastewaters subject to other national

effluent guidelines and standards. Many

facilities that are treating wastes that

will be subject to effluent limitations for

the organics subcategory also operate

other industrial processes that generate

much larger amounts of wastewater than

the quantity of off-site generated organic

waste receipts. The off-site generated

organic waste receipts are directly

mixed with the wastewater from the

other industrial processes for treatment.

Therefore, identifying facilities to

sample for limitations development was

difficult because the waste received for

treatment and treatment unit

effectiveness could not be properly

characterized for off-site generated

waste. The treatment system on which

EPA based option 4 was one of the few

facilities identified which treated

organic waste receipts separately from

other on-site industrial wastewater.

The Agency used biological treatment

performance data from the

Thermosetting Resin Subcategory of the

OCPSF regulation to establish direct

discharge limitations for BOD5 and TSS

because the facility from which Option

4 limitations were derived is an indirect

discharger and the treatment system is

not operated to effectively remove

conventional pollutants. EPA has

concluded that the transfer of this data

is appropriate given the absence of

adequate treatment technology for these

pollutants at the only otherwise welloperated BPT CWT facility in this

subcategory that the Agency was able to

evaluate. Moreover, EPA concluded that

the biological treatment systems at CWT

facilities will perform similarly to those

at OCPSF facilities. EPA based this

conclusion on its review of the NPDES

permits for the four direct discharging

facilities in this subcategory. Two of

these facilities are located at

manufacturing facilities that commingle

their wastewater for treatment and are

already subject to OCPSF. The other two

facilities have conventional pollutant

limits which are lower than those

adopted today. EPA has concluded that

all of these facilities should be able to

comply with the transferred limitations

without incurring additional costs.

Likewise, EPA has not estimated any

additional pollutant removals associated

with this data transfer.

4. Subcategory D—Multiple

Wastestream Subcategory

The Agency is today adopting BPT

limitations for the multiple wastestream

subcategory for up to 38 pollutants. EPA

developed four sets of limitations for

each of the possible combinations of the

three subcategories of wastestreams: oils

and metals, oils and organics, metals

and organics, and oils, metals and

organics. The multiple wastestream

subcategory limitations were derived by

combining BPT pollutant limitations

from up to all three subcategories

selecting the most stringent values

where they overlap.3 Therefore, the

technology basis for the multiple

wastestream subcategory limitations

reflects the technology basis for the

applicable subcategories as detailed in

VIII.A.1–3.

As detailed in IV.F, multiple

wastestream subcategory limitations are

only available to CWT facilities which

accept waste in multiple subcategories.

These facilities must certify as well as

demonstrate that their treatment system

obtains equivalent removals to those

which are the basis for the separate

subcategory limits. The multiple

wastestream subcategory allows the

facility to monitor for compliance just

prior to discharge rather than directly

following treatment of a each

subcategory’s wastestream. For multiple

subcategory facilities, this option

simplifies implementation and reduces

monitoring costs. EPA has, however,

estimated additional burden associated

with the certification process in

‘‘National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES)/

Compliance Assessment/Certification

Information’’ ICR (No.1427.05) for direct

dischargers and ‘‘National Pretreatment

Program (40 CFR part 403)’’ ICR (No.

0002.08) for indirect dischargers.

EPA has determined these limitations

are also best practicable technology

81270 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

4EPA’s data show that option 3 would remove

approximately 6% more additional toxic poundequivalents than option 4.

limitations for facilities that operate in

one or more CWT categories for the

following reasons. EPA has concluded

that, for multiple subcategory facilities,

the limitations adopted in this

subcategory in combination with the

certification process will provide

pollutant removals equal to or greater

than those projected if the facility elects

to comply with the individual

subcategory limitations. Further,

analysis shows that the costs for multisubcategory facilities to comply with the

multiple wastestream subcategory

limitations are generally equal to or less

than the costs associated with

complying with each applicable

subcategory’s limitations individually.

Because EPA determined that costs of

complying with the individual

subcategory limits are achievable and

costs of complying with the multiple

subcategory limits are no greater, EPA

concluded that the multiple subcategory

wastestream limits are economically

achievable.

B. Best Conventional Pollutant Control

Technology (BCT)

In today’s rule, EPA adopts BCT

limitations equivalent to BPT for all

subcategories. In deciding whether to

adopt different BCT limits, EPA

considered whether there are

technologies that achieve greater

removals of conventional pollutants

than adopted for BPT, and whether

those technologies are cost-reasonable

under the standards established by the

CWA, and implemented through

regulation. EPA generally refers to the

decision criteria as the ‘‘BCT Cost Test.’’

For all four subcategories, EPA

identified no technologies that can

achieve greater removals of

conventional pollutants than those that

are the basis for BPT that are also costreasonable under the BCT Cost Test.

Accordingly, EPA is adopting BCT

effluent limitations equal to the BPT

effluent limitations. For additional

information on the results of the BCT

Cost Test, refer to Section X.F.

C. Best Available Technology

Economically Achievable (BAT)

EPA today is adopting BAT effluent

limitations for all subcategories of the

CWT industry based on the same

technologies selected as the basis for

BPT for each subcategory. The BAT

limitations are the same as the BPT

limitations for priority and nonconventional pollutants. As described in

the BPT discussion, in general, the

adoption of this level of control will

represent a significant reduction in

pollutants discharged into the

environment by facilities in this

industry. Additionally, EPA has

evaluated the economic impacts

associated with compliance and found

the technologies to be economically

achievable. The economic analysis is

discussed in Section X.G.

With the exception of the metals

subcategory, EPA has not identified any

more stringent treatment technology

option different from those evaluated for

BPT that might represent best available

technology economically achievable for

this industry.

For the metals subcategory, EPA did

consider as BAT technology a treatment

technology that it had evaluated for the

1999 proposal, option 3, based on the

use of selective metals precipitation.

However, as detailed in the proposal (64

FR 2307–2308, 2312), there is little

additional toxic removal associated with

option 3 while the costs to the industry

for are four times greater than the cost

of the BPT option, option.4

EPA has concluded that it should not

adopt BAT limitations based on Option

3 for several reasons. First, the option 3

technology may not be the best

‘‘available’’ technology for existing

metals subcategory facilities because

physical constraints may prevent its use

at certain facilities. Currently, only one

facility in the metals subcategory is

employing selective metals

precipitation, which requires the

separation and holding of wastestreams

in numerous treatment tanks. EPA is

aware that some facilities do not have,

and may not be able to obtain, sufficient

space to install the additional treatment

tanks that would be needed for selective

metals precipitation. Second, while the

removals associated with option 4 are

not as great as those calculated for

option 3, achievement of limitations

based on the option 4 technology will

still represent a significant advance in

removals for the industry over those

obtained from conventional

precipitation technology. Given these

factors, EPA has concluded it should

adopt BAT limitations based on the

option 4 technology.

For the oils and organics

subcategories, as detailed in the

proposal (64 FR 2312–2313), EPA has

evaluated treatment technologies for

BAT limitations, which theoretically

should provide greater removal of

pollutants of concern. For example, EPA

identified an add-on treatment

technology to technologies considered

for BPT—carbon adsorption—that

should have further increased removals

of pollutants of concern. However,

EPA’s data show increases rather than

decreases in concentrations of specific

pollutants of concern. EPA has found

that the treatment performance of

activated carbon is sometimes

unreliable due to the competitive

adsorption and desorption of pollutants

that have different affinities for

adsorption on activated carbon. Also,

pH changes of the wastewater going

through the carbon adsorption system

may cause stable metal complexes to

dissolve and thus cause an increase in

some metal concentrations through the

adsorption system. Consequently, EPA

is not adopting BAT limitations based

on this technology.

D. New Source Performance Standards

(NSPS)

As previously noted, under Section

306 of the Act, EPA must propose and

promulgate Federal standards of

performance of for categories of new

sources. Section 306(e) provides that,

after the effective date of the standards

of performance, the owner or operator of

a new source may not operate the source

in violation of any applicable standard

of performance. The statute defines

‘‘standard of performance’’ as a standard

for the control of the discharge of

pollutants which reflects the greatest

degree of effluent reduction achievable

through application of the best available

demonstrated control technologies,

processes, operating methods or other

alternatives, including, where

practicable, a standard permitting no

discharge of pollutants. See Section

306(a)(1) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C.

1316(a)(1). Congress envisioned that

new treatment systems could meet

tighter controls than existing sources

because of the opportunity to

incorporate the most efficient processes

and treatment systems into plant design.

See general discussion of legislative

history in American Iron and Steel

Institute v. EPA, 526 F.2d 1027, 1057–

59 (3rd Cir. 1975). In establishing these

standards, Congress directed EPA to

consider the cost of achieving the

effluent reduction and any non-water

quality environmental impacts and

energy requirements. As the legislative

history of the CWA makes clear,

consideration of cost in establishing

new source standards is given less

weight than in establishing BAT

limitations because pollution control

alternatives are available to new sources

that would not be available to existing

sources. See Legis. Hist. (Sen. Muskie

statement of House-Senate Conference

Report on 1972 Act).

For the oils and the organics

subcategory, EPA is promulgating NSPS

that would control the same

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 81271

conventional, priority, and nonconventional pollutants as the BPT

effluent limitations. The technologies

used to control pollutants at existing

facilities are fully applicable to new

facilities. Therefore, EPA is

promulgating NSPS oils and organics

subcategory limitations that are

identical to BPT/BCT/BAT.

For the metals subcategory, however,

EPA is promulgating NSPS effluent

limitations based on a technology which

is different from that used to establish

BPT/BCT/BAT limitations. EPA is

promulgating NSPS for the metals

subcategory based on the NSPS

technology proposed in 1999—selective

metals precipitation, liquid-solid

separation, secondary precipitation,

liquid-solid separation, and tertiary

precipitation and clarification. This

technology (option 3) provides the most

stringent controls attainable through the

application of demonstrated technology.

EPA has concluded that this technology

is the best demonstrated controlled

technology for removing metals from the

metal wastestreams typically treated in

the CWT industry. Additionally, EPA

has concluded that there is no barrier to

entry for new sources to install, operate,

and maintain treatment systems that

will achieve discharge levels associated

with these option 3 technologies. See

X.I for a more detailed discussion of

EPA’s barrier to entry analysis.

An additional critical factor in EPA’s

decision is that new facilities will not

face the same constraints on using

selective metals precipitation that

existing facilities may. Thus, new

facilities in configuring their operation

will have the opportunity to provide

sufficient space to operate the multiple

tanks associated with the option 3

technology.

EPA’s determination to establish new

source limitations based on option 3 is

also tied to its conclusion that facilities

using this technology have the technical

capability to recover and reuse metals,

whereas facilities employing

technologies to comply with option 4

limitations do not generally have the

capability to reuse the metals and will

dispose of metal-bearing sludges in

landfills. EPA’s analysis shows that in

the event that a new facility elects to

recover and re-use metals rather than

simply treating the wastes, the start-up

costs for the option 3 technology may

actually be less than the start-up costs

for the option 4 technology. This is

because of the significant reduction in

RCRA permitting costs associated with

recycling activities versus wastewater

treatment activities. Furthermore, EPA

has examined the market for re-use of

metals and has concluded that these

markets exist. Consequently, EPA has

concluded that metals re-use with

option 3 is viable. As such, this

technology selection promotes the

objectives of both the Clean Water Act

and the Pollution Prevention Act. While

EPA has concluded there is no barrier

to entry associated with the option 3

technology, EPA recognizes that a CWT

metals recycling facility will be required

to be somewhat more selective about the

waste receipts it accepts than a CWT

treatment facility. However, EPA’s data

show that the vast majority of metalbearing wastewaters accepted at CWT

facilities are not dilute. In EPA’s view,

this is because generating facilities elect

to treat dilute metal-bearing

wastestreams on-site because of the ease

in treating these wastes and the costs

associated with the transport and

treatment of these dilute wastes off-site.

Also, there is a large amount of capacity

available at existing CWT metals

subcategory facilities. Consequently,

EPA has concluded that existing CWT

metals subcategory facilities already

provide adequate capacity for dilute

metal-bearing wastestreams in the event

that the frequency of dilute wastes being

transferred off-site for treatment

increases. Finally, EPA notes that new

CWT metals subcategory facilities are

not required to install the option 3

technology or to recover metals.

However, EPA’s economic analyses

show that new sources should carefully

consider recycling as an alternative to

wastewater treatment.

The Agency used performance data

from the CWT metals subcategory BAT

limitations data set to promulgate NSPS

limitations for oil and grease because

the facility from which the NSPS

limitations were derived did not have

oil and grease in its influent at treatable

levels during EPA’s sampling episodes.

EPA has concluded that transfer of this

data is appropriate given that the

technology basis for NSPS includes

selective metals precipitation and an

additional precipitation step. As such,

EPA has every reason to conclude that

facilities employing the NSPS

technology could achieve the

limitations, given the fact that the oil

and grease limitations are based on

performance at a facility employing

fewer treatment steps.

As was the case for BPT/BAT, the

technology basis for the multiple

wastestream subcategory new source

limitations reflects the technology basis

for the applicable subcategories.

E. Pretreatment Standards for Existing

Sources (PSES)

Section 307(b) of the Clean Water Act

requires EPA to promulgate

pretreatment standards for pollutants

that are not susceptible to treatment by

POTWs or which would interfere with

the operation of POTWs. EPA looks at

a number of factors in deciding whether

a pollutant is not susceptible to

treatment at a POTW or would interfere

with POTW operations—the predicate

to establishment of pretreatment

standards. First, EPA assesses the

pollutant removals achieved by directly

discharging CWT facilities using BAT

treatment. Second, for CWT facilities

that are indirect dischargers, EPA

estimates the quantity of pollutants

likely to be discharged to receiving

waters after POTW removals. Third,

EPA studies whether any of the

pollutants introduced to POTWs by

CWT facilities interfere with or are

otherwise incompatible with POTW

operations. In some cases, EPA also

looks at the costs, other economic

impacts, likely effluent reduction

benefits, and treatment systems

currently in-place at CWT facilities.

As noted above, among the factors

EPA considers before establishing

pretreatment standards is whether the

pollutants discharged by an industry

pass through a POTW or interfere with

the POTW operation or sludge disposal

practices. One of the tools traditionally

used by EPA in evaluating whether

pollutants pass through a POTW, is a

comparison of the percentage of a

pollutant removed by POTWs with the

percentage of the pollutant removed by

discharging facilities applying BAT. In

most cases, EPA has concluded that a

pollutant passes through the POTW

when the median percentage removed

nationwide by representative POTWs

(those meeting secondary treatment

requirements) is less than the median

percentage removed by facilities

complying with BAT effluent

limitations guidelines for that pollutant.

For a full explanation of how EPA

performs its removal analysis, see

Chapter 7 of the Technical Development

Document. Based on EPA’s evaluation

of pass-through potential, 16 of the 19

BAT pollutants regulated by the metals

subcategory, 14 of the 22 BAT

pollutants regulated by the oils

subcategory, 5 of the 17 BAT pollutants

regulated by the organics subcategory,

and up to 27 of the 38 potential BAT

pollutants regulated by the multiple

wastestream subcategory would pass

through. EPA has accordingly adopted

PSES for these pollutants. The BAT

pollutants in each subcategory that were

determined to pass-through are listed in

Tables 7–6 through 7–8 in the TDD.

For the metal and organics

subcategories, the Agency today is

promulgating pretreatment standards for

81272 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

5For the metals subcategory, the technology basis

for PSES does not include the second clarification

step since this step was only included to meet the

transferred TSS limitations that apply to direct

dischargers only.

existing sources (PSES) based on the

same technologies as adopted for BPT

and BAT.5 EPA has determined that the

technology that forms the basis for PSES

for this final rule is economically

achievable for both subcategories. These

standards will apply to existing

facilities in the metals and organics

subcategories of the CWT industry that

introduce wastewater to publicly-owned

treatment works (POTWs). These

standards will prevent pass-through of

pollutants from POTWs into receiving

streams and also help control

contamination of POTW sludge. Today’s

pretreatment standards represent a

national baseline for treatment of CWT

wastewaters. Local authorities may

establish stricter limitations (based on

site-specific water quality concerns or

other local factors) where necessary.

For the oils subcategory, EPA

proposed to base PSES on option 8 even

though option 9 (the BAT technology)

achieved greater removals. Option 8 is

the same technology as option 9, but

does not include the secondary gravity

separation step. At that time, the

economic analysis showed that the

additional costs associated with option

9 resulted in higher economic impacts

for the subcategory. In particular, EPA

expressed concerns about the economic

impacts of the more expensive

technology for small businesses in the

oils subcategory. Furthermore, EPA

estimated that pollutant removals (in

pound-equivalents) for option 9 were

only one percent higher than the

removals for option 8.

Following proposal, EPA finalized its

estimates of costs, loadings reductions,

and economic impacts, and then reexamined its technology selection for

PSES in the oils subcategory. As part of

this examination, EPA carefully

considered the impacts of both option 8

and option 9 and the differences

between them. EPA also looked at

subsets of the oils facilities, including

the set of small businesses. Based on an

evaluation of all factors, EPA has not

changed the technology basis from the

1999 proposal and today sets PSES

standards for the oils subcategory based

on option 8.

The Agency’s economic analysis is

discussed in detail in Section X of this

preamble and Chapter 5 of the final EA.

Briefly, in evaluating economic impacts,

EPA looks at a variety of impacts to

facilities and firms (in particular, small

businesses). For this industry, EPA

determined that the most relevant

economic impacts are on CWT

processes and facilities. Waste

industries such as the CWT industry are

difficult to model economically; EPA’s

first attempts to model CWT operations

as part of a larger facility greatly

overestimated closures (see Section 7.2

of the 1995 EA and 64 FR 2326). EPA

therefore decided to examine the

impacts on the CWT operations and, in

particular, the profitability of individual

CWT processes and facilities (note that

a CWT ‘‘facility’’ is all of the CWT

processes at a given facility and does

not include the non-CWT operations at

a given facility).

EPA estimates that option 8 will cost

$8.2 million per year while option 9

would cost $11.9 million per year. As

discussed in Section X.H, based on

these costs EPA projects 10 process

closures (4.7 percent of indirect oils

processes) and 12 facility closures (9.4

percent of indirect oils facilities)

associated with option 8. EPA projects

15 process closures (7.0 percent of

indirect oils processes) and 12 facility

closures associated with option 9. The

incremental economic impact of option

9 relative to option 8 for oils indirect

dischargers is thus five process closures.

For small businesses, however, EPA

projects two process closures (2.1

percent of indirect oils processes owned

by small businesses) and eight facility

closures (14.0 percent of indirect oils

facilities owned by small businesses) for

option 8. EPA projects seven process

closures (7.4 percent of indirect oils

processes owned by small businesses)

and eight facility closures for option 9.

Thus, small businesses represent a

significant share of facility closures and

all of the additional process closures

associated with moving from option 8 to

option 9. However, EPA estimates lower

additional pollutant removals between

option 8 and option 9 than estimated in

1999. Today, EPA estimates an

incremental pollutant reduction of only

2,644 pound-equivalents between

option 8 and option 9, compared to

3,658 pound equivalents estimated at

the 1999 proposal (see Section IV.J for

a discussion of changes in estimated

pollutant reductions). EPA has

determined that achieving these slight

additional pound-equivalent removals

does not warrant imposition of the

additional cost and impacts of option 9.

All of these reasons support the

selection of option 8 as the PSES

technology basis. Therefore, EPA is

promulgating PSES standards for the

oils subcategory technology based on

option 8.

In determining economic

achievability for indirect dischargers in

the oils subcategory, EPA acknowledges

that its estimates of the impacts are not

trivial (e.g., an almost 10% facility

closure rate). However, EPA has

determined that the standards are

economically achievable for the oils

subcategory as a whole. EPA has

concluded that, in the circumstances of

this industry, the costs reflect

appropriate levels for PSES control for

a number of reasons. First, costs are

high because a significant number of

facilities in the oils subcategory will

require major upgrades to their in-place

treatment. The information collected for

this rulemaking shows that many of the

facilities with the larger impacts have

little effective treatment in place.

Second, this rule represents the first

time EPA has established limitations

and standards for this industry, so some

economic impact may be expected.

(American Iron and Steel Institute v.

EPA, 526 F.2d 1027,1052 (3rd Cir.

1975)).

As was the case for BPT/BAT, the

technology basis for pretreatment

standards for the multiple wastestream

subcategory reflect the technology bases

for the applicable subcategories.

F. Pretreatment Standards for New

Sources (PSNS)

EPA is today establishing

pretreatment standards for new sources

that are equal to NSPS for priority and

non-conventional pollutants for the oils

and organics subcategories. Since the

pass-through analysis remains

unchanged, for these subcategories, the

Agency is establishing PSNS for the

same priority and non-conventional

pollutants as are being established for

PSES. EPA considered the cost of the

PSNS technology for new oils and

organics facilities. EPA concluded that

such costs are not so great as to present

a barrier to entry, as demonstrated by

the fact that currently operating

facilities are using these technologies.

The Agency considered energy

requirements and other non-water

quality environmental impacts and

found no basis for any different

standards than the selected PSNS.

For the metals subcategory, however,

EPA is establishing PSNS based on a

different technology than that proposed

in 1999. At that time, EPA proposed to

base PSNS on the option 3 technology.

For the final rule, however, EPA based

the pretreatment standards for new

sources on the option 4 technology. EPA

concluded the additional removals

projected with the option 3 technology

for indirect dischargers do not justify

the selection of option 3. This is

because, unlike in the case of direct

dischargers, a significant share of the

additional pollutant removals associated

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 81273

with option 3 for indirect dischargers

will occur at the POTW anyway.

As was the case for PSES, the

technology basis for the multiple

wastestream subcategory new source

limitations reflects the technology basis

for the applicable subcategories.

IX. Compliance Cost and Pollutant

Reduction Estimates

A. Regulatory Costs

The Agency estimated the cost for

CWT facilities to achieve each of the

effluent limitations and standards

promulgated today. Chapter 11 of the

Final Technical Development Document

provides information on the

methodologies used to estimate these

costs. More detailed information,

including the cost curves for all

treatment technologies considered as

the basis for today’s rule, are located in

the ‘‘Detailed Costing Document for

Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines

and Standards for the Centralized Waste

Treatment Industry.’’ This section

summarizes these estimated costs. All

cost estimates in this section are

expressed in terms of 1997 dollars. The

cost components reported in this section

represent estimates of the investment

cost of purchasing and installing

equipment, the annual operating and

maintenance costs associated with that

equipment, land costs associated with

equipment, and additional costs for

discharge monitoring.

1. BPT Costs

Table IX.B–1 summarizes, by

subcategory, the total capital

expenditures, and annual O&M costs for

implementing BPT (on a pre-tax,

annualized basis). The total capital

expenditures for BPT are estimated to be

$5.32 million with annual O&M costs of

$3.75 million.

TABLE IX.B–1.—COST OF IMPLEMENTING BPT REGULATIONS

[In 1997 dollars]

Subcategory Number of

facilities 1

Total capital

and land costs

Annual O&M

costs

Pre-tax

annualized

costs

Metals Treatment and Recovery ..................................................................... 9 4,069,600 3,103,200 3,544,900

Oils Treatment and Recovery .......................................................................... 5 1,168,100 432,100 542,400

Organics Treatment ......................................................................................... 4 80,000 215,800 221,900

Multiple wastestream Subcategory 2 ................................................................ 3 1,836,200 3,618,300 4,357,000

Total for All Subcategories 3 ..................................................................... 14 5,317,700 3,751,100 4,309,200

1There are 14 direct dischargers. Because some direct dischargers include operations in more than one subcategory, the sum of the facilities

with operations in any one subcategory exceeds the total number of facilities. 2This estimate assumes that all facilities that accept waste in multiple subcategories elect to comply with the single Subcategory limitations. 3This total assumes that all facilities that accept waste in multiple subcategories elect to comply with each set of limitations separately.

2. BCT/BAT Costs

The costs of compliance for

implementing BCT/BAT are identical to

the cost of compliance with BPT

because the technology used to develop

BCT/BAT limitations is identical to

BPT.

3. PSES Costs

The Agency estimated the cost for

implementing PSES applying the same

assumptions and methodology used to

estimate the cost of implementing BPT.

Table IX.B–2 summarizes, by

subcategory, the capital expenditures

and annual O&M costs for implementing

PSES. The total capital expenditures for

PSES are estimated to be $52.6 million

with annual O&M costs of $25.5 million.

TABLE IX.B–2.—COST OF IMPLEMENTING PSES REGULATIONS

[In 1997 dollars]

Subcategory Number of

facilities 1

Total capital

and land costs

Annual O&M

costs

Pre-tax

annualized

Metals Treatment and Recovery ..................................................................... 44 11,111,100 10,242,100 11,449,600

Oils Treatment and Recovery .......................................................................... 127 23,834,000 12,484,400 14,797,600

Organics Treatment ......................................................................................... 16 17,709,200 2,766,200 4,592,800

Multiple wastestream Subcategory 2 ................................................................ 24 44,576,100 20,392,700 24,875,900

Total for All Subcategories 3 ..................................................................... 151 52,654,300 25,792,700 30,840,000

1There are 151 indirect dischargers. Because some indirect dischargers include operations in more than one subcategory, the sum of the facilities with operations in any one subcategory exceeds the total number of facilities. 2This estimate assumes that all facilities that accept waste in multiple subcategories elect to comply with the single waste subcategory limitations. 3This total assumes that all facilities that accept waste in multiple subcategories elect to comply with each set of limitations separately.

B. Pollutant Reductions

The Agency estimated pollutant

reductions for CWT activities achieving

each of the effluent limitations and

standards promulgated today. This

section summarizes these estimated

reductions and Chapter 12 of the

technical development document

discusses the methodology in detail. For

multiple subcategory facilities, EPA

estimated pollutant reductions

assuming facilities will elect to comply

with each subcategory’s limitations

separately. Table IX.C–1 summarizes, by

subcategory, the reduction in discharge

of pollutants for implementing BPT/

BAT. For multiple subcategory facilities

which elect to comply with the multiple

wastestream subcategory limitations,

EPA estimates pollutant removals will

be equal to or greater than those

presented here.

1. Conventional Pollutant Reductions

The Agency estimates that this

regulation will reduce BOD5 discharges

by approximately 5.0 million pounds

per year, TSS discharges by

approximately 4.4 million pounds per

year, and oil and grease discharges by

81274 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

approximately 0.3 million pounds per

year.

2. Priority and Non-Conventional

Pollutant Reductions

Today’s rule will reduce discharges of

priority and non-conventional

pollutants. Because EPA has

promulgated BAT limitations equivalent

to BPT, EPA estimates pollutant

reductions associated with BPT and

BAT will be equal.

a. Direct Discharge Facilities (BPT/

BAT). The estimated reductions in

priority and non-conventional

pollutants directly discharged in treated

final effluent resulting from

implementation of BPT/BAT are listed

in Table IX.C–1. The Agency estimates

that promulgated BPT/BAT regulations

will reduce direct discharges of priority

and non-conventional pollutants by

approximately 2.7 million pounds per

year.

TABLE IX.C–1—REDUCTION IN DIRECT DISCHARGE OF PRIORITY AND NON-CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS AFTER

IMPLEMENTATION OF BPT/BAT REGULATIONS

Subcategory

Priority metal

and organics

compounds

lbs/year

Non-priority

metal and organic compounds lbs/

year

Total metal

and organic

compounds

lbs/year

Total lbsequivalent/

year

Metals Treatment and Recovery ..................................................................... 981,200 1,708,600 2,689,800 377,800

Oils Treatment and Recovery .......................................................................... 2,100 23,100 25,200 1,800

Organics Treatment 1 ....................................................................................... 0 0 0 0

Total Removals for all Subcategories .............................................................. 983,300 1,731,700 2,715,000 379,600

1EPA estimates there will be no additional removal of organic compounds for the organics subcategory, because all facilities had the treatment-in-place for removal of organic compounds.

b. PSES Effluent Discharges to

POTWs. Table IX.C–2 lists the estimated

reductions in priority and nonconventional pollutants indirectly

discharged to POTWs resulting from

implementation of PSES. The Agency

estimates that promulgated PSES

regulations will reduce indirect facility

discharge to POTWs by 1.9 million

pounds per year. These figures are not

adjusted for pollutant removals

expected from POTWs, and thus do not

reflect reductions in discharges to

waters of the U.S. Estimated reductions

in pollutants discharged indirectly to

surface waters are provided on a

subcategory basis in Tables 12–10

through 12–13 of the technical

development document.

TABLE IX.C–2—REDUCTION IN DISCHARGES TO POTWS OF PRIORITY AND NON-CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS AFTER

IMPLEMENTATION OF PSES REGULATIONS

Subcategory

Priority metal

and organics

compounds

lbs/year

Non-priority

metal and organic compounds lbs/

year

Total metal

and organic

compounds

lbs/year

Total lbsequivalent/

year

Metals Treatment and Recovery ..................................................................... 61,897 419,667 481,564 37,539

Oils Treatment and Recovery .......................................................................... 82,359 752,429 834,788 50,803

Organics Treatment ......................................................................................... 163,664 447,620 611,283 19,876

Total Removals for All Subcategories ............................................................. 307,920 1,619,716 1,925,543 108,218

X. Economic Analyses

A. Introduction

EPA’s economic analysis for this

regulation assesses the costs and a

variety of impacts. The record for the

final rule contains the detailed results of

this analysis. This section reviews that

analysis. A report titled ‘‘Economic

Analysis of Final Effluent Limitations

Guidelines and Standards for the

Centralized Waste Treatment Industry’’

(hereinafter ‘‘final EA’’) summarizes the

results of that assessment. The EA

estimates the economic and financial

costs of compliance with the final

regulation on individual process lines,

facilities and companies. The EA also

considers impacts on new sources.

Community impacts, foreign trade

impacts, market impacts, and an

‘‘environmental justice’’ analysis are

also presented there. The EA also

includes a Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis detailing the effects on small

CWT businesses. The results of a costeffectiveness analysis are in a report

titled ‘‘Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of

Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines

and Standards for the CWT Industry.’’

EPA has used the same methodology for

estimating compliance costs and

impacts of the final rule as it used for

the 1999 proposal except for

adjustments to costs discussed under

section IV.I above.

B. Annualized Compliance Cost

Estimate

As discussed previously, EPA

identified 223 CWT facilities, including

14 direct dischargers, 151 indirect

dischargers, and 58 zero discharge

facilities. EPA calculated the economic

impact on each of the facilities based on

the cost of compliance using the

selected technology basis for the final

limitations and standards. For direct

dischargers, EPA calculated impacts for

compliance with the selected BPT/BCT/

BAT; for indirect dischargers, EPA

calculated impacts for compliance with

PSES. As detailed previously in Section

VIII, EPA based the final limitations on

metals option 4, oils option 9, and

organics option 4 and the final

standards on metals option 4, oils

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 81275

6Twelve zero dischargers were identified after

proposal for which EPA does not have adequate

data to perform modeling. They are therefore not

included in the economic baseline.

option 8, and organics option 4. EPA

conservatively assigned costs to a

facility with processes in multiple

subcategories for meeting the limits or

standards in each subcategory although

an alternative costing scheme was also

applied.

The technologies that are the basis for

today’s final rule are estimated to have

a total pre-tax annualized cost of $35.1

million (unlike the costs presented in

Section IX.B, these costs are annualized

to represent the yearly cost of

compliance). Table X.B–1 presents the

total annualized costs for BPT/BCT/BAT

and PSES in 1997 dollars for the entire

CWT industry. This table differentiates

between pre-tax annualized costs and

post-tax annualized costs. The pre-tax

annualized costs are the engineering

estimates of annualized control costs,

but the post-tax costs more accurately

reflect the costs businesses will incur.

For that reason, post-tax costs are used

in the economic impact analysis. Pre-tax

costs, however, more accurately reflect

the total cost to society of the rule and

are used in the cost-effectiveness

analysis and elsewhere.

TABLE X.B–1—TOTAL ANNUALIZED

COSTS

($1997)

Pre-tax

costs

($ million)

Post-tax

costs

($ million)

BPT/BCT/BAT

Costs (Direct

Dischargers) ...... 4.31 2.68

PSES Costs (Indirect Dischargers) 30.8 17.1

Total Costs ........... 35.1 19.8

C. Economic Description of the CWT

Industry and Baseline Conditions

The 1999 proposal and Chapter 2 of

the Final EA detail the current

economic conditions in the industry

and the data sources used in

determining these conditions. This

section updates the information

presented at the time of the 1999

proposal.

EPA now estimates that there are 223

CWT facilities. EPA includes 211 CWT

facilities in its economic baseline,6 207

facilities are commercial, accepting

waste generated by other facilities and/

or generators for treatment and/or

recovery for a fee. Three facilities are

non-commercial facilities that accept

waste from off-site for treatment and/or

recovery exclusively from facilities

under the same ownership, and one is

owned by the Federal government and

is treated as noncommercial. Some

facilities perform both commercial and

non-commercial operations. For the

purposes of this analysis, a facility’s

commercial status refers only to the

operations subject to today’s final rule

and not other operations at that facility.

That is, a facility that performs noncommercial CWT operations along with

other non-CWT commercial operations

would still be considered a noncommercial facility.

The 167 companies owning CWT

facilities range from large, multi-facility

companies to small companies that

operate only a single facility. Companylevel sales information is available or

estimated for 208 facilities. Company

level profit information is available for

144 facilities. One hundred and nine

companies own these 144 facilities. EPA

currently estimates that 82 companies

owning CWT facilities (including zero

discharge facilities) are small businesses

(for the purposes of this analysis, EPA

has defined small businesses as

companies with less than $6 million in

annual revenues—see Section X.M).

Sixty-three small companies own two

direct discharging facilities and 61

indirect discharging facilities.

D. Economic Impact and Closure

Methodology

1. Overview of Economic Impact

Methodology

There are no differences between the

economic methodology used for the

1999 proposal and the current

methodology. Standard economic and

financial analysis methods are used to

assess the economic effects of the

proposed regulation. These methods

incorporate an integrated view of CWT

facilities, the companies that own these

facilities, the markets the facilities

serve, and the communities where they

are located.

CWT facilities are divided into two

groups: commercial (those that charge a

fee for their services) and

noncommercial (those that handle intracompany waste). Impacts on

commercial CWT facilities are estimated

based on the results of a market model

that allows facilities to adjust operations

in response to changes in operating

costs. The market model predicts

adjustments in market prices and

quantities and facility-level changes in

revenues and employment. (EPA also

performed sensitivity analysis in which

prices do not adjust.) After the markets

and facilities have responded to the

regulation, facilities are assumed to

close CWT treatment operations (or

processes) for which operating costs

(including compliance costs) exceed

operating revenues. Because noncommercial CWT facilities do not

operate in the markets defined by the

model, impacts on these facilities are

estimated at the company level,

assuming that the firm must absorb the

full cost of compliance. For a detailed

description of the economic

methodology see the 1999 proposal (64

FR 2324) and Chapter 5 of the Final EA.

In the economic analysis, EPA

examines impacts on commercial CWT

facilities in terms of closures, but

focuses on potential closures of CWT

processes by examining the costs and

revenues of each waste treatment or

recovery operation with the regulation

in effect. (This isolates the analysis to

examine only CWT operations and not

overall facility operations). If withregulation costs of the operation exceed

revenues, then the model predicts

(assumes) that the operation shuts

down. This is called a ‘‘process

closure.’’ If all the CWT treatment

processes at a facility are estimated to

shut down, this is called a ‘‘facility

closure.’’ This does not mean that if a

CWT facility with other non-CWT

operations experiences a facility closure

that the entire facility shuts down; other

operations at a facility are not included

in the economic modeling, only CWT

operations. Employment losses are

calculated from process closures,

facility closures, and from reductions in

waste treated by process lines that do

not close. In all cases, the reduction in

employment is calculated as a

percentage decrease of the facility’s total

CWT employment proportionate to the

percentage reduction in waste treated

(this does not account for any possible

increases in employment due to the

regulations).

EPA notes that its model for the 1999

proposal and the final rule, unlike the

market model used for the 1995

proposal, does not assume that

wastewater from processes or facilities

that close will be transferred to another

facility in the market. Although the

model assumes the price increase

caused by increased compliance costs

forces the total quantity of waste treated

in the market to decline (the amount of

this decline is governed by the elasticity

of demand for a market), some of the

waste previously treated at a facility that

closes will be treated at other facilities.

By assuming that all changes in quantity

occur at the highest-priced facilities and

that waste is not sent to other facilities,

EPA is assuming an all-or-nothing

impact. The model may overstate

impacts at those facilities that could

81276 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

accept waste from another facility that

closes. Conversely, the model may

understate impacts at those facilities

that cannot raise their price as much as

projected. (EPA solicited comments on

this issue and on appropriate ways to

model this transfer but received none,

so no changes were made to the

methodology.)

Changes in facility revenues and costs

result in changes in the revenues and

costs of the companies owning the

facilities, and thus changes in company

profits. Increased borrowing and

changes in the assets owned by the

companies, together with changes in

profits, result in changes in overall

company financial health. EPA

evaluates company-level impacts by

examining changes in company profit

margins and returns-to-assets test. These

results are presented separately for

small businesses. For small businesses,

EPA also evaluates the economic

impacts using a cost-to-sales test,

comparing company compliance costs

to baseline sales (unadjusted for cost

pass-through).

Finally, the communities where the

CWT facilities are located may be

affected. Obviously, if facilities cut back

operations, employment and income

may fall, sending ripple effects

throughout the local community. On the

other hand, there may be increased

employment associated with operating

the pollution controls associated with

the regulation, resulting in increased

community employment and income.

Facility-level changes in employment

are used to calculate total employment

changes. At the same time, for the

communities in which CWT facilities

are located, water quality may be

expected to improve.

2. Comments on Economic Methodology

During the SBAR Panel consideration

of the 1999 proposal, the Small Business

Administration (SBA) expressed

concern that EPA’s economic

methodology understates impacts. In

particular, SBA questioned the elasticity

of demand assumption used by the

Agency, which affects the extent to

which facilities will be able to pass on

cost increases to their customers. As

discussed in the final EA and this

notice, the elasticity of demand (which

varies depending on the number of

facilities in each market) is based on

economic reasoning that the Agency

determines to be sound and reflects the

limited empirical evidence available in

the literature. In response to SBA’s

comment (but prior to the 1999

proposal), EPA reexamined the

literature and attempted to contact

waste generators to obtain further

information on their responsiveness to

the price of CWT services. EPA

identified several additional empirical

studies that support the elasticity

parameters used in the EA. The Agency

has not been successful, however, in

eliciting information from waste

generators. In the 1999 proposal, EPA

solicited comment on the elasticity

parameter and requested data that EPA

could use to calculate the parameter, but

received neither. EPA is therefore not

altering its choice of parameters. For a

complete discussion of the elasticity

parameters used in this analysis, see

Appendix E of the proposal EA.

In Appendix E to the proposal EA,

EPA presents a sensitivity analysis that

assumes that CWT facilities are unable

to pass costs to their customers. In this

analysis, impacts on direct dischargers

are unchanged, but impacts on indirect

dischargers increase from 13 to 16

facility closures and from 16 to 29

process closures.

E. Costs and Economic Impacts of BPT

For BPT, EPA evaluates treatment

options first by calculating pre-tax total

annualized costs and total pollutant

removals in pounds. The ratios of the

costs to the removals for each option

considered for the final rule are

presented in Table X.E–1. (EPA is no

longer considering two options

considered in the 1999 proposal: metals

option 2 and organics option 3. See 64

FR 2308 and 64 FR 2312.) In all cases

throughout section X, estimated costs

and impacts for facilities with

operations in multiple operations are

presented assuming that the facilities

comply with the limits for each

subcategory separately, rather than with

the limits for the multiple wastestream

subcategory. See section VIII.A.4)

EPA based the selected BPT options

for the metals, oils, and organics

subcategories on option 4, option 9, and

option 4, respectively. As detailed in

Section VIII.A.3, all direct dischargers

in the organics subcategory employ the

BPT technology basis. As such, other

than monitoring costs, EPA assigned no

compliance costs to these facilities nor

did it estimate incremental pollutant

removals.

TABLE X.E–1.—BPT COST ANALYSIS

Option

Pre-tax total

annualized

costs

($1997 million)

Conventional

pollutant removals

(million lbs)

Average cost

reasonableness

(1997 $/lb)

Metals Subcategory—9 Facilities

4 ................................................................................................................................................... $3.54 8.77 $0.40

3 ................................................................................................................................................... 14.8 9.33 1.59

Oils Subcategory—5 Facilities

9 1 ................................................................................................................................................. 0.542 0.865 0.63

Organics Subcategory—4 Facilities

4 ................................................................................................................................................... 0.222 0 n/a

1Since all direct discharging oils facilities already have treatment-in-place equivalent to secondary gravity separation, EPA did not consider the

Option 8 technology.

Table X.E–2 presents the economic

impact results for the selected BPT

options. Options in the Metals and

Organics subcategories more stringent

than promulgated BPT are evaluated in

Sections X.F and X.G. Impacts are

presented for process closures, facility

closures, and employment losses.

Process closures are a direct output of

the market model. EPA concludes that

a facility will close if all of the processes

at a facility close.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 81277

TABLE X.E–2.—ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF BPT OPTIONS

Option

Post-tax total

annualized

costs

($1997 M)

Process

closures

Facility

closures

Total employment losses

Metals Subcategory—9 Facilities

4 ....................................................................................................................... $2.19 1 1 39

Oils Subcategory—5 Facilities

9 1 ..................................................................................................................... 0.348 2 0 8

Organics Subcategory—4 Facilities

4 ....................................................................................................................... 0.138 2 0 0

1Since all direct discharging oils facilities already have treatment-in-place equivalent to secondary gravity separation, EPA did not consider the

Option 8 technology.

EPA projects that the selected BPT

regulations will result in only one

process closure and one facility closure

in the metals subcategory; two process

closures, but no facility closures, in the

oils subcategory; and only 2 process

closures, but no facility closures, in the

organics subcategory. The summed job

losses for the BPT options are 47. (There

are no job losses associated with the

organics subcategory even though there

are two process closures because job

losses are proportional to flow. The

organics flow at the facilities with the

process closures is so low compared to

the facility flow that there are no

proportional job losses.)

Many facilities in the CWT industry

have operations in more than one

subcategory. EPA therefore evaluated

the impacts of a combined BPT option

on all direct dischargers. The combined

impacts of this option are presented in

Table X.E–3.

TABLE X.E–3.—ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF COMBINED BPT OPTION

Option

Post-tax total

annualized

costs

($1997 M)

Process

closures

Facility

closures

Total employment losses

All Direct Dischargers—14 Facilities

Combined ......................................................................................................... $2.68 3 2 47

EPA projects that the final BPT

regulations will result in three process

closures, two facility closures, and a

total employment loss of 47 jobs. The

totals for the individual subcategories

shown in Table X.E–2 do not add to the

totals shown in Table X.E–3 because a

facility may have operations in more

that one subcategory. For example, a

closure is counted when all of the

processes at a given facility close, and

a process closure is counted when one,

but not all, of the processes close.

Therefore, for facilities with process

closures in more than one subcategory,

the analysis of the combined option can

show a lower number of process

closures and a higher number of facility

closures.

F. Results of BCT Cost Test

In July 1986, EPA explained how it

developed its methodology for setting

effluent limitations based on BCT (51

FR 24974). EPA evaluates the

reasonableness of BCT candidate

technologies—those that remove more

conventional pollutants than BPT—by

applying a two-part cost test: a POTW

test and an industry cost-effectiveness

test.

EPA first calculates the cost per

pound of conventional pollutant

removed by industrial dischargers in

upgrading from BPT to a BCT candidate

technology, and then compares this cost

to the cost per pound of conventional

pollutants removed in upgrading

POTWs to advanced secondary

treatment. The upgrade cost to industry

must be less than the POTW benchmark

of $0.25 per pound (in 1976 dollars) (i.e.

‘‘the POTW test’’). In the industry costeffectiveness test, the ratio of the

incremental BPT to BCT cost divided by

the BPT cost for the industry must be

less than 1.29 (that is, the cost increase

must be less than 29 percent).

Table X.F–1 presents the calculations

for the BCT cost test for the metals

subcategory. For option 3 (the only more

stringent option considered for the

metals subcategory in the final rule), the

table presents costs and conventional

pollutant removals and compares them

to the BPT baseline, option 4. For a

candidate BCT option to pass the POTW

test, the ratio of costs to removals for

that option must be less than $0.71

($1997) per pound. Option 3’s ratio is

$20.11, well above the benchmark of

$0.71, so it fails the POTW test. This

option therefore does not pass the BCT

cost test and it is not necessary to

perform the industry cost-effectiveness

test. Thus, BCT is set equal to BPT.

For the final CWT rule, EPA did not

consider any technologies for the oils

and organics subcategories that are more

stringent than the selected BPT

technology basis. As such, EPA did not

perform a BCT cost test for these

subcategories and set BCT equal to BPT.

81278 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE X.F–1.—BCT COST TEST CALCULATIONS

[Metals Subcategory]

Option

Pre-tax total

annualized

costs

($1997 M)

Conventional

pollutant

removals

(M lbs)

Ratio of costs

to removals for

BCT candidate

($/ lb)

Does the BCT

candidate

pass POTW

test?

4 (BPT) ............................................................................................................ $3.54 8.77 n/a n/a

3 (BCT Candidate) ........................................................................................... 14.8 9.33 $20.11 no

G. Costs and Economic Impacts of BAT

Options

EPA also evaluated options more

stringent than BPT in the metals

subcategory for BAT (in the oils and

organics subcategories, EPA set BPT

equal to the most stringent option that

it considered for the final rule). This is

metals option 3. For a given technology

to be the basis for BAT limitations it

must be economically achievable. EPA

is today adopting BAT limitations

equivalent to BPT for all subcategories;

economic impacts are, therefore,

equivalent to those presented in Section

X.E for the final BPT limits. Table X.G–

1 presents the economic impact results

for the options considered for BAT.

TABLE X.G–1.—ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF BAT OPTIONS

Option

Post-tax total

annualized

costs

($1997 M)

Process

closures

Facility

closures

Total employment losses

Metals Subcategory—8 Facilities

4 ....................................................................................................................... $2.19 1 1 39

3 ....................................................................................................................... 9.01 1 1 40

Oils Subcategory—5 Facilities

9 1 ..................................................................................................................... 0.348 2 0 8

Organics Subcategory—4 Facilities

3 ....................................................................................................................... 0.263 2 0 0

1Since all direct discharging oils facilities already have treatment-in-place equivalent to secondary gravity separation, EPA did not consider the

option 8 technology.

EPA projects (see Table X.E–3) that

the selected BAT regulations will result

in three process closures, two facility

closures and 47 job losses. The

projected closure impacts for the

rejected metals option are equivalent to

the impacts for the selected option,

although there are slightly more

employment losses for the rejected

metals options. However, as discussed

in Section VIII.C, EPA did not select this

option for BAT.

H. Costs and Economic Impacts of PSES

Options

In addition to evaluating impacts to

direct dischargers for BPT/BCT/BAT,

EPA evaluated the impacts to indirect

dischargers for complying with PSES.

For the metals and organics subcategory,

EPA is selecting the same options for

PSES that were selected for BPT/BAT:

metals option 4 and organics option 4.

For the oils subcategory, EPA selected

oils option 8 for PSES. The impacts of

the PSES options are presented in Table

X.H–1. Impacts are presented for

process closures, facility closures, and

employment losses. Process closures are

a direct output of the market model;

facility closures are designated if all of

the processes at a facility close.

Employment losses are calculated from

process closures, facility closures, and

from reductions in waste treated by

process lines that do not close. In all

cases, the reduction in employment is

calculated as a decrease of the facility’s

total CWT employment proportionate to

the reduction in waste treated.

TABLE X.H–1.—IMPACTS OF PSES OPTIONS

Option

Post-tax total

annualized

costs

($1997 M)

Process

closures

Facility

closures

Total employment losses

Metals Subcategory—47 Facilities

4 ....................................................................................................................... $6.25 6 0 152

3 ....................................................................................................................... 26.8 9 1 289

Oils Subcategory—127 Facilities

8 ....................................................................................................................... 8.23 10 12 224

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 81279

TABLE X.H–1.—IMPACTS OF PSES OPTIONS—Continued

Option

Post-tax total

annualized

costs

($1997 M)

Process

closures

Facility

closures

Total employment losses

9 ....................................................................................................................... 11.9 15 12 233

Organics Subcategory—16 Facilities

4 ....................................................................................................................... 2.67 7 0 30

In the metals subcategory, EPA

projects that Option 4, the selected

PSES technology basis, will result in six

process closures, no facility closures,

and 152 job losses. For the oils

subcategory, EPA projects that option 8,

the selected PSES technology basis,

results in 10 process closures, 12 facility

closures, and 224 job losses. For the

organics subcategory, EPA projects that

Option 4 results in seven process

closures and no facility closures, with

30 job losses.

Many facilities in the CWT industry

have operations in more than one

subcategory. EPA therefore evaluated

the impacts of a combined PSES option

on all indirect dischargers. This option

consists of metals option 4, oils option

8, and organics option 4. The projected

impacts of the combined option are

presented in Table X.H–2. The impacts

of the selected PSES options shown in

Table X.H–1 do not add to the impacts

shown in Table X.H–2 because a facility

closure is counted if all of the processes

at a given facility close while a process

closure is counted if one, but not all,

processes close. Therefore, in the

combined options, the number of

process closures can go down while

facility closures go up if processes in

different subcategories close. The

employment losses also do not add up

because of rounding.

TABLE X.H–2.—ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF COMBINED PSES OPTION

Option

Post-tax total

annualized

costs

($1997 M)

Process

closures

Facility

closures

Total employment losses

All Indirect Discharges—151 Facilities

Combined ......................................................................................................... $17.1 15 15 414

I. Economic Impacts for New Sources

EPA is establishing NSPS limitations

equivalent to the limitations that are

established for BPT/BCT/BAT for both

the organics and oils subcategories.

These limitations are economically

achievable because, in general, EPA

concludes that new sources will be able

to comply at costs that are similar to, or

less than, the costs for existing sources.

They may be able to comply at lower

cost since new sources can apply

control technologies more efficiently

than sources that need to retrofit for

those technologies. Therefore, NSPS

limitations will not present a barrier to

entry for new facilities in these

subcategories.

For the metals subcategory, EPA is

establishing NSPS limitations based on

the option 3 technology. EPA’s analysis

shows that the start-up costs for the

option 3 technology for new sources

may be less than the start-up costs for

the option 4 technology. Consequently,

EPA has concluded that compliance

with limitations based on this option

would not constitute a barrier to entry

for new direct discharging metals

subcategory sources. EPA also

investigated the extent of the market for

recycling or reuse of the metals-rich

sludge generated by option 3 to

determine if a market exists for these

materials (since promoting recycling

was part of the justification for option

3). EPA has determined that there is a

wide market for a number of metals that

could be recycled through this process,

though as discussed previously, EPA

recognizes that there are some metal

bearing wastestreams that may not be

suitable for recycling because of the low

concentrations of metals. Also, for some

metals, such as aluminum, there are no

current markets for recycling.

EPA is setting PSNS equal to PSES

limitations for existing sources for the

metals and organics subcategories.

Given EPA’s finding of economic

achievability for PSES in those two

subcategories, EPA also finds that the

PSNS regulation will be economically

achievable and will not constitute a

barrier to entry for new sources.

For the oils subcategory, EPA is

establishing pretreatment standards for

new sources that are equal to NSPS for

priority and non-conventional

pollutants. EPA concluded there is no

barrier to entry for new indirect

discharging facilities in the oils

subcategory because existing oils

indirect dischargers are using the

technology.

J. Firm Level Impacts

Complying with the selected effluent

limitations guidelines and standards

affects the revenues and profitability of

firms owning CWT facilities. In Section

6.1.4 of the Final EA, the Agency

examines two financial ratios to assess

the magnitude of these impacts: firm

profit margin (profit/revenues) and

return on assets or ROA (profit/total

assets). Baseline values are compared to

post-regulation values that are

determined by calculating changes in

profits based on output from the market

model. EPA does not have complete

data for all firms, but the two measures

decline for more than half of the firms

for which EPA has data. EPA also

examined these measures by size

categories, including a category for

small businesses. For most size

categories, median profit margin and

median ROA decline or stay

approximately the same (although for

some size categories the medians may

increase). EPA has profit data on 56

small firms and asset data for 26 small

81280 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

firms; profit margin declines for 33 of

the 56 firms and ROA declines for 15 of

the 26 firms. As discussed more fully in

the EA, these results are dependent on

the assumptions used in the market

model and the market in which EPA

placed the facilities.

K. Community Impacts

EPA estimated impacts on

communities in which CWT facilities

were located by estimating the overall

change in employment in the

community as a result of the CWT rule.

EPA estimated the change in

employment at each CWT facility

associated with reductions in the

quantity of waste treated at facilities

incurring economic impacts. Then, EPA

applied state-specific direct-effect

employment multipliers to estimate the

total change in employment. Most of the

change in employment will occur in the

community where the CWT facility is

located. Thus, EPA estimated the

change in community employment as a

result of the rule by assigning all of the

change in employment to the

community. Table X.K–1 shows a

distribution of the estimated changes in

community employment resulting from

the economic impacts of the regulation.

Community employment losses range

from zero to 213 full time equivalents.

Even the largest reduction in

employment represents only 0.7 percent

of the baseline employment in that

community. Thus, the Agency expects

the negative employment impacts of the

regulation to be extremely small. In fact,

EPA estimates that most facilities that

do not close or scale back their CWT

operations will have to hire from one to

three additional workers to comply with

the regulation (although this is not taken

into account in Table X.K–1). Taking

these impacts into effect, almost all of

these facilities will experience increases

in employment due to the regulation.

The overall impact of the regulation on

community employment may, therefore,

be either positive or negative.

TABLE X.K–1.—ESTIMATED COMMUNITY EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS OF THE

CWT REGULATION 1

Reductions in community

employment as a result of

process and facility closures

Number of

communities

Greater than 50 full time

equivalents ........................ 5

20 to 50 ................................ 11

1 to 20 .................................. 14

0 to 1 .................................... 12

Zero ...................................... 100

1 Does not account for employment gains

associated with compliance.

The Agency also examined the

distribution of benefits across

communities with different

socioeconomic and ethnic

characteristics. Pursuant to Executive

Order 12898, EPA must, to the greatest

extent practicable and permitted by law,

make achieving environmental justice

part of its mission. Environmental

justice concerns arise when

disadvantaged or minority communities

experience disproportionately high and

adverse human health or environmental

impacts. CWT facilities are frequently

located in industrial areas; as such, the

communities frequently have higher

minority populations and greater

poverty than the rest of their state or the

nation as a whole. Reductions in

pollutant exposures to these

populations would, benefit such

communities, but they may bear a

disproportionate share of the costs of

attaining these reductions. Table X.K–2

characterizes the communities in which

CWT facilities are located.

TABLE X.K–2.—SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE OF COMMUNITIES IN WHICH

CWT FACILITIES ARE LOCATED

Percentage Number of

communities

Percent of the Population that are NonCaucasian (National Percentage=16.8%)

Less than 10 ......................... 32

10 to 20 ................................ 17

20 to 30 ................................ 35

30 to 50 ................................ 39

over 50 .................................. 23

Percent of the Population With Incomes

Below Poverty Level (National

Percentage=13.5)

Less than 7 ........................... 19

7 to 13 .................................. 33

13 to 20 ................................ 56

20 to 30 ................................ 31

over 30 .................................. 7

Using the most recent census data, in

1990, the nation as a whole had a

population that was 16.8 percent nonCaucasian. Of the communities in

which CWT facilities were located, on

the other hand, 38 percent had

populations that were at least 30 percent

minority, and 54 percent of

communities had populations whose

minority percentage exceeded that of

the state in which they were located by

more than five percentage points. In

1990, 13.5 percent of the U.S.

population had incomes below the

poverty level, 22 percent of

communities with CWT facilities had at

least 20 percent of their residents in

poverty, and 33 percent had percentages

of the population in poverty that

exceeded by at least 5 percentage points

the percentage of the population in

poverty for the states in which they

were located. Thus, environmental

justice is a concern for these

communities. The costs of the rule fall

disproportionately on facilities in

minority and low-income communities.

Benefits may also accrue to these

communities as a result of this rule, but

a large share of benefits are likely to

accrue to communities downstream

from the CWT or POTW, which may not

be the same community.

L. Foreign Trade Impacts

The EA does not project any foreign

trade impacts as a result of the effluent

limitations guidelines and standards.

Many of the affected CWT facilities treat

waste that is considered hazardous

under RCRA and international trade in

CWT services for treatment of hazardous

wastes is virtually nonexistent.

Furthermore, there is very little, if any,

international trade in treatment of nonhazardous CWT wastes.

M. Small Business Analysis

The Agency prepared a final

regulatory flexibility analysis to assess

the impacts on small businesses owning

CWT facilities. No small governmental

jurisdictions or small organizations own

and/or operate CWT facilities. For

purposes of this analysis, EPA defines

small CWT businesses as those having

sales less than $6 million—the Small

Business Administration definition of a

small business for SIC code 4953,

Refuse Systems. This is the SIC code

that most CWT facilities listed in their

questionnaire responses (see final EA

Chapter 3). Two small companies own

facilities that discharge directly. There

are 61 small companies that own

facilities that discharge indirectly. (The

total number of small companies

includes applying weights to some of

the facilities). EPA evaluated the impact

on small CWT companies using a costto-sales test, which compares baseline

sales to compliance costs (adjusted for

inflation so that the costs and sales are

expressed in the same year’s dollars).

This assessment does not account for

any ability of the companies to pass any

increase in operating costs through to

their customers. EPA recognizes that for

many industries, costs-to-sales ratios in

excess of one percent may correspond to

much higher ratios of cost to precompliance profits, and, thus, serve as

a signal for additional analysis. EPA

sought to identify those small business

that would experience costs in excess of

one percent of sales and those

experiencing costs exceeding three

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 81281

percent of sales. However, EPA does not

believe that the cost-to-sales ratio is a

particularly precise measure of

economic impact for this industry.

The two small companies that own

direct discharging facilities, both in the

oils subcategory, have cost-to-sales

ratios of over three percent. Results of

the cost-to-sales test for the PSES

options are presented in Table X.M–1

for the number of facilities with

estimated costs exceeding one percent

and three percent of sales.

TABLE X.M—1.—RESULTS OF COST-TO-SALES TEST FOR PSES OPTIONS FOR SMALL BUSINESSES

Option

# of small

companies

with cost/sales

> 1%

# of small

companies

with cost/sales

> 3%

Metals Subcategory—4 Small Businesses

4 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 4 2

3 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 4 4

Oils Subcategory—57 Small Businesses

8 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 47 25

9 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 53 36

Organics Subcategory—2 Small Businesses

4 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 2 1

As can be seen from Table X.M–1, the

bulk of the small businesses are in the

oils subcategory. Oils option 8 has 47

firms (82 percent of the small

businesses) with cost-to-sales ratios in

excess of 1 percent and 25 firms (44

percent of the small businesses) with

cost-to-sales ratios in excess of 3 percent

(without adjustment for pass-through of

costs). On the other hand, oils option 9

has 53 firms (93 percent of the small

businesses) with cost-to-sales ratios in

excess of 1 percent and 36 firms (63

percent of the small businesses) with

cost-to-sales ratios in excess of 3 percent

(without adjustment for pass-through of

costs).

Many of the facilities owned by small

businesses operate processes in more

than one subcategory so, as with the

economic impact analyses presented

earlier in this section, cost-to-sales test

results are presented for combined PSES

options. In order to be consistent with

the 1999 proposal, there are two

combined options: one based on oils

option 8 and one based on oils option

9. These results are presented in Table

X.M–2.

TABLE X.M–2.—RESULTS OF COST-TO-SALES TEST FOR COMBINED PSES OPTIONS FOR SMALL BUSINESSES

Combined option

# of small

companies

with cost/sales

> 1%

# of small

companies

with cost/sales

> 3%

Indirect Dischargers—61 Small Businesses

w/Oils Option 8 ........................................................................................................................................................ 51 28

w/Oils Option 9 ........................................................................................................................................................ 57 38

The PSES combined option with Oils

Option 8 has 51 firms (84 percent of

small businesses) with cost-to-sales

ratios in excess of 1 percent and 28

firms (46 percent of small businesses)

with cost-to-sales ratios in excess of 3

percent. On the other hand, the

combined option with Oils Option 9 has

57 firms (93 percent of small businesses)

with cost-to-sales ratios in excess of 1

percent and 38 firms (62 percent of

small businesses) with cost-to-sales

ratios in excess of 3 percent.

EPA convened a Small Business

Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel during

the development of this rule and also

considered several regulatory

alternatives to provide relief for small

businesses. These alternatives are

summarized below, and are discussed in

other sections of the preamble along

with EPA’s conclusions (See Sections

IV.A–IV.E).

EPA examined several criteria for

establishing an exclusion for small

businesses such as the volume of

wastewater flow, employment, or

annual revenues. The objective was to

minimize the impacts on small

businesses, still achieve the

environmental benefits, and stay

responsive to the Clean Water Act. EPA

is defining small CWT businesses

according to the SBA size definition of

$6 million in annual revenue, but

considered other criteria that would be

easier to implement in practice, such as

wastewater flow. To target relief to

small businesses, EPA examined the

correlation between these criteria and

the size definition.

Because most CWT facilities have

similar numbers of employees

regardless of their size (i.e., revenue),

EPA first eliminated employment as a

basis for establishing a small business

exclusion. While EPA also found no

correlation between annual volume of

wastewater and the size of a facility,

EPA retained this criterion in the 1999

proposal due to the anticipated ease in

implementing an exclusion based on

this criterion. However, if an exclusion

based on volume of wastewater had

ultimately been selected, the regulation

would have excluded both small and

large businesses.

EPA evaluated three alternatives

based on wastewater flow and size as

81282 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

potential bases for limiting the scope of

the regulation to: (i) Indirect dischargers

with flows greater than 3.5 million

gallons per year (MGY), or (ii and iii)

indirect dischargers that manage nonhazardous wastes only with flows

greater than either 3.5 MGY or 7.5 MGY.

EPA also considered limiting the

applicability of the proposed regulation

to indirect dischargers not owned by

small businesses without any specific

reference to flow (referred to as ‘‘no

smalls’’, below). The justification for

EPA’s consideration of these particular

exclusion alternatives is included in the

record in materials submitted to the

SBAR Panel.

For each alternative, EPA estimated

the projected economic impacts, both in

absolute terms and in relative terms

(that is, whether the impacts were

higher, proportionately, for small

businesses). The economic impacts that

EPA considered for small companies

include process closures, facility

closures, employment losses, and the

cost-to-sales test. Table X.M–3 shows

the results of the facility-level analyses

(if current facility receipts do not

change) and the results of the analyses

for the selected options for comparison

purposes for all indirect dischargers.

Table X.M–4 shows the results of the

cost-to-sales test, which are companylevel impacts for small companies that

own indirect dischargers. Preliminary

versions of these results were provided

to the small entity representatives

(SERs) who provided advice to the

SBAR Panel.

TABLE X.M.–3.—IMPACTS OF PSES OPTIONS WITH LIMITED SCOPE

Option

Post-tax total

annualized

costs

($1997 M)

Process

closures

(small/large)

Facility

closures

(small/large)

Total employment losses

All Indirect Dischargers—151 Facilities

Combined Option w/ Oils 8 ............................................................................. $20.83 4/11 8/7 414

reduced monitoring .......................................................................................... 17.87 4/11 7/7 420

>3.5 MGY, non-hazardous .............................................................................. 17.14 7/10 2/5 221

>3.5 MGY ......................................................................................................... 14.89 5/9 0/1 80

>7.5 MGY, non-hazardous .............................................................................. 15.49 7/10 2/5 213

‘‘No smalls’’ ...................................................................................................... 13.21 0/10 0/8 256

TABLE X.M–4.—RESULTS OF COST-TO-SALES TEST FOR SMALL BUSINESSES FOR PSES OPTIONS WITH LIMITED SCOPE

Option Cost/sales >

1%

Cost/sales >

3%

Indirect Dischargers—61 Small Businesses

Combined Option w/Oils Option 8 ........................................................................................................................... 57 38

Reduced monitoring ................................................................................................................................................. 35 14

>3.5 MGY, non-hazardous ...................................................................................................................................... 30 19

>3.5 MGY ................................................................................................................................................................ 24 14

>7.5 MGY, non-hazardous ...................................................................................................................................... 23 17

‘‘No smalls’’ .............................................................................................................................................................. 0 0

These results are roughly consistent

with the magnitude of impacts

presented for the same options in the

1999 proposal (see 64 FR 2332) with the

exception of the reduced monitoring

option. At the time of the 1999 proposal,

EPA estimated that the reduced

monitoring option resulted in 5 small

and 11 large process closures, 4 small

and 7 large facility closures, and 286 job

losses. Now, EPA estimates that the

reduced monitoring option would result

in 4 small and 11 large process closures,

7 small and 7 large facility closures, and

420 job losses.

Some SBAR Panel members and SERs

argued that these results supported

excluding small businesses from the

regulation. As described in the Panel’s

final report, these Panel members and

SERs believed that the ‘‘lost’’ pollutant

reductions associated with excluding

small businesses would not be

environmentally significant. Based on

analysis available at the time of the

Panel, limiting the applicability to

exclude all oils facilities owned by

small businesses would have reduced

removals by 12 percent. Excluding

indirect dischargers with flows under

3.5 MGY would have reduced removals

by 6 percent. They also suggested that

these facilities provide an important

‘‘safety valve’’ for an affordable and

effective treatment alternative for

industrial facilities that would

otherwise find it prohibitively

expensive to comply with industryspecific national effluent guidelines and

standards.

Other SERs opposed this approach.

These SERs argued that excluding small

businesses from the scope of this rule

would adversely impact the image of the

industry. One of these SERs preferred

reduced monitoring and also suggested

that small businesses might be granted

additional time to comply with the new

standards, rather than excluding those

businesses within the scope of the rule.

EPA expressed concern that the absence

of national effluent guidelines and

standards for CWT facilities has been a

major ‘‘loophole’’ in a national program

to control industrial pollution, allowing

wastes to be treated off-site less

effectively than would be required of

the same wastes if treated on-site. One

of EPA’s primary concerns with any of

the alternatives that limit the scope of

the rule is that the limited scope

encourages such a loophole. If a

segment of the industry is not subject to

national regulation, these companies

might quickly expand, leading to much

greater discharges within a few years.

This tendency would be limited by the

flow or size cut-off itself unless more

concentrated wastes are funneled

through plants below the cut-off. In

addition, as demonstrated by the survey

responses and public comments, almost

all CWT facilities have substantial

amounts of unused capacity. Because

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 81283

7EPA accounted for a total of 161 pollutant of

concern analytes. However, ambient water quality

criteria or toxicity profiles are established for only

104 analytes.

this industry is extremely competitive,

by limiting the scope of the CWT rule,

EPA could actually be encouraging

ineffective treatment while discouraging

effective treatment.

N. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

EPA also conducted an analysis of the

cost-effectiveness of the alternative

treatment technology options that were

considered. The report, ‘‘CostEffectiveness Analysis of Final Effluent

Limitations Guidelines and Standards

for the CWT Industry’’ (hereinafter,

‘‘Cost-Effectiveness Report’’), describes

the methodology, data, and results; the

report is included in the record of this

rulemaking. The results of this costeffectiveness analysis are expressed in

terms of the costs (in 1981 dollars) per

pound-equivalent removed, where

pounds-equivalent removed for a

particular pollutant is determined by

multiplying the number of pounds of a

pollutant removed by each option by a

toxic weighting factor. The toxic

weighting factors account for the

differences in toxicity among pollutants

and are derived using ambient water

quality criteria. Cost effectiveness

results are presented in 1981 dollars as

a reporting convention. Costeffectiveness is calculated as the ratio of

pre-tax annualized costs of an option to

the annual pounds-equivalent removed

by that option, and can be expressed as

the average or incremental costeffectiveness for an option.

Average cost-effectiveness can be

thought of as the ‘‘increment’’ between

no regulation and the selected option for

any given rule. For direct dischargers,

the technologies used as the basis for

BPT/BCT/BAT in all subcategories have

an average cost-effectiveness ratio of

$6.77/lb-equivalent. For indirect

dischargers, the technologies used as the

basis for PSES in all subcategories have

an average cost-effectiveness ratio of

$175/lb-equivalent. These results

incorporate all subcategories with their

selected options.

Incremental cost-effectiveness is the

appropriate measure for comparing one

regulatory option to another regulatory

option for the same subcategory. Costeffectiveness results by subcategory and

option are presented for direct

dischargers in Table X.N–1 and indirect

dischargers in Table X.N–2. The options

are listed in order of increasing

removals.

TABLE X.N–1.—BPT/BCT/BAT COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS

Option

Pre-tax total

annualized

costs

($1981 M)

Removals

(lbs-eq)

Average cost

effectiveness

(1981 $/lb-eq)

Incremental

cost effectiveness

(1981 $/lb-eq)

Metals Subcategory—9 Facilities

4 ....................................................................................................................... $2.15 384,416 $6.00 ........................

3 ....................................................................................................................... 9.00 401,426 22.00 $403

Oils Subcategory—5 Facilities

9 a ..................................................................................................................... 0.329 1,771 186 n/a

Organics Subcategory—4 Facilities

4 ....................................................................................................................... 0.135 0 ........................ ........................

aSince all direct discharging oils facilities already have treatment-in-place equivalent to secondary gravity separation, EPA did not consider the

option 8 technology.

TABLE X.N–2.—PSES COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS

Option

Pre-tax total

annualized

costs

($1981 M)

Removals

(lbs-eq)

Average cost

effectiveness

(1981 $/lb-eq)

Incremental

cost effectiveness

(1981 $/lb-eq)

Metals Subcategory—42 Facilities

4 ....................................................................................................................... $6.95 39,211 $176 ........................

3 ....................................................................................................................... 26.9 48,008 561 $2,323

Oils Subcategory—123 Facilities

8 ....................................................................................................................... 8.98 48,148 187 ........................

9 ....................................................................................................................... 12.8 50,792 252 1,442

Organics Subcategory—15 Facilities

4 ....................................................................................................................... 2.79 19,814 141 ........................

XI. Water Quality Analysis and

Environmental Benefits

EPA evaluated the environmental

benefits of controlling the discharges of

104 7 priority and non-conventional

pollutants from centralized waste

treatment facilities to surface waters and

POTWs in national analyses of direct

and indirect discharges. Discharges of

these pollutants into freshwater and

estuarine ecosystems may alter aquatic

habitats, adversely affect aquatic biota,

and adversely impact human health

through the consumption of

81284 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

contaminated fish and drinking water.

Furthermore, these pollutants may also

interfere with POTW operations in

terms of inhibition of activated sludge

or biological treatment and

contamination of sewage sludges,

thereby limiting the method of disposal

and thereby raising its costs. All of these

pollutants have at least one toxic effect

(human health carcinogen and/or

systemic toxicant or aquatic toxicant). In

addition, many of these pollutants

bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms and

persist in the environment.

EPA has updated its analysis to reflect

changes to the National Ambient Water

Quality Criteria made after the 1999

CWT proposal was issued. National

Ambient Water Quality Criteria have

been updated for 63 of the analytes

modeled in the water quality benefits

analysis. In some cases, water criteria

for aquatic organisms were completely

removed, while for others, criteria for

human health were made more

stringent.

The Agency did not evaluate the

effects of conventional pollutants since

the analysis focused on priority and

non-conventional pollutants. However,

the discharge of a conventional

pollutant such as total suspended solids

(TSS) can have adverse effects on the

environment. For example, habitat

degradation can result from increased

suspended particulate matter that

reduces light penetration, and thus

primary productivity, or from

accumulation of sludge particles that

alter benthic spawning grounds and

feeding habitats.

Of a total of 223 CWT facilities, for

the purposes of the water quality and

benefits analysis, EPA evaluated 12

direct dischargers and 101 indirect

dischargers. Facilities not evaluated

include zero dischargers (58) and those

with insufficient data (2 direct and 50

indirect facilities) to conduct the water

quality analysis. To estimate benefits

from the improvements in water quality,

in-stream concentration estimates are

modeled and then compared to both

aquatic life and human health ambient

water quality criteria (AWQC) or toxic

effect levels. The analyses were first

performed on a subcategory-specific

basis. The subcategory-specific analyses,

however, consider only impacts of

discharges from individual

subcategories, and therefore,

underestimate overall water quality

impacts for facilities that treat wastes in

more than one subcategory. At least 15

percent of facilities in the CWT industry

accept wastes in multiple subcategories.

In order to evaluate overall benefits of

the final technologies, EPA also

analyzed water quality and POTW

impacts for multiple subcategory

combinations.

EPA expects a variety of human

health, environmental, and economic

benefits to result from these projected

reductions in effluent loadings (see

‘‘Environmental Assessment of the Final

Effluent Guidelines for the Centralized

Waste Treatment Industry,’’

(Environmental Assessment)). In

particular, the assessment addresses the

following benefit categories: (a) Human

health benefits due to reductions in

excess cancer risk; (b) human health

benefits due to reductions in lead

exposure; (c) human health benefits due

to reductions in non-carcinogenic

hazard (systemic); (d) ecological and

recreational benefits due to improved

water quality with respect to toxic

pollutants; and (e) benefits to POTWs

from reductions in interference, pass

through, and biosolid contamination,

and elimination of some of the efforts

associated with establishing local

pretreatment limits.

A. Reduced Human Health Cancer Risk

EPA expects that reduced loadings to

surface waters associated with the final

rule will reduce cancer incidences by

approximately 0.03 per year with

estimated monetized benefits of $0.076

to $0.412 million ($1997) per year.

These estimated benefits are attributable

to reducing the cancer risks associated

with consuming contaminated fish

tissue. EPA developed these benefit

estimates by applying an existing

estimate of the value of a statistical life

to the estimated number of excess

cancer cases avoided. The estimated

range of the value of a statistical life

used in this analysis is $2.3 million to

12.4 million ($1997).

B. Reduced Lead Health Risk

EPA solicited comment on, and

updated its methodology used to

estimate lead health risks due to

ingestion of lead-contaminated fish

tissues by recreational and subsistence

anglers. For the proposed rule EPA used

the 7Q10 flow (lowest seven day flow

which reoccurs every ten years),

although the harmonic mean flow

would have been more appropriate to

estimate the human health effects due to

consumption of lead contaminated fish

tissues. As a result, EPA’s calculated

benefit at the time of proposal for the

reduction of lead discharges into the

environment was overestimated.

For the final rule, EPA used the

harmonic-mean flow to estimate human

health effects due to consumption of

lead contaminated fish tissue. Under the

final treatment levels, the ingestion of

lead-contaminated fish tissues by

recreational and subsistence anglers

would be reduced at 10 water bodies.

Because elevated blood lead levels can

cause intellectual impairment in

exposed children 0 to 6 years of age,

benefits to the at-risk child populations

are quantified by estimating the reduced

potential IQ point loss. Benefits to

adults are quantified by estimating the

reduced risk for cardiovascular diseases

including hypertension, coronary heart

disease, and strokes (the benefits of

reduced heart disease and strokes

include both fatal and non-fatal cases).

The benefits are quantified and

monetized using methodologies

developed in the Retrospective Analysis

of the Clean Air Act (Final Report to

Congress on Benefits and Costs of the

Clean Air Act, 1970 to 1990; EPA 410–

R–97–002). EPA estimates that this final

regulation will reduce cases of these

adverse health effects; the total benefit

for these reductions would range from

approximately $0.488 million to $1.59

million.

C. Reduced Noncarcinogenic Human

Health Hazard

Exposure to toxic substances poses

risk of systemic and other effects to

humans, including effects on the

circulatory, respiratory or digestive

systems, and neurological and

developmental effects. This final rule is

expected to generate human health

benefits by reducing exposure to these

substances, thus reducing the hazards of

these associated effects. EPA expects

that reduced loadings to surface waters

would reduce the number of persons

potentially exposed to non-cancer

effects due to consumption of

contaminated fish tissue by 1880

people. Presently EPA does not have

methodology for monetizing these

benefits.

D. Improved Ecological Conditions and

Recreational Activity

EPA expects this final rule to generate

environmental benefits by improving

water quality. There are a wide range of

benefits associated with the

maintenance and improvement of water

quality. These benefits include use

values (e.g., recreational fishing),

ecological values (e.g., preservation of

habitat), and passive use values. For

example, water pollution might affect

the quality of the fish and wildlife

habitat provided by water resources,

thus affecting the species using these

resources. This in turn might affect the

quality and value of recreational

experiences of users, such as anglers

fishing in the effected streams. EPA has

estimated the value of the recreational

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 81285

fishing benefits and intrinsic benefits

resulting from this final rule.

EPA estimates that the annual

monetized recreational benefits to

anglers associated with the expected

changes in water quality range from

$1.23 million to $3.49 million ($1997).

EPA evaluates these recreational

benefits, applying a model that

considers the increase in value of a

‘‘contaminant-free fishery’’ to

recreational anglers resulting from the

elimination of all pollutant

concentrations in excess of AWQC at 5

of the 43 receiving water locations.

EPA’s modeling projects that discharges

from CWT facilities are responsible for

252 AWQC violations at 43 receiving

water locations and that the rule would

eliminate all violations at 5 of these

locations. Note these results are derived

from computer modeling only. The

monetized value of impaired

recreational fishing opportunity is

estimated by first calculating the

baseline value of the receiving stream

using a value per-person-day of

recreational fishing, and the number of

person-days fished on the receiving

stream. The value of improving water

quality in this fishery, based on the

increase in value to anglers of achieving

contaminant-free fishing, is then

calculated. However, adding these

benefits to the cancer and lead toxicity

reduction benefits calculated above may

result in double counting. Presumably

reduced incidence of adverse health

effects is one of the factors anglers

considered when valuing a

‘‘contaminant free fishery.’’

In addition, EPA estimates that the

annual monetized intrinsic benefits to

the general public, as a result of the

same improvements in water quality,

range from at least $0.62 million to

$1.75 million ($1997). These intrinsic

benefits are estimated as half of the

recreational benefits and may be either

underestimated or overestimated.

E. Improved POTW Operations

EPA considers two potential sources

of benefits to POTWs from this final

regulation: (1) Reductions in the

likelihood of interference, pass through,

and biosolid contamination problems;

and (2) reductions in costs potentially

incurred by POTWs in analyzing toxic

pollutants and determining whether to,

and the appropriate level at which to,

set local limits. Although the benefits

from reducing these effects at POTWs

might be substantial, EPA is unable to

quantify them.

First, regarding potential interference,

pass through and biosolid

contamination, this final rule is

expected to help reduce these problems

by reducing pollutant loadings in the

industry’s effluent and reducing shock

releases. Anecdotal evidence from

POTW operators and sampling results

indicate that such effects can occur.

EPA also expects the final rule to

improve the biosolid quality of 3900

metric tons, permitting the use of less

expensive disposal mechanisms. The

estimated monetized benefits for

improving biosolid quality range from

$0.14 million to $0.85.

Finally, reducing the pollutant load to

local POTWs may eliminate some of the

efforts associated with establishing local

pollutant limits. Local limits are

sometimes required to protect against

pass through and interference, and to

protect worker health and safety.

Several POTWs indicated that

establishment of more effective national

pretreatment standards will reduce the

time and effort required to establish

local limits.

F. Other Benefits Not Quantified

The above benefit analyses focus

mainly on identified compounds with

quantifiable toxic or carcinogenic

effects. This potentially leads to an

underestimation of benefits, since some

pollutant characterizations are not

explicitly considered. While the

analysis does include a general estimate

for non-use benefits, it is possible that

some potential effects of reductions in

certain pollutants were not fully

captured in the monetized estimates.

For example, the analyses do not

include the benefits associated with

reducing the particulate load (measured

as TSS), or the oxygen demand

(measured as BOD5 and COD) of the

effluents. TSS loads can degrade

ecological habitat by reducing light

penetration and primary productivity,

and from accumulation of solid particles

that alter benthic spawning grounds and

feeding habitats. BOD5 and COD loads

can deplete oxygen levels, which can

produce mortality or other adverse

effects in fish, as well as reduce

biological diversity.

G. Summary of Benefits

EPA estimates that the annual

monetized benefits resulting from this

final rule are in the range from $2.56

million to $8.09 million ($1997). Table

XI.G–1 summarizes these benefits, by

category. The range reflects the

uncertainty in evaluating the effects of

this final rule and in placing a dollar

value on these effects. As indicated in

Table XI.G–1, these monetized benefits

ranges do not explicitly reflect some

potential benefit categories, including

aspects of improved ecological

conditions from improvements in water

quality; and improved POTW

operations.

At the same time, there may be a

certain amount of double counting in

the benefits categories that have been

monetized, for example, between the

health and recreational benefits.

Therefore the reported benefits may

understate or overestimate the total

benefits of this final rule.

TABLE XI.G–1.—POTENTIAL

ECONOMIC BENEFITS

Benefit category

Millions of

1997 dollars

per year

Reduced Cancer Risk ............ 0.076–0.412

Reduced Lead Health Risk .... 0.49–1.59

Reduced Non-Carcinogenic

Hazard.

Unquantified

Improved Recreation Value ... 1.23–3.49

Improved Intrinsic Value (including ecological conditions).0.62–1.75*

Reduced Biosolid Contamination at POTW.0.14–0.85

Potentially Improved POTW

Operation (inhibition).

Unquantified

Total Monetized Benefits ....... 2.56–8.09

* May not fully capture all ecological effects.

XII. Non-Water Quality Environmental

Impacts

The elimination or reduction of one

form of pollution may create or

aggravate other environmental

problems. Therefore, Sections 304(b)

and 306 of the Act require EPA to

consider non-water quality

environmental impacts of effluent

limitations guidelines and standards.

Accordingly, EPA has considered the

effect of these regulations on air

pollution, waste treatment residual

generation, and energy consumption.

A. Air Pollution

CWT facilities generate wastewater

that contain significant concentrations

of organic compounds, some of which

are also on the list of Hazardous Air

Pollutants (HAP) in title 3 of the Clean

Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990.

These wastewaters often pass through a

series of collection and treatment units

that are open to the atmosphere and

allow wastewater containing organic

compounds to contact ambient air.

Atmospheric exposure of the organiccontaining wastewater may result in

significant volatilization of both volatile

organic compounds (VOC), which

contribute to the formation of ambient

ozone, and HAP from the wastewater.

As discussed in 1999 proposal, EPA

considered including air stripping in the

technology basis for today’s limitations

and standards, but rejected it because it

81286 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

8The technology basis for indirect discharges in

the oils subcategory does not include additional

gravity separation steps. See Section VIII.E.

would not have resulted in significantly

different limitations. Because this rule

would not allow any less stringent

control of VOCs than is currently in

place at most CWT facilities, EPA does

not project any net increase in air

emissions from volatilization of organic

pollutants due to today’s final action. As

such, no adverse air impacts are

expected to occur as a result of today’s

regulations.

Although this rule does not require

the use of air stripping with emissions

control to control the emission of

volatile pollutants, EPA encourages all

facilities which accept waste containing

volatile pollutants to incorporate air

stripping with overhead recovery or

destruction into their wastewater

treatment systems. Additionally, EPA

also notes that CWT sources of

hazardous air pollutants are subject to

maximum achievable control

technology (MACT) as promulgated for

off-site waste and recovery operations

on July 1, 1996 (61 FR 34140) at 40 CFR

Part 63.

Finally, EPA notes that the increased

energy requirements discussed below

may result in increased emissions of

combustion byproducts associated with

energy production. Given the relatively

small projected increases in energy use,

however, EPA does not anticipate that

this effect would be signficant.

B. Solid Waste

Solid waste will be generated due to

a number of the treatment technologies

selected as the basis for today’s rule.

These wastes include sludge from

biological treatment systems, chemical

precipitation and clarification systems,

and gravity separation and dissolved air

flotation systems. EPA estimated costs

for off-site disposal in Subtitle C and D

landfills of the solid wastes generated

due to the implementation of the

technologies discussed above. These

costs were included in the economic

evaluation of the selected technologies.

The precipitation and subsequent

separation selected as the technology

basis for the metals subcategory will

produce a metal-rich filter cake which

requires disposal. EPA estimates that

metals subcategory facilities will

generate annually 3.7 million gallons of

filter cake. Dissolved air flotation and

additional gravity separation steps

selected as the technology basis 8 for the

oils subcategory will also produce a

metal-rich filter press cake that requires

disposal. EPA estimates that oils

subcategory facilities will generate

approximately 23 million gallons of

filter press cake annually. Finally, the

biological treatment system selected as

the technology basis for the organics

subcategory will also produce a sludge

that requires disposal. EPA estimates

that 4.3 million gallons of sludge will be

generated annually by the organics

subcategory facilities.

EPA has concluded that the disposal

of these filter cakes and/or sludges will

not have an adverse effect on the

environment or result in the release of

pollutants in the filter cake to other

media. EPA made this conclusion for

two reasons. First, EPA estimates that

the additional solid wastes disposed in

landfills as a result of this regulation

will be less than 0.19% of the annual

tonnage of waste currently disposed in

landfills. Second, the disposal of these

wastes into controlled Subtitle C and D

landfills is strictly regulated by the

RCRA program.

C. Energy Requirements

EPA estimates that the attainment of

BPT, BCT, BAT, and PSES will increase

energy consumption by a small

increment over present industry use.

With the exception of the oils

subcategory, the projected increase in

energy consumption is primarily due to

the incorporation of components such

as power pumps, mixers, blowers, and

controls. For the metals subcategory,

EPA projects an increased energy usage

of 3.5 million kilowatt hours per year

and, for the organics subcategory, an

increased energy usage of 0.5 millionkilowatt hours per year. For the oils

subcategory, however, the main energy

requirement in today’s rule is for the

operation of dissolved air flotation

units. Dissolved air flotation units

require air sparging to help separate the

wastestream. For the oils subcategory,

EPA projects an increased energy usage

of 3.4 million kilowatt hours per year.

Overall, an increase of 7.5 million

kilowatt-hours per year would be

required for today’s regulation which

equates to 4210 barrels of oil per day.

In 1996, the United States consumed

18.3 million barrels of oil per day.

XIII. Regulatory Implementation

The purpose of this section is to

provide assistance and direction to

permit writers, control authorities, and

CWT facilities to aid in their

implementation of this regulation. This

section also discusses the relationship

of upset and bypass provisions and

variances and modifications to the final

limitations and standards.

A. Implementation of the Limitations

and Standards

1. Introduction

Effluent limitations and pretreatment

standards act as a primary mechanism

to control the discharges of pollutants to

waters of the United States. These

limitations and standards are applied to

individual facilities through NPDES

permits and local limits developed for

POTWs issued by the EPA or authorized

States under Section 402 of the Act and

local pretreatment programs under

Section 307 of the Act.

In specific cases, the NPDES

permitting authority or local POTW may

elect to establish technology-based

permit limits or local 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 or

standards on covered pollutants to

achieve compliance), the permitting

authority must apply those limitations

or standards.

2. Compliance Dates

New and reissued Federal and State

NPDES permits to direct dischargers

must include the effluent limitations

promulgated today. Existing indirect

dischargers must comply with today’s

pretreatment standards no later than

December 22, 2003. New direct and

indirect discharging sources must

comply with applicable limitations and

standards on the date the new sources

begin operations. As a further point of

clarification, new direct and indirect

sources are those that began

construction of CWT operations after

August 28, 2000.

3. Applicability

EPA provided detailed information on

the applicability of this rule to various

operations in Section V. EPA also

provided examples of regulated and

non-regulated CWT operations in Table

V.A–1. Also see 40 CFR 437.1. Permit

writers and pretreatment authorities

should closely examine all CWT

operations to determine if they should

be subject to provisions of this rule.

4. Subcategorization Determination

Each CWT facility subject to this rule

will need to make an initial

determination of which subcategories

are applicable. Multiple subcategory

facilities will need to choose to comply

with each of the applicable subcategory

limitations or standards separately

(directly following treatment of each

subcategory’s waste) or to certify

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 81287

equivalent treatment and comply with

one of the four sets of limitations or

standards in the multiple wastestream

subcategory. The following sections

provide guidance on a facility’s

subcategorization determination as well

as implementation of the rule for

multiple subcategory facilities. In

addition, this section provides a

procedure that should assist CWT

facilities in determining into which

category particular waste receipts might

fall.

EPA determined that the paperwork

and analyses currently performed at

CWT facilities, as part of their waste

acceptance procedures, provide CWT

facilities with sufficient information for

them to determine into which of the

subcategories their treated waste would

fall. EPA based its recommended

subcategorization determination

procedure on information generally

obtained during these waste acceptance

and confirmation procedures. In EPA’s

view, permit writers and local

pretreatment authorities should not

(because they need not) require

additional monitoring or paperwork

solely for the purpose of subcategory

determinations, unless the CWT

facility’s waste acceptance procedures

are inadequate. EPA concluded that if

CWT facilities follow EPA’s

recommendations, they should easily

classify their wastes. Permit writers and

local authorities, in these

circumstances, would only need to

satisfy themselves that the facility made

a good-faith effort to determine the

category of wastes treated. In most

cases, as detailed below, EPA

determined that the subcategory

determination can be made on the type

of waste receipt, e.g., metal-bearing

sludge, used oil, or landfill leachate.

Certainly, in EPA’s estimation, all CWT

facilities should, at a minimum, collect

adequate information from the generator

on the type of waste received at the

CWT facility because this is the

minimum information required by CWT

facilities to treat off-site wastes

effectively.

To determine an existing facility’s

subcategory classification(s), the facility

should review data for a period of one

year on its incoming wastes (that is, at

the point where the shipment is

received at the facility). The facility

should first use Table XIII.A–1 below to

classify each of its waste receipts into a

subcategory for that one-year period.

TABLE XIII.A–1—WASTE RECEIPT

CLASSIFICATION

Metals Subcategory:

Spent electroplating baths and/or sludges

TABLE XIII.A–1—WASTE RECEIPT

CLASSIFICATION—Continued

Metal finishing rinse water and sludges

Chromate wastes

Air pollution control blow down water and

sludges

Spent anodizing solutions

Incineration wastewaters

Waste liquid mercury

Cyanide-containing wastes

Waste acids and bases with or without

metals

Cleaning, rinsing, and surface preparation

solutions from electroplating or

phosphating operations

Vibratory deburring wastewater

Alkaline and acid solutions used to clean

metal parts or equipment

Oils Subcategory:

Used oils

Oil-water emulsions or mixtures

Lubricants

Coolants

Contaminated groundwater clean-up from

petroleum sources

Used petroleum products

Oil spill clean-up

Bilge water

Rinse/wash waters from petroleum sources

Interceptor wastes

Off-specification fuels

Underground storage remediation waste

Tank clean-out from petroleum or oily

sources

Non-contact used glycols

Aqueous and oil mixtures from parts cleaning operations

Wastewater from oil bearing paint washes

Organics Subcategory:

Landfill leachate

Contaminated groundwater clean-up from

non-petroleum sources

Solvent-bearing wastes

Off-specification organic product

Still bottoms

Byproduct waste glycol

Wastewater from paint washes

Wastewater from adhesives and/or epoxies

formulation

Wastewater from organic chemical product

operations

Tank clean-out from organic, non-petroleum sources

If the CWT facility receives the wastes

listed above, the subcategory

determination may be made solely from

this information. If, however, the wastes

are unknown or not listed above, EPA

recommends that the facility use the

following hierarchy to determine how to

characterize the wastes it is treating, so

as to identify the appropriate regulatory

subcategory.

(1) If the waste receipt contains oil

and grease at or in excess of 100 mg/L,

the waste receipt should be classified in

the oils subcategory;

(2) If the waste receipt contains oil

and grease <100 mg/L, and has any of

the pollutants listed below in

concentrations in excess of the values

listed below, the waste receipt should

be classified in the metals subcategory.

Cadmium: 0.2 mg/L

Chromium: 8.9 mg/L

Copper: 4.9 mg/L

Nickel: 37.5 mg/L

(3) If the waste receipt contains oil

and grease < 100 mg/L, and does not

have concentrations of cadmium,

chromium, copper, or nickel above any

of the values listed above, the waste

receipt should be classified in the

organics subcategory.

Once a facility’s subcategory

determination has been made, in EPA’s

view, the facility would not need to

repeat this annual determination

process unnecessarily. However, if a

CWT facility alters its operation to

accept wastes from another subcategory

(or to no longer accept waste from a

subcategory), the facility should notify

the appropriate permit writer or

pretreatment authority and the

subcategory determination should be revisited. EPA notes that current permit

regulations require notification to the

permitting authority when significant

changes occur. EPA also recommends

that the subcategory determination be

reevaluated whenever the permit is

reissued, though this would not

necessarily require complete

characterization of a subsequent year’s

waste receipts if there were no

indication that the make-up of the

facility’s receipts had significantly

changed.

For new CWT facilities, the facility

should estimate the percentage of waste

receipts expected in each subcategory.

Alternatively, the facility could compare

the treatment technologies being

installed to the selected treatment

technologies for each subcategory. After

the initial year of operation, the permit

writer or pretreatment authority should

reassess the facility’s subcategory

determination and follow the procedure

outlined for existing facilities.

5. Implementation for Facilities in

Multiple CWT Subcategories

EPA estimates that many facilities in

the CWT industry accept wastes in two

or more of the individual subcategories

adopted for regulation here. In other

words, the facilities actively accept a

variety of waste types. This situation is

different from the case in which metalbearing wastestreams may include lowlevel organic pollutants or that oily

wastes may include low-level metal

pollutants due to the origin of the

wastestream accepted for treatment.

As promulgated today, multiple

subcategory facilities may comply with

this rule in one of two ways: (1)

81288 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

9The pollutant removals for each treatment

technology selected as the basis are listed in Tables

7.6 through 7.9 in the TDD.

Facilities may elect to comply with the

limitations or standards for each

applicable subcategory directly

following treatment (before

commingling with different subcategory

wastes); or (2) facilities may certify

equivalent treatment and comply with

one of the four sets of limitations or

standards for the multiple wastestream

subcategory. Each of these options is

discussed further below.

a. Comply with Limitations or

Standards for Subcategory A, B, and/or

C. In implementing this rule for

multiple subcategory facilities in this

manner, the permit writer or

pretreatment control authority needs to

ensure that the CWT facility has an

optimal waste management program.

First, the permit writer or control

authority should verify that the CWT

facility is identifying and segregating

wastestreams appropriately since

segregation of similar wastestreams is

the first step in obtaining optimal mass

removals of pollutants from industrial

wastes. Next, the permit writer or

control authority should verify that the

CWT facility is employing treatment

technologies designed to treat all off-site

waste receipts effectively. Finally, the

permit writer or control authority

should establish compliance monitoring

for each applicable subcategory directly

following treatment of the each

subcategory’s waste stream. As a further

point of clarification, the permit writer

or control authority should not allow

CWT facilities to commingle

wastestreams from different

subcategories prior to monitoring for

compliance with each subcategory’s

limitations or standards.

b. Comply with Limitations or

Standards for Subcategory D. First,

facilities which desire this option would

submit an initial request to their permit

writer or local control authority

certifying that their treatment train

includes all applicable equivalent

treatment systems. This initial

certification would include, at a

minimum, the applicable subcategories

(i.e., metals, oils, organics), a listing of

and descriptions of the treatment

technologies and operating conditions

used to treat wastes in each subcategory,

and the justification for making an

equivalent treatment determination (see

§ 437.40 of the final rule). For example,

a direct discharging facility which

accepts metals subcategory and oils

subcategory wastewaters could show

that their treatment train includes twostage oil/water separation, two-stage

chemical precipitation, and dissolved

air flotation operated in a similar

manner to that costed by EPA. Since

these are the treatment technologies

selected as the basis for this rule, the

equivalent treatment determination

could be established. However, EPA is

not defining ‘‘equivalent treatment’’ as

specific treatment technologies or the

technology bases, but rather as a

‘‘wastewater treatment system that is

demonstrated in literature, treatability

tests, or self-monitoring data to remove

a similar level of the appropriate

pollutants as the applicable treatment

technology selected as the basis for the

applicable regulations’’.9 EPA is leaving

the decision as to whether a particular

treatment train is ‘‘equivalent

treatment’’ to the permit writer’s or local

control authority’s best professional

judgment. However, the requesting

facility is responsible for providing the

permit writer or local control authority

with enough information and/or data to

make the equivalent treatment

determination. This initial certification

statement must be signed by the

responsible corporate officer as defined

in 40 CFR 403.12(1) or 40 CFR 122.22.

If the permit writer or local control

authority determines that equivalent

treatment is demonstrated, then the

permit writers of local control authority

will issue discharge requirements based

on one of the four subsets of limitations

or standards promulgated for the

multiple wastestream subcategory.

Next, the facility shall submit an

annual certification statement which

indicates that the treatment technologies

are being utilized in the manner set

forth in their original certification or a

justification to allow modification of the

practices listed in its initial certification

(see § 437.41 of the final rule). If the

information contained in the initial

certification statement is still

applicable, a facility shall simply state

that in a letter to the permitting

authority or local control authority, and

the letter shall constitute the periodic

statement. However, if the facility has

modified its treatment system in any

way, it shall submit the revised

information in a manner similar to the

initial certification. Once again, the

permit writer or local control authority

would be expected to use BEJ/BPJ in

reviewing any modifications.

Finally, the facility shall be required

to maintain on-site compliance

paperwork. The on-site compliance

paperwork should include information

from the initial and periodic

certifications, but must also include: (1)

The supporting documentation for any

modifications that have been made to

the treatment system; (2) a method for

demonstrating that the treatment system

is well operated and maintained; and (3)

a discussion of the rationale for

choosing the method of demonstration.

Proper operation and maintenance of a

system includes a qualified person to

operate the system, use of correct

treatment chemicals in appropriate

quantities, and operation of the system

within the stated design parameters. For

example, a facility may operate

dissolved air flotation. The method for

demonstrating the dissolved air flotation

system is well operated can be as simple

as maintaining records on the

temperature and pH, the chemicals

added (including quantity), the duration

of treatment, recycle ratio, and physical

characteristics of the wastewater before

and after dissolved air flotation.

Alternatively, the facility could monitor

for selected parameters for the purpose

of demonstrating effective treatment.

This could include any pollutant or a

combination of pollutants.

Control authorities, at any time after

entering into an individual control

mechanism, or permitting authorities, or

any time after issuing, reissuing, or

modifying the NPDES permit, could

inspect the CWT facility to confirm that

the listed practices are being employed,

that the treatment system is well

operated and maintained, and that the

necessary paperwork provides sufficient

justification for any modifications.

6. Implementation for Metals

Subcategory Facilities With Cyanide

Subset

Whenever a CWT facility accepts a

waste receipt that contains more than

136 mg/L of total cyanide, the CWT

facility must monitor for cyanide when

the wastewater exits the cyanide

destruction process rather than after

mixing with other process wastewater.

Alternatively, the facility may monitor

for compliance after mixing if the

cyanide limitations are adjusted using

the ‘‘building block approach’’ or

‘‘combined wastestream formula,’’

assuming the cyanide limitations do not

fall below the minimum analytical

detection limit.

7. Implementation for CWT Facilities

Subject to Multiple Effluent Limitations

Guidelines or Pretreatment Standards

For determination of effluent limits

where there are multiple categories, the

effluent guidelines are applied using a

flow-weighted combination of the

appropriate guideline for each category

(i.e., ‘‘the building block approach’’).

Where a facility treats a CWT

wastestream and process wastewater

from other non-CWT industrial

operations, the effluent guidelines

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 81289

would be applied by using a flowweighted combination of the BPT/BAT

limitations for the CWT and the other

non-CWT industrial operation to derive

the appropriate limitations. Similarly,

for indirect dischargers, under these

circumstances, the pretreatment

standards would be applied using the

‘‘combined wastestream formula’’ as

defined in 40 CFR 403.6(e). The only

exceptions to this are for facilities also

subject to effluent guidelines for

Landfills (40 CFR 445) and effluent

limitations guidelines and pretreatment

standards for Transportation Equipment

Cleaning (40 CFR 442). The interaction

between these categories and the CWT

rule are detailed in Section V. J and V.I,

respectively.

8. Internal Monitoring Requirements

Working in conjunction with the

effluent guidelines and pretreatment

standards are the monitoring conditions

set out in the NPDES or POTW

discharge permit. An integral part of

monitoring conditions is the point at

which a facility must demonstrate

compliance. The point at which a

sample is collected can have a dramatic

effect on the monitoring results for that

facility. Therefore, as detailed elsewhere

in the implementation section, it may be

necessary to require internal monitoring

points in order to assure compliance.

Authority to address internal

wastestreams is provided in 40 CFR

122.44(i)(1)(iii), 122.45(h), and 40 CFR

403.6(e)(2) and (4). Permit writers or

local control authorities may establish

additional internal monitoring points to

the extent consistent with EPA’s

regulations.

B. Upset and Bypass Provisions

A ‘‘bypass’’ is an intentional diversion

of wastestreams from any portion of a

treatment facility. An ‘‘upset’’ is an

exceptional incident in which there is

unintentional and temporary

noncompliance with technology-based

permit effluent limitations because of

factors beyond the reasonable control of

the permittee. EPA’s regulations

concerning bypasses and upsets for

direct dischargers are set forth at 40 CFR

122.41(m) and (n) and for indirect

dischargers at 40 CFR 403.16 and

403.17.

C. Variances and Modifications

Upon the promulgation of these

regulations, all new and reissued

Federal and State NPDES permits issued

to direct dischargers in the CWT

Industry must include the effluent

limitations. In addition, the indirect

dischargers must comply with the

pretreatment standards within three

years of issuance.

1. Fundamentally Different Factors

(FDF) Variances

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.

EPA will develop effluent limitations

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

limitations 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

limitations for conventional pollutants

for direct dischargers. For indirect

dischargers, EPA provided for FDF

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

national effluent 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 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

limitations 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 (for example, 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 the EPA in developing

the nationally applicable effluent

guidelines. The regulation also lists four

other factors (for example, 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 the EPA in establishing the

applicable guidelines. The pretreatment

regulations 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.

81290 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

2. Water Quality Variances

Section 301(g) of the CWA authorizes

a variance from BAT effluent guidelines

for certain non-conventional pollutants

due to localized environmental factors.

These pollutants include ammonia,

chlorine, color, iron, and total phenols.

3. Permit Modifications

Even after EPA (or an authorized

State) has issued a final permit to a

direct discharger, the permit may still be

modified under certain conditions.

(When a permit modification is under

consideration, however, all other permit

conditions remain in effect.) A permit

modification may be triggered in several

circumstances. These could include a

regulatory inspection or information

submitted by the permittee that reveals

the need for modification. Any

interested person may request a permit

modification. There are two

classifications of modifications: major

and minor. From a procedural

standpoint, they differ primarily with

respect to the public notice

requirements. Major modifications

require public notice while minor

modifications do not. Virtually any

modification that results in less

stringent conditions is treated as a major

modification, with provisions for public

notice and comment. Conditions that

would necessitate a major modification

of a permit are described in 40 CFR

122.62. Minor modifications are

generally non-substantive changes. The

conditions for minor modification are

described in 40 CFR 122.63.

XIV. Related Acts of Congress,

Executive Orders, and Agency

Initiatives

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory

Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866 [58

Federal Register 51735, (October 4,

1993)], the Agency must determine

whether a regulatory action is

‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) review and the requirements of

the Executive Order. The Order defines

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as one

that is likely to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive

Order 12866, it has been determined

that this rule is a ‘‘significant regulatory

action.’’ Consequently, EPA submitted

this action to OMB for review. Changes

made in response to OMB suggestions or

recommendations will be documented

in the public record.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as

Amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

1. Background

The RFA generally requires an agency

to prepare a regulatory flexibility

analysis for any rule subject to notice

and comment rulemaking requirements

under the Administrative Procedure Act

or any other statute unless the Agency

certifies that the rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small organizations and small

governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impact

of today’s rule on small entities, small

entity is defined as (1) a small business

with gross revenue under $6 million

(based on Small Business

Administration size standards); (2) a

small governmental jurisdiction that is a

government of a city, county, town,

school district or special district with a

population 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.

In accordance with section 603 of the

RFA, EPA prepared an initial regulatory

flexibility analysis (IRFA) for the

proposed rule and convened a Small

Business Advocacy Review (SBAR)

Panel to obtain advice and

recommendations of representatives of

affected small entities in accordance

with section 609(b) of the RFA. See 64

FR 2298–2300, 2332–33 (January 13,

1999). A detailed discussion of the

SBAR Panel’s advice and

recommendations can be found in the

Panel Report which is available in the

docket for this rule (DCN 21.5.1). The

1999 proposal provides a summary of

the Panel’s recommendation. See 64 FR

2298–2300.

2. Summary of Final Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis

As required by section 604 of the

RFA, EPA also prepared a final

regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for

today’s rule. The FRFA addresses the

issues raised by public comments on the

IRFA, which was part of the proposal of

this rule. The FRFA is available for

review in the docket (in Section 8 of the

Final EA) and is summarized below.

a. Need for and Objectives of the

Regulation. A detailed discussion of the

need for the regulation is presented in

Section V of the 1999 preamble (64 FR

2293–2295). A summary may also be

found in Section 9.1.2 of the Final EA.

A detailed discussion of the objectives

and legal basis for the rule is presented

in Sections I and II of this preamble and

Chapter 1 of the final development

document. Very briefly, the Clean Water

Act requires EPA to establish effluent

limitations guidelines and standards to

control pollutant discharges to the

nation’s waters. The CWT industry is

not currently subject to national

standards that provide for an adequate

level of control.

b. Significant Comments on the IRFA.

The significant comments on the IRFA

all addressed the following regulatory

alternatives: exemptions for small

businesses, exemptions based on flow

cutoffs, reduced monitoring frequency

for small businesses, and the use of an

indicator parameter for compliance

monitoring. These alternatives are

discussed more fully in Section 8.3.6 of

the EA and Section IV of this preamble.

Most commenters who discussed the

small business exemptions, the flow

cutoffs, and the reduced monitoring

alternatives were opposed to them.

Many commenters argued that size and

flow were not necessarily related to the

environmental impact of the facility.

Others asserted that company revenue

was a difficult basis for implementing

an exemption. Other commenters noted

that exempted facilities would have

lower operating costs; they could,

therefore, capture more market share

which would lead to more untreated

wastes going to a POTW. With respect

to reduced monitoring, commenters

stated that permit writers and control

authorities should continue to establish

monitoring frequencies on a case-bycase basis, taking into account the

probable impact of the discharge to

surface waters or a POTW, compliance

history of the facility, and other relevant

factors.

Many commenters responded on the

subject of indicator parameters, with

essentially an equivalent number

opposing and favoring the use of an

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 81291

indicator parameter for compliance

monitoring for indirect discharging oils

subcategory facilities. Commenters that

did not support the use of oil and grease

(either SGT–HEM or HEM) as indicator

parameters raised a number of technical

concerns. Commenters that supported

their use cited the decreased analytical

costs and the wide range of organic

compounds that can be measured with

these analyses.

EPA shared the concerns of some of

these commenters. In the final rule, EPA

is not adopting any of these alternatives,

but is taking steps to minimize the

impacts on small businesses (see

XIV.B.2.e). See Section IV of this

preamble for more information on the

comments, EPA’s responses to those

comments, and EPA’s justification for

final decisions on these options. EPA’s

detailed responses to comments, and the

comments themselves, are contained in

the Comment Response Document in

response categories SBREFA, Small

Business, and Indicator Parameters.

c. Description and Estimation of

Number of Small Entities to Which the

Regulation Will Apply. The small

entities subject to this rule are small

businesses. There are no nonprofit

organizations or small governmental

operations that operate CWT facilities.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of

today’s rule on small businesses, EPA

relied on the SBA size standard for SIC

code 4953, ‘‘Refuse Systems,’’ and

applied that standard to companies

owning CWT facilities. For this SIC

code, SBA defines a small business as

one receiving less than $6 million/year,

averaged over the most recent three

fiscal years.

The CWT industry is composed of an

estimated 167 companies (as discussed

in Section 3, this number is scaled up

to reflect the total number of CWT

companies). Small companies make up

approximately half of all companies in

the CWT industry (an estimated 82 of

167). All of these small companies,

except for one, operate single CWT

facilities. One company in the analysis

operates two facilities. Sixty-three small

companies own discharging facilities

(61 own indirect dischargers and 2 own

direct dischargers) that are subject to the

requirements of this rule. Fifty-nine of

these small companies are in the oil

treatment/recovery business. The

number of employees at each of these

companies ranges from 2 to 115, with a

median of 18. Fifty-three out of the 63

companies have costs greater than one

percent of sales; 30 out of the 63

companies have costs greater than three

percent of sales. Section X.M provides

more detail on the impacts to small

businesses.

d. Description of the Reporting,

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance

Requirements. For almost all of the

small businesses subject to the final

CWT rule, this regulation does not

contain any specific new requirements

for monitoring, recordkeeping, or

reporting. Regulations for the existing

NPDES and national pretreatment

programs already contain minimum

requirements; and permit writers and

control authorities establish the

monitoring regime for individual

facilities. Consequently, for almost all of

the CWT facilities owned by small

businesses, there are similarly no new

professional skills required to meet any

new requirements.

However, for CWT facilities that

accept waste in more than one CWT

subcategory that elect to comply with

the multiple wastestream subcategory

limitations or standards, the final rule

does include new requirements for

monitoring, recordkeeping, and

reporting. These requirements and the

multiple wastestream subcategory are

described in Sections IV.F and XIII.A.5

of the final preamble. See also § 437.41.

EPA concluded that CWT facilities

already have the professional skills to

meet these new requirements. Based on

the information in EPA’s database, only

two CWT facilities owned by small

businesses may be subject to these new

requirements.

e. Steps Taken to Minimize

Significant Impacts on Small Entities.

EPA went to some length to explore and

analyze a variety of regulatory

alternatives to minimize impacts on

small businesses. Today’s notice

includes extensive discussions of the

alternatives, EPA’s analysis of those

alternatives, and the rationale for EPA’s

decisions. EPA selected the least

expensive option that was considered

for the final rule as the technology basis

for the standards and limitations for

existing sources. Furthermore, EPA

selected oils option 8 as the technology

basis for PSES in the oils subcategory

(which contains most of the small

businesses affected by the final rule), in

part, based on the incremental economic

impact to small businesses. For EPA’s

option selection rationale, see Section

VIII. Most of the other regulatory

alternatives incorporated exemptions for

groups of facilities. EPA rejected those

options for multiple reasons, including

implementation difficulty and concerns

about environmental impacts. For a

detailed discussion of EPA’s rationale

for rejection of these options, see

Sections IV.A–IV.E.

3. Compliance Guide

As required by section 212 of

SBREFA, EPA is also preparing a small

entity compliance guide to help small

businesses comply with this rule. To

request a copy, use any of the contacts

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this preamble, above.

EPA expects that the guide will be

available in January 2001.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L. 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 the final rule

with an explanation of why that

alternative was 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

81292 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

the final rule as $35.1 million ($1997).

Thus, today’s rule is not subject to the

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of

UMRA.

EPA has determined that this rule

contains no regulatory requirements that

might significantly or uniquely affect

small governments. No small

governments are subject to this rule. The

final rule, at most, imposes only

minimal administrative requirements on

small local governments that are

administering approved pretreament

programs. The final rule does not

uniquely affect small governments

because small and large governments

are affected in the same way. Thus,

today’s rule is not subject to the

requirements of section 203 of the

UMRA.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980 (PRA), 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq., EPA must submit an

information collection request covering

information collection requirements in

proposed rules to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for

review and approval. There are no new

information collection reporting

requirements for facilities that comply

with the limits for the metals-bearing,

oily waste, and/or organics waste

subcategories separately. The

information collection reporting

requirements and the burden estimates

for these subcategories are contained in

the ‘‘National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES)/

Compliance Assessment/Certification

Information’’ ICR (No. 1427.05; OMB

Approval No. 2040–0110) and in the

‘‘National Pretreatment Program (40

CFR Part 403)’’ ICR (No. 0002.081; OMB

Approval No. 2040–0009).

EPA established a fourth multiple

wastestream subcategory to simplify

implementation and reduce burden for

facilities treating wastes covered by

more than one subcategory. EPA notes

that no facility is required to use this

subcategory and its requirements unless

the facility chooses to. The new

information reporting requirements

under this subcategory, described at

§ 437.41, include submission of an

initial certification statement and

annual certification statements

thereafter, and maintenance of on-site

compliance paperwork. These

requirements are the same as those

previously approved by OMB for

facilities in the pesticide formulating,

packaging, and repackaging category

that choose to comply with the

pollution prevention alternative. OMB

is in the process of approving the

extension of these requirements to

multiple wastestream facilities in the

CWT category, as part of the revisions

to the ICRs listed above.

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 numbers for the

information collection requirements in

this rule will be listed in an

amendment(s) to 40 CFR part 9 in a

subsequent Federal Register

document(s) after OMB approves the

ICRs.

E. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

As noted in the proposed rule, section

12(d) of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act

(NTTAA), Pub L. 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,

business practices) that are developed or

adopted by voluntary consensus

standards bodies. The NTTAA directs

EPA to provide Congress, through the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB), explanations when the Agency

decides not to use available and

applicable voluntary consensus

standards.

This rulemaking involves technical

standards. EPA performed a search of

the technical literature to identify any

applicable analytical test methods from

industry, academia, voluntary

consensus standard bodies and other

parties that could be used to measure

the analytes in today’s rulemaking.

EPA’s search revealed that there are

consensus test procedures for many of

the analytes in today’s rule already

specified in the tables at 40 CFR 136.3.

Even prior to enactment of the NTTAA,

EPA has traditionally included any

applicable consensus test methods in its

regulations. Consistent with the

requirements of the CWA, those

applicable consensus test methods are

incorporated by reference in the tables

at 40 CFR Part 136.3. The consensus test

methods in these tables include

American Society for Testing Materials

(ASTM) and ‘‘Standard Methods.’’

Today’s rule requires dischargers to

monitor for up to 17 metals, 16 organics,

BOD5, total cyanide, Oil and Grease

(HEM), and TSS. Examples of pollutants

with consensus methods already in

place include the metals, total cyanide,

BOD5, TSS, and some organic pollutants

such as fluoranthene and 2,4,6-

trichlorophenol.

In addition, EPA noted in the 1999

proposed rule that EPA was developing

additional data for certain additional

pollutants not included in the Tables at

40 CFR 136.3. EPA asked commenters to

identify any potentially applicable

voluntary consensus standards for those

pollutants. No commenters identified

any such standards. Therefore, EPA has

amended existing EPA test procedures

included in 40 CFR 136.3 to cover the

additional pollutants in today’s rule.

F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children From Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

The Executive Order ‘‘Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health risk or safety risk

that the Agency 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 an economically

significant rule as defined under

Executive Order 12866. Further, EPA

does not believe this rule concerns an

environmental or safety risk that EPA

has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. This

rule sets technology based limits

according to the requirements of the

Clean Water Act. However, EPA did

evaluate children’s health effects

(specifically, impaired IQ) in its analysis

of environmental benefits of this rule

(see Section XI.B). EPA estimates that

this rule will reduce the number of

children that might otherwise

experience reduced IQ.

G. 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,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 81293

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 CWT

wastewater containing residual and

dilute quantities of petroleum and nonpetroleum oils is significantly different

from an uncontrolled spill of pure

petroleum or non-petroleum oil

products.

CWT facilities that would be subject

to the rule do not typically accept

wastes with appreciable amounts of

animal fats and oils, etc. The exception

are grease trap wastes. Today’s rule will

not apply to that portion of wastewater

treated at CWT facilities that represents

grease trap wastes.

H. Executive Order 13084: Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the Office of

Management and Budget, in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a description of the extent of EPA’s

prior consultation with representatives

of affected tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’

Today’s rule does not significantly or

uniquely affect the communities of

Indian tribal governments. EPA has not

identified any facilities covered by

today’s rule that are owned and/or

operated by Indian tribal governments.

Accordingly, the requirements of

section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084

do not apply to this rule.

I. 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

establishes effluent limitations and

pretreatment standards imposing

requirements that apply to CWT

facilities when they discharge

wastewater or introduce wastewater to a

POTW. EPA has determined that there

are no CWT facilities owned and

operated by State or local governments

that are subject to today’s rule so the

rule will not impose any treatment

technology costs on State or local

governments. Further, the rule will only

affect State and local governments

incidentally in their capacity as

implementers of CWA permitting

programs. Therefore, the final rule, at

most, imposes only minimal

administrative costs on States that have

authorized NPDES programs and on

local governments that are

administering approved pretreatment

programs. (These States and localities

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.

Even though section 6 of Executive

Order 13132 does not apply to this rule,

EPA did consult with representatives of

State and local governments in

developing this rule. The concerns

raised during those consultations and

EPA’s response to their concerns are

reflected in the Response to Comments

section and elsewhere in the

administrative record.

J. 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 January 22, 2001.

Appendix 1 to the Preamble—

Definitions, Acronyms, and

Abbreviations

ADMINISTRATOR—The Administrator of

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

AGENCY—The U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency.

AVERAGE MONTHLY DISCHARGE

LIMITATION—The highest allowable

average of ‘‘daily discharges’’ over a calendar

month, calculated as the sum of all ‘‘daily

discharges’’ measured during the calendar

month divided by the number of ‘‘daily

discharges’’ measured during the month.

BAT—The best available technology

economically achievable, applicable to

effluent limitations to be achieved by March

31, 1984, for industrial discharges to surface

waters, as defined by Sec. 304(b)(2)(B) of the

CWA.

BCT—The best conventional pollutant

control technology, applicable to discharges

of conventional pollutants from existing

industrial point sources, as defined by Sec.

304(b)(4) of the CWA.

BPT—The best practicable control

technology currently available, applicable to

effluent limitations to be achieved by July 1,

1977, for industrial discharges to surface

waters, as defined by Sec. 304(b)(1) of the

CWA.

CENTRALIZED WASTE TREATMENT

FACILITY—Any facility that treats (for

disposal, recycling, or recovery of materials)

or recycles any hazardous or non-hazardous

industrial waste, hazardous or non-hazardous

industrial wastewater, and/or used material

from off-site. ‘‘CWT facility’’ includes both a

facility that treats waste received from off-site

exclusively, and a facility that treats wastes

generated on-site as well as waste received

from off-site. For example, an organic

chemical manufacturing plant may, in certain

circumstances, be a CWT facility if it treats

industrial wastes received from offsite as

well as industrial waste generated at the

81294 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

organic chemical manufacturing plant. CWT

facilities include re-refiners and may be

owned by the federal government.

CENTRALIZED WASTE TREATMENT

WASTEWATER—Any wastewater generated

as a result of CWT activities. CWT

wastewater sources may include, but are not

limited to: liquid waste receipts,

solubilization water, used oil emulsionbreaking wastewater, tanker truck/drum/rolloff box washes, equipment washes, air

pollution control scrubber blow-down,

laboratory-derived wastewater, on-site

landfill wastewaters, and contaminated storm

water.

CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA)—The Federal

Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of

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

amended.

CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA) SECTION 308

QUESTIONNAIRE—A questionnaire sent to

facilities under the authority of Section 308

of the CWA, which requests information to

be used in the development of national

effluent guidelines and standards.

COMMERCIAL FACILITY—A CWT facility

that accepts off-site generated wastes,

wastewaters, or used material from other

facilities not under the same ownership as

this facility. Commercial operations are

usually made available for a fee or other

remuneration.

CONTAMINATED STORM WATER—

Storm water which comes in direct contact

with off-site waste, the waste handling and

treatment areas, or other centralized waste

treatment wastewater.

CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS—

Constituents of wastewater as determined by

Sec. 304(a)(4) of the CWA, including, but not

limited to, pollutants classified as

biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended

solids, oil and grease, fecal coliform, and pH.

CWT—Centralized Waste Treatment

DAILY DISCHARGE—The discharge of a

pollutant measured during any calendar day

or any 24-hour period that reasonably

represents a calendar day.

DETAILED MONITORING

QUESTIONNAIRE (DMQ)—Questionnaires

sent to collect daily monitoring data from 20

selected CWT facilities based on responses to

the Section 308 Questionnaire.

DIRECT DISCHARGER—A facility that

discharges or may discharge treated or

untreated wastewaters into waters of the

United States.

EXISTING SOURCE—Any facility from

which there is or may be a discharge of

pollutants, the construction of which is

commenced before the publication of the

proposed regulations prescribing a standard

of performance under Sec. 306 of the CWA.

FACILITY—All contiguous property

owned, operated, leased, or under the control

of the same person or entity

FUEL BLENDING—The process of

combining waste, wastewater, or used

material for the purpose of regenerating a fuel

for reuse.

HAZARDOUS WASTE—Any waste,

including wastewater, defined as hazardous

under RCRA.

HIGH TEMPERATURE METALS

RECOVERY (HTMR)—A metals recovery

process in which solid forms of metal

containing materials are processed with a

heat-based pyrometallurgical technology to

produce metal products.

INDIRECT DISCHARGER—A facility that

discharges or may discharge wastewaters into

a publicly-owned treatment works.

INTERCOMPANY—Facilities that treat

and/or recycle/recover waste, wastewater,

and/or used material generated by off-site

facilities not under the same corporate

ownership. These facilities are also referred

to as ‘‘commercial’’ CWT facilities.

INTRACOMPANY TRANSFER—Facilities

that treat and/or recycle/recover waste,

wastewater, and/or used material generated

by off-site facilities under the same corporate

ownership. These facilities are also referred

to as ‘‘non-commercial’’ CWT facilities.

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

proposed regulation.

MARINE-GENERATED WASTE—Any

waste, wastewater, and/or used material

generated as part of the normal maintenance

and operation of a ship, boat, or barge

operating on inland, coastal, or open waters,

or while berthed.

METAL-BEARING WASTES—Wastes and/

or used materials from manufacturing or

processing facilities or other commercial

operations that contain significant quantities

of metal pollutants, but not significant

quantities of oil and grease (generally less

than 100 mg/L), from manufacturing or

processing facilities or other commercial

operations. Examples of these wastes are as

follows: spent electroplating baths and

sludges, metal finishing rinse water and

sludges, chromate wastes, air pollution

control blow down water and sludges, spent

anodizing solutions, incineration air

pollution control wastewaters, waste liquid

mercury, cyanide containing wastes greater

than 136 mg/L, and waste acids and bases

with or without metals.

MINIMUM LEVEL—the lowest level at

which the entire analytical system must give

a recognizable signal and an acceptable

calibration point for the analyte.

MIXED COMMERCIAL/NONCOMMERCIAL FACILITY—Facilities that

treat and/or recycle/recover waste,

wastewater, and/or used material generated

by off-site facilities both under the same

corporate ownership and different corporate

ownership.

MULTIPLE WASTESTREAM CWT

FACILITY—A CWT facility that accepts

waste in more than one CWT subcategory

(metals, oils, or organics) and combines any

portion of these different subcategory wastes

at any point prior to the compliance

discharge sampling location.

NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE

ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PERMIT—

A permit to discharge wastewater into waters

of the United States issued under the

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

system, authorized by Section 402 of the

CWA.

NEW SOURCE—Any facility from which

there is or may be a discharge of pollutants,

the construction of which is commenced

after the promulgation of regulations

prescribing a standard of performance under

section 306 of the Act and 403.3(k).

NON-COMMERCIAL FACILITY—Facilities

that accept waste from off-site for treatment

and/or recovery from generating facilities

under the same corporate ownership as the

CWT facility.

NON-CONTAMINATED STORMWATER—

Stormwater that does not come into direct

contact with the waste, the waste handling

and treatment areas, or other centralized

waste treatment wastewater.

NON-CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS—

Pollutants that are neither conventional

pollutants nor priority pollutants listed at 40

CFR Section 401.

NON-DETECT VALUE—The analyte is

below the level of detection that can be

reliably measured by the analytical method.

This is also known, in statistical terms, as

left-censoring.

NON-WATER QUALITY

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT—Deleterious

aspects of control and treatment technologies

applicable to point source category wastes,

including, but not limited to air pollution,

noise, radiation, sludge and solid waste

generation, and energy used.

NSPS—New Sources Performance

Standards, applicable to industrial facilities

whose construction is begun after the

publication of the proposed regulations, as

defined by Sec. 306 of the CWA.

OCPSF—Organic chemicals, plastics, and

synthetic fibers manufacturing point source

category. (40 CFR Part 414).

OFF SITE—Outside the boundaries of a

facility.

OILY ABSORBENT RECYCLING—The

process of recycling oil soaked or

contaminated disposable rags, paper, or pads

for the purpose of regenerating a fuel for

reuse.

OILY WASTES—Wastes and/or used

materials that contain oil and grease

(generally at or in excess of 100 mg/L) from

manufacturing or processing facilities or

other commercial operations. Examples of

these wastes are as follows: used oils, oilwater emulsions or mixtures, lubricants,

coolants, contaminated groundwater cleanup from petroleum sources, used petroleum

products, oil spill clean-up, bilge water,

rinse/wash waters from petroleum sources,

interceptor wastes, off-specification fuels,

underground storage tank remediation waste,

and tank clean out from petroleum or oily

sources.

ON SITE—Within the boundaries of a

facility. A facility may encompass land areas

that are bisected by public thoroughfares but

are under the control of a common owner.

ORGANIC WASTES—Wastes and/or used

materials that contain organic pollutants, but

not a significant quantity of oil and grease

(generally less than 100 mg/L) from

manufacturing or processing facilities or

other commercial operations. Examples of

these wastes are as follows: landfill leachate,

contaminated groundwater clean-up from

non-petroleum sources, solvent-bearing

wastes, off-specification organic product, still

bottoms, waste byproduct glycols,

wastewater from paint washes, wastewater

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 81295

1EPA Method 625: Base/Neutrals and Acids, 40

CFR Part 136, Appendix A.

from adhesives and/or epoxies formulation,

wastewater from chemical product

operations, and tank clean-out from organic,

non-petroleum sources.

OUTFALL—The mouth of conduit drains

and other conduits from which a facility

effluent discharges into receiving waters.

OUT–OF–SCOPE—Out-of-scope facilities

are facilities that only perform centralized

waste treatment activities that EPA has not

determined to be subject to provisions of this

guideline or facilities that do not accept offsite waste for treatment.

PIPELINE—Pipeline means an open or

closed conduit used for the conveyance of

material. A conduit includes a channel, pipe,

tube, trench, ditch, or fixed delivery system.

PASS THROUGH—A pollutant is

determined to ‘‘pass through’’ a POTW when

the national average percentage removed by

efficiently operated POTWs is less than the

average percentage removed by the industry’s

direct dischargers that are using welldefined, well-operated BAT technology.

POINT SOURCE—Any discernable,

confined, and discrete conveyances from

which pollutants are or may be discharged.

POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN (POCs)—

Pollutants commonly found in centralized

waste treatment wastewaters. For the

purposes of this guideline, a POC is a

pollutant that is detected at or above a

treatable level in influent wastewater

samples from centralized waste treatment

facilities. Additionally, a CWT POC must be

present in at least ten percent of the influent

wastewater samples.

PRIORITY POLLUTANT—One hundred

twenty-six compounds that are a subset of

the 65 toxic pollutants and classes of

pollutants outlined in Section 307 of the

CWA. The priority pollutants are specified in

the NRDC settlement agreement (Natural

Resources Defense Council et al. v. Train, 8

E.R.C. 2120 [D.D.C. 1976], modified 12 E.R.C.

1833 [D.D.C. 1979]).

PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP—For purposes

of this final rule, product stewardship means

a manufacturer’s treatment or recovery of its

own unused products, shipping and storage

containers with product residues, offspecification products, and does not include

spent or used materials from use of its

products.

PSES—Pretreatment standards for existing

sources of indirect discharges, under Sec.

307(b) of the CWA.

PSNS—Pretreatment standards for new

sources of indirect discharges, under Sec.

307(b) of the CWA.

PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS

(POTW)—Any device or system, owned by a

state or municipality, used in the treatment

(including recycling and reclamation) of

municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a

liquid nature that is owned by a state or

municipality. This includes sewers, pipes, or

other conveyances only if they convey

wastewater to a POTW providing treatment

(40 CFR 122.2).

RCRA—The Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) (42 U.S.C.

Section 6901 et seq.), which regulates the

generation, treatment, storage, disposal, or

recycling of solid and hazardous wastes.

RE-REFINING—Distillation, hydrotreating,

and/or other treatment employing acid,

caustic, solvent, clay and/or chemicals of

used oil in order to produce high quality base

stock for lubricants or other petroleum

products.

RECOVERY—The recycling or processing

of a waste, wastewater, or used material such

that the material, or a portion thereof, may

be reused or converted to a raw material,

intermediate, or product.

SIC—Standard Industrial Classification

(SIC)—A numerical categorization system

used by the U.S. Department of Commerce to

catalogue economic activity. SIC codes refer

to the products, or group of products,

produced or distributed, or to services

rendered by an operating establishment. SIC

codes are used to group establishments by

the economic activities in which they are

engaged. SIC codes often denote a facility’s

primary, secondary, tertiary, etc. economic

activities.

SMALL BUSINESS—Businesses with

annual sales revenues less than $6 million.

This is the Small Business Administration

definition of small business for SIC code

4953, Refuse Systems (13 CFR Ch.1,

§ 121.601) which is being used to

characterize the CWT industry.

SOLIDIFICATION—The addition of

sorbents to convert liquid or semi-liquid

waste to a solid by means of adsorption,

absorption or both. The process is usually

accompanied by stabilization.

SOLVENT RECOVERY—Fuel blending

operations and the recycling of spent

solvents through separation of solvent

mixtures in distillation columns. Solvent

recovery may require an additional,

pretreatment step prior to distillation.

STABILIZATION—A waste process that

decreases the mobility of waste constituents

by means of a chemical reaction. For the

purpose of this rule, chemical precipitation

is not a technique for stabilization.

SUBCHAPTER N—Refers to Subchapter N

of Chapter I of Title 40 of the Federal

Regulations. This includes, but is not limited

to, the industrial effluent limitation

guidelines and standards included in 40 CFR

Parts 405 through 471.

TREATMENT—Any method, technique, or

process designed to change the physical,

chemical or biological character or

composition of any metal-bearing, oily, or

organic waste so as to neutralize such wastes,

to render such wastes amenable to discharge

or to recover energy or recover metal, oil, or

organic content from the wastes.

USED OIL FILTER RECYCLING—The

process of crushing and draining of used oil

filters of entrained oil and/or shredding and

separation of used oil filters.

VARIABILITY FACTOR—Used in

calculating a limitation (or standard) to allow

for reasonable variation in pollutant

concentrations when processed through

extensive and well-designed treatment

systems. Variability factors assure that

normal fluctuations in a facility’s treatment

are accounted for in the limitations. By

accounting for these reasonable excursions

above the long-term average, EPA’s use of

variability factors results in limitations that

are generally well above the actual long-term

averages.

WASTE—Includes aqueous, non-aqueous,

and solid waste, wastewater, and/or used

material.

WASTE RECEIPT—Wastes, wastewater, or

used material received for treatment and/or

recovery. Waste receipts can be liquids or

solids.

ZERO OR ALTERNATIVE DISCHARGE—

No discharge of pollutants to waters of the

United States or to a POTW. Also included

in this definition is disposal of pollutants by

way of evaporation, deep-well injection, offsite transfer, and land application.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 136

Environmental protection, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements, Water

pollution control.

40 CFR Part 437

Environmental protection, Waste

treatment and disposal, Water pollution

control.

Dated: August 28, 2000.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, title 40, chapter 1 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 136—TEST PROCEDURES FOR

THE ANALYSIS OF POLLUTANTS

1. The authority citation for Part 136

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 301, 304(h), 307, and

501(a) Pub. L. 95–217, 91 Stat. 1566, et seq.

(33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq.).

Appendix A—[Amended]

2. Appendix A to Part 136 is amended

by revising Attachment 1 of Method 625

to read as follows:

Appendix A To Part 136—Methods for

Organic Chemical Analysis of

Municipal and Industrial Wastewater

* * * * *

Method 625—Base/Neutrals and Acids

* * * * *

Attachment 1 to Method 625

Introduction

To support measurement of several

semivolatile pollutants, EPA has developed

this attachment to EPA Method 625.1 The

modifications listed in this attachment are

approved only for monitoring wastestreams

from the Centralized Waste Treatment Point

Source Category (40 CFR Part 437) and the

Landfills Point Source Category (40 CFR Part

445). EPA Method 625 (the Method) involves

sample extraction with methylene chloride

followed by analysis of the extract using

either packed or capillary column gas

81296 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS).

This attachment addresses the addition of the

semivolatile pollutants listed in Tables 1 and

2, to all applicable standard, stock, and

spiking solutions utilized for the

determination of semivolatile organic

compounds by EPA Method 625.

1.0 EPA METHOD 625 MODIFICATION

SUMMARY

The additional semivolatile organic

compounds listed in Tables 1 and 2 are

added to all applicable calibration, spiking,

and other solutions utilized in the

determination of base/neutral and acid

compounds by EPA Method 625. The

instrument is to be calibrated with these

compounds, using a capillary column, and

all procedures and quality control tests stated

in the Method must be performed.

2.0 SECTION MODIFICATIONS

Note: All section and figure numbers in

this Attachment reference section and figure

numbers in EPA Method 625 unless noted

otherwise. Sections not listed here remain

unchanged.

Section 6.7 The stock standard solutions

described in this section are modified

such that the analytes in Tables 1 and 2

of this attachment are required in

addition to those specified in the

Method.

Section 7.2 The calibration standards

described in this section are modified to

include the analytes in Tables 1 and 2 of

this attachment.

Section 8.2 The precision and accuracy

requirements are modified to include the

analytes listed in Tables 1 and 2 of this

attachment. Additional performance

criteria are supplied in Table 5 of this

attachment.

Section 8.3 The matrix spike is modified to

include the analytes listed in Tables 1

and 2 of this attachment.

Section 8.4 The QC check standard is

modified to include the analytes listed in

Tables 1 and 2 of this attachment.

Additional performance criteria are

supplied in Table 5 of this attachment.

Section 16.0 Additional method

performance information is supplied

with this attachment.

TABLE 1.—BASE/NEUTRAL

EXTRACTABLES

Parameter CAS No.

acetophenone 1 ......................... 98–86–2

alpha-terpineol 3 ........................ 98–55–5

TABLE 1.—BASE/NEUTRAL

EXTRACTABLES—Continued

Parameter CAS No.

aniline 2 ..................................... 62–53–3

carbazole 1 ................................ 86–74–8

o-cresol 1 ................................... 95–48–7

n-decane 1 ................................. 124–18–5

2,3-dichloroaniline 1 ................... 608–27–5

n-octadecane 1 .......................... 593–45–3

pyridine 2 ................................... 110–86–1

CAS = Chemical Abstracts Registry.

1Analysis of this pollutant is approved only

for the Centralized Waste Treatment industry. 2Analysis of this pollutant is approved only

for the Centralized Waste Treatment and

Landfills industries. 3Analysis of this pollutant is approved only

for the Landfills industry.

TABLE 2.—ACID EXTRACTABLES

Parameter CAS No.

p-cresol 1 ................................... 106–44–5

CAS = Chemical Abstracts Registry.

1Analysis of this pollutant is approved only

for the Centralized Waste Treatment and

Landfills industries.

TABLE 3.—CHROMATOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS,1 METHOD DETECTION LIMITS (MDLS), AND CHARACTERISTIC M/Z’S FOR

BASE/NEUTRAL EXTRACTABLES

Analyte

Retention

time

(min) 2

MDL

(μg/L)

Characteristic m/z’s

Electron impact

Primary Secondary Secondary

pyridine 3 .................................................................................................. 4.93 4.6 79 52 51

N-Nitro sodimethylamine .......................................................................... 4.95 .................... 42 74 44

aniline 3 ..................................................................................................... 10.82 3.3 93 66 65

Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether ............................................................................. 10.94 .................... 93 63 95

n-decane 4 ................................................................................................ 11.11 5.0 57 .................... ....................

1,3-Dichlorobenzene ................................................................................ 11.47 .................... 146 148 113

1,4-Dichlorobenzene ................................................................................ 11.62 .................... 146 148 113

1,2-Dichlorobenzene ................................................................................ 12.17 .................... 146 148 113

o-creso 1 ................................................................................................... 12.48 4.7 108 107 79

Bis(2-chloro- isopropyl)ether .................................................................... 12.51 .................... 45 77 79

acetophenone 4 ........................................................................................ 12.88 3.4 105 77 51

N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine ....................................................................... 12.97 .................... 130 42 101

Hexachloroethane .................................................................................... 13.08 .................... 117 201 199

Nitrobenzene ............................................................................................ 13.40 .................... 77 123 65

Isophorone ............................................................................................... 14.11 .................... 82 95 138

Bis (2-chloro ethoxy)methane .................................................................. 14.82 .................... 93 95 123

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ............................................................................ 15.37 .................... 180 182 145

alpha-terpineol ......................................................................................... 15.55 5.0 59 .................... ....................

Naphthalene ............................................................................................. 15.56 .................... 128 129 127

Hexachlorobutadiene ............................................................................... 16.12 .................... 225 223 227

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ..................................................................... 18.47 .................... 237 235 272

2,3-dichloroaniline 4 .................................................................................. 18.82 2.5 161 163 90

2-Chloronaphthalene ............................................................................... 19.35 .................... 162 164 127

Dimethyl phthalate ................................................................................... 20.48 .................... 163 194 164

Acenaphthylene ....................................................................................... 20.69 .................... 152 151 153

2,6-Dinitrotoluene ..................................................................................... 20.73 .................... 165 89 121

Acenaphthene .......................................................................................... 21.30 .................... 154 153 152

2,4-Dinitrotoluene ..................................................................................... 22.00 .................... 165 63 182

Diethylphthalate ....................................................................................... 22.74 .................... 149 177 150

4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether .................................................................... 22.90 .................... 204 206 141

Fluorene ................................................................................................... 22.92 .................... 166 165 167

N-Nitro sodiphenylamine .......................................................................... 23.35 .................... 169 168 167

4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether .................................................................... 24.44 .................... 248 250 141

Hexachlorobenzene ................................................................................. 24.93 .................... 284 142 249

n-octadecane 4 ......................................................................................... 25.39 2.0 57 .................... ....................

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 81297

TABLE 3.—CHROMATOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS,1 METHOD DETECTION LIMITS (MDLS), AND CHARACTERISTIC M/Z’S FOR

BASE/NEUTRAL EXTRACTABLES—Continued

Analyte

Retention

time

(min) 2

MDL

(μg/L)

Characteristic m/z’s

Electron impact

Primary Secondary Secondary

Phenanthrene .......................................................................................... 25.98 .................... 178 179 176

Anthracene ............................................................................................... 26.12 .................... 178 179 176

Carbazole 4 ............................................................................................... 26.66 4.0 167 .................... ....................

Dibutyl phthalate ...................................................................................... 27.84 .................... 149 150 104

Fluoranthene ............................................................................................ 29.82 .................... 202 101 100

Benzidine ................................................................................................. 30.26 .................... 184 92 185

Pyrene ...................................................................................................... 30.56 .................... 202 101 100

Butyl benzyl phthalate ............................................................................. 32.63 .................... 149 91 206

3,3’-Dichlorobenzidine .............................................................................. 34.28 .................... 252 254 126

Benzo(a)anthracene ................................................................................ 34.33 .................... 228 229 226

Bis(2-ethyl hexyl)phthalate ....................................................................... 34.36 .................... 149 167 279

Chrysene .................................................................................................. 34.44 .................... 228 226 229

Di-n-octyl-phthalate .................................................................................. 36.17 .................... 149 .................... ....................

Benzo(b)fluoranthene .............................................................................. 37.90 .................... 252 253 125

Benzo(k)fluoranthene ............................................................................... 37.97 .................... 252 253 125

Benzo(a)pyrene ....................................................................................... 39.17 .................... 252 253 125

Dibenzo(a,h) anthracene ......................................................................... 44.91 .................... 278 139 279

Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene ........................................................................... 45.01 .................... 276 138 277

Benzo(ghi)perylene .................................................................................. 46.56 .................... 276 138 277

1The data presented in this table were obtained under the following conditions:

Column—30 ±5 meters × 0.25 ±.02 mm i.d., 94% methyl, 5% phenyl, 1% vinyl, bonded phase fused silica capillary column (DB–5).

Temperature program—Five minutes at 30 °C; 30–280 °C at 8 °C per minute; isothermal at 280 °C until benzo(ghi)perylene elutes.

Gas velocity—30±5 cm/sec at 30 °C. 2 Retention times are from Method 1625, Revision C, using a capillary column, and are intended to be consistent for all analytes in Tables 4

and 5 of this attachment. 3Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste Treatment and Landfills industries.

4Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste Treatment industry.

TABLE 4.—CHROMATOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS,1 METHOD DETECTION LIMITS (MDLS), AND CHARACTERISTIC M/Z’S FOR ACID

EXTRACTABLES

Analyte

Retention

time 2

(min)

MDL

(μg/L)

Characteristic m/z’s

Electron impact

Primary Secondary Secondary

Phenol ...................................................................................................... 10.76 .................... 94 65 66

2-Chlorophenol ........................................................................................ 11.08 .................... 128 64 130

p-cresol 3 .................................................................................................. 12.92 7.8 108 107 77

2-Nitrophenol ........................................................................................... 14.38 .................... 139 65 109

2,4-Dimethylphenol .................................................................................. 14.54 .................... 122 107 121

2,4-Dichlorophenol ................................................................................... 15.12 .................... 162 164 98

4-Chloro-3-methylphenol .......................................................................... 16.83 .................... 142 107 144

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol ............................................................................... 18.80 .................... 196 198 200

2,4-Dinitrophenol ...................................................................................... 21.51 .................... 184 63 154

4-Nitrophenol ........................................................................................... 21.77 .................... 65 139 109

2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol ....................................................................... 22.83 .................... 198 182 77

Pentachlorophenol ................................................................................... 25.52 .................... 266 264 268

1The data presented in this table were obtained under the following conditions:

Column—30 +/¥5 meters × 0.25 +/¥.02 mm i.d., 94% methyl, 5% phenyl, 1% vinyl silicone bonded phase fused silica capillary column (DB–

5).

Temperature program—Five minutes at 30 °C; 30–280 °C at 8 °C per minute; isothermal at 280 °C until benzo(ghi)perylene elutes.

Gas velocity—30+/¥5 cm/sec at 30 °C 2 Retention times are from EPA Method 1625, Revision C, using a capillary column, and are intended to be consistent for all analytes in Tables

3 and 4 of this attachment. 3Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste Treatment and Landfills industries.

TABLE 5.—QC ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

Analyte

Test conclusion

(μg/L)

Limits for s

(μg/L)

Range for X

(μg/L)

Range for

P, Ps(%)

acetophenone 1 ............................................................................................................ 100 51 23–254 61–144

alpha-terpineol .............................................................................................................. 100 47 46–163 58–156

aniline 2 ......................................................................................................................... 100 71 15–278 46–134

81298 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

1EPA Method 1625 Revision B, Semivolatile

Organic Compounds by Isotope Dilution GC/MS, 40

CFR Part 136, Appendix A.

TABLE 5.—QC ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA—Continued

Analyte

Test conclusion

(μg/L)

Limits for s

(μg/L)

Range for X

(μg/L)

Range for

P, Ps(%)

carbazole 1 .................................................................................................................... 100 17 79–111 73–131

o-cresol 1 ...................................................................................................................... 100 23 30–146 55–126

p-cresol 2 ...................................................................................................................... 100 22 11–617 76–107

n-decane 1 .................................................................................................................... 100 70 D–651 D-ns

2,3-dichloroaniline 1 ...................................................................................................... 100 13 40–160 68–134

n-octadecane 1 ............................................................................................................. 100 10 52–147 65–123

pyridine 2 ....................................................................................................................... 100 ns 7–392 33–158

s = Standard deviation for four recovery measurements, in μg/L (Section 8.2)

X = Average recovery for four recovery measurements in μg/L (Section 8.2)

P,Ps = Percent recovery measured (Section 8.3, Section 8.4)

D = Detected; result must be greater than zero.

ns = no specification; limit is outside the range that can be measured reliably.

1Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste Treatment industry.

2Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste Treatment and Landfills industries.

3. Appendix A to Part 136 is amended

by revising Attachment 1 of Method

1625 to read as follows:

* * * * *

Method 1625—Revision B—Semivolatile

Organic Compounds by Isotope Dilution GC/

MS

* * * * *

Attachment 1 to Method 1625

Introduction

To support measurement of several

semivolatile pollutants, EPA has developed

this attachment to EPA Method 1625B.1 The

modifications listed in this attachment are

approved only for monitoring wastestreams

from the Centralized Waste Treatment Point

Source Category (40 CFR Part 437) and the

Landfills Point Source Category (40 CFR Part

445). EPA Method 1625B (the Method)

employs sample extraction with methylene

chloride followed by analysis of the extract

using capillary column gas chromatographymass spectrometry (GC/MS). This attachment

addresses the addition of the semivolatile

pollutants listed in Tables 1 and 2 to all

applicable standard, stock, and spiking

solutions utilized for the determination of

semivolatile organic compounds by EPA

Method 1625B.

1.0 EPA METHOD 1625 REVISION B

MODIFICATION SUMMARY

The additional semivolatile organic

compounds listed in Tables 1 and 2 are

added to all applicable calibration, spiking,

and other solutions utilized in the

determination of semivolatile compounds by

EPA Method 1625. The instrument is to be

calibrated with these compounds, and all

procedures and quality control tests

described in the Method must be performed.

2.0 SECTION MODIFICATIONS

Note: All section and figure numbers in

this Attachment reference section and figure

numbers in EPA Method 1625 Revision B

unless noted otherwise. Sections not listed

here remain unchanged.

Section 6.7 The stock standard solutions

described in this section are modified

such that the analytes in Tables 1 and 2

of this attachment are required in

addition to those specified in the

Method.

Section 6.8 The labeled compound spiking

solution in this section is modified to

include the labeled compounds listed in

Tables 5 and 6 of this attachment.

Section 6.9 The secondary standard is

modified to include the additional

analytes listed in Tables 1 and 2 of this

attachment.

Section 6.12 The solutions for obtaining

authentic mass spectra are to include all

additional analytes listed in Tables 1 and

2 of this attachment.

Section 6.13 The calibration solutions are

modified to include the analytes listed in

Tables 1 and 2 and the labeled

compounds listed in Tables 5 and 6 of

this attachment.

Section 6.14 The precision and recovery

standard is modified to include the

analytes listed in Tables 1 and 2 and the

labeled compounds listed in Tables 5

and 6 of this attachment.

Section 6.15 The solutions containing the

additional analytes listed in Tables 1 and

2 of this attachment are to be analyzed

for stability.

Section 7.2.1 This section is modified to

include the analytes listed in Tables 1

and 2 and the labeled compounds listed

in Tables 5 and 6 of this attachment.

Section 7.4.5 This section is modified to

include the analytes listed in Tables 1

and 2 and the labeled compounds listed

in Tables 5 and 6 in the calibration.

Section 8.2 The initial precision and

recovery (IPR) requirements are modified

to include the analytes listed in Tables

1 and 2 and the labeled compounds

listed in Tables 5 and 6 of this

attachment. Additional IPR performance

criteria are supplied in Table 7 of this

attachment.

Section 8.3 The labeled compounds listed

in Tables 3 and 4 of this attachment are

to be included in the method

performance tests. Additional method

performance criteria are supplied in

Table 7 of this attachment.

Section 8.5.2 The acceptance criteria for

blanks includes the analytes listed in

Tables 1 and 2 of this attachment.

Section 10.1.2 The labeled compound

solution must include the labeled

compounds listed in Tables 5 and 6 of

this attachment.

Section 10.1.3 The precision and recovery

standard must include the analytes listed

in Tables 1 and 2 and the labeled

compounds listed in Tables 5 and 6 of

this attachment.

Section 12.5 Additional QC requirements

for calibration verification are supplied

in Table 7 of this attachment.

Section 12.7 Additional QC requirements

for ongoing precision and recovery are

supplied in Table 7 of this attachment.

TABLE 1.—BASE/NEUTRAL EXTRACTABLE COMPOUNDS

Compound

Pollutant

CAS

Registry EPA–EGD

acetophenone 1 .................................................................................................................................................................... 98–86–2 758

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 81299

TABLE 1.—BASE/NEUTRAL EXTRACTABLE COMPOUNDS—Continued

Compound

Pollutant

CAS

Registry EPA–EGD

aniline 2 ................................................................................................................................................................................. 62–53–3 757

-2,3-dichloroaniline1 ............................................................................................................................................................. 608–27–5 578

-o-cresol 1 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 95–48–7 771

pyridine 2 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 110–86–1 1330

CAS = Chemical Abstracts Registry.

EGD = Effluent Guidelines Division.

1Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste Treatment industry.

2Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste Treatment and Landfills industries.

TABLE 2.—ACID EXTRACTABLE COMPOUNDS

Compound

Pollutant

CAS

Registry EPA–EGD

p-cresol 1 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 106–44–5 1744

CAS = Chemical Abstracts Registry.

EGD = Effluent Guidelines Division.

1Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste Treatment and Landfills industries.

TABLE 3.—GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY 1 OF BASE/NEUTRAL EXTRACTABLE COMPOUNDS

EGD No. Compound

Retention time 2

Minimum

level 3

(μg/L) Mean

(sec) EGD Ref Relative

758 ............... acetophenone 4 ..................................................................... 818 658 1.003–1.005 10

757 ............... aniline 5 .................................................................................. 694 657 0.994–1.023 10

578 ............... 2,3-dichloroaniline 4 ............................................................... 1160 164 1.003–1.007 10

771 ............... o-cresol 4 ............................................................................... 814 671 1.005–1.009 10

1330 ............. pyridine 5 ................................................................................ 378 1230 1.005–1.011 10

EGD = Effluent Guidelines Division.

1The data presented in this table were obtained under the chromatographic conditions given in the footnote to Table 3 of EPA Method 1625B. 2 Retention times are approximate and are intended to be consistent with the retention times for the analytes in EPA Method 1625B. 3See the definition in footnote 2 to Table 3 of EPA Method 1625B.

4Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste Treatment industry.

5Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste Treatment and Landfills industries.

TABLE 4.—GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY 1 OF ACID EXTRACTABLE COMPOUNDS

EGD No. Compound

Retention time 2

Minimum

level

(μ/L) Mean 3

(sec) EGD Ref Relative

1744 ............. p-cresol 4 ............................................................................... 834 1644 1.004–1.008 20

EGD = Effluent Guidelines Division.

1The data presented in this table were obtained under the chromatographic conditions given in the footnote to Table 4 of EPA Method 1625B. 2 Retention times are approximate and are intended to be consistent with the retention times for the analytes in EPA Method 1625B. 3See the definition in footnote 2 to Table 4 of EPA Method 1625B.

4Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste Treatment and Landfills industries.

TABLE 5.—BASE/NEUTRAL EXTRACTABLE COMPOUND CHARACTERISTIC M/Z’S

Compound Labeled

Analog

Primary

m/z 1

acetophenone 2 .................................................................................................................................................................. d5 105/110

aniline 3 ............................................................................................................................................................................... d7 93/100

o-cresol 2 ............................................................................................................................................................................ d7 108/116

2,3-dichloroaniline 2 ............................................................................................................................................................ n/a 161

pyridine 3 ............................................................................................................................................................................ d5 79/84

m/z = mass to charge ratio.

1 Native/labeled.

2Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste Treatment industry.

3Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste Treatment and Landfills industries.

81300 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 6.—ACID EXTRACTABLE COMPOUND CHARACTERISTIC M/Z’S

Compound Labeled

Analog

Primary

m/z 1

p-cresol 2 ............................................................................................................................................................................ d7 108/116

m/z = mass to charge ratio.

1 Native/labeled.

2Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste Treatment and Landfills industries.

TABLE 7.—ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS

EGD No. Compound

Acceptance criteria

Calibration

verification

sec. 12.5

μg/mL)

On-going

accuracy

sec. 12.7 R

(μg/L)

Initial precision and accuracy section 8.2

(μg/L)

Labeled

compound

recovery

sec. 8.3 and

14.2 P

(percent)

s

(μg/L) X

758 ............... acetophenone 1 .............................................................. 34 44–167 .................... 85–115 45–162

658 ............... acetophenone-d 5 1 ......................................................... 51 23–254 45–162 85–115 22–264

757 ............... aniline 2 .......................................................................... 32 30–171 .................... 85–115 33–154

657 ............... aniline-d 7 2 ..................................................................... 71 15–278 33–154 85–115 12–344

771 ............... o-cresol 1 ........................................................................ 40 31–226 .................... 85–115 35–196

671 ............... o-cresol-d 7 1 ................................................................... 23 30–146 35–196 85–115 31–142

1744 ............. p-cresol 2 ........................................................................ 59 54–140 .................... 85–115 37–203

1644 ............. p-cresol-d7 2 ................................................................... 22 11–618 37–203 85–115 16–415

578 ............... 2,3-dichloroaniline 1 ....................................................... 13 40–160 .................... 85–115 44–144

1330 ............. pyridine 2 ........................................................................ 28 10–421 .................... 83–117 18–238

1230 ............. pyridine-d 5 2 ................................................................... ns 7–392 19–238 85–115 4–621

s = Standard deviation of four recovery measurements.

X = Average recovery for four recovery measurements.

EGD = Effluent Guidelines Division.

ns = no specification; limit is outside the range that can be measured reliably.

1Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste Treatment industry.

2Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste Treatment and Landfills industries.

4. Part 437 is added to read as follows:

PART 437—THE CENTRALIZED

WASTE TREATMENT POINT SOURCE

CATEGORY

Sec.

437.1 General applicability.

437.2 General definitions.

437.3 General pretreatment standards.

437.4 Monitoring requirements.

Subpart A—Metals Treatment and Recovery

437.10 Applicability.

437.11 Effluent limitations attainable by the

application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

437.12 Effluent limitations attainable by the

application of the best conventional

pollutant control technology (BCT).

437.13 Effluent limitations attainable by the

application of the best available

technology economically achievable

(BAT).

437.14 New source performance standards

(NSPS).

437.15 Pretreatment standards for existing

sources (PSES).

437.16 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS).

Subpart B—Oils Treatment and Recovery

437.20 Applicability.

437.21 Effluent limitations attainable by the

application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

437.22 Effluent limitations attainable by the

application of the best conventional

pollutant control technology (BCT).

437.23 Effluent limitations attainable by the

application of the best available

technology economically achievable

(BAT).

437.24 New source performance standards

(NSPS).

437.25 Pretreatment standards for existing

sources (PSES).

437.26 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS).

Subpart C—Organics Treatment and

Recovery

437.30 Applicability.

437.31 Effluent limitations attainable by the

application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

437.32 Effluent limitations attainable by the

application of the best conventional

pollutant control technology (BCT).

437.33 Effluent limitations attainable by the

application of the best available

technology economically achievable

(BAT).

437.34 New source performance standards

(NSPS).

437.35 Pretreatment standards for existing

sources (PSES).

437.36 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS).

Subpart D—Multiple Wastestreams

437.40 Applicability.

437.41 Special Definitions.

437.42 Effluent limitations attainable by the

application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

437.43 Effluent limitations attainable by the

application of the best conventional

pollutant control technology (BCT).

437.44 Effluent limitations attainable by the

application of the best available

technology economically achievable

(BAT).

437.45 New source performance standards

(NSPS).

437.46 Pretreatment standards for existing

sources (PSES).

437.47 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS).

Authority: Secs 301, 304, 306, 307, 308,

402, and 501 of the Clean Water Act, as

amended; 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317,

1318, 1342, and 1361.

§ 437.1 General applicability.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs

(b), (c), or (d) of this section, this part

applies to that portion of wastewater

discharges from a centralized waste

treatment (CWT) facility that results

from any of the following activities:

(1) Treatment and recovery of

hazardous or non-hazardous industrial

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 81301

metal-bearing wastes, oily wastes and

organic-bearing wastes received from

off-site; and

(2) The treatment of CWT wastewater.

(b) This part does not apply to the

following discharges of wastewater from

a CWT facility:

(1) Wastewater from the treatment of

wastes that are generated on-site when

the wastes generated on-site are

otherwise subject to another part of

subchapter N.

(2) Wastewater from the treatment of

wastes that are generated off-site if the

discharger: a) demonstrates that the offsite wastes are generated at a facility

that is subject to the same provisions in

40 CFR subchapter N as non-CWT

wastes generated at the CWT facility or

b) demonstrates that the off-site wastes

are of similar nature and the treatment

of such wastes are compatible with the

treatment of non-CWT wastes generated

and treated at the CWT.

(3) Wastewater from the treatment of

wastes received from off-site via conduit

(e.g., pipelines, channels, ditches,

trenches, etc.) from the facility that

generates the wastes unless the resulting

wastewaters are commingled with other

wastewaters subject to this provision. A

facility that acts as a waste collection or

consolidation center is not a facility that

generates wastes.

(4) Wastewater from product

stewardship activities, the treatment of

sanitary wastes and wastes of domestic

origin including chemical toilet wastes,

septage, and restaurant wastes or

thermal drying of POTW biosolids.

Product stewardship activities for

purposes of this provision are limited to

the following activities at a

manufacturing facility: acceptance for

treatment or recovery of its unused

products, shipping and storage

containers with product residues and

off-spec products.

(5) Wastewater from solids recovery

operations so long as the wastes

recovered are from non-industrial

sources, and recovery of the wastes does

not generate a wastewater or leach

appreciable metal or organic chemicals

or petroleum-based oil and grease into

the water. Examples of solids recovery

operations to which this subpart would

not apply include, but are not limited

to, the recycling of aluminum cans,

glass and plastic bottles.

(6) Wastewater from scrap metal

processing or auto salvage operations.

(7) Wastewater from transfer stations

or municipal recycling centers.

(8) Wastewater from the treatment of,

or recovery of material from, animal or

vegetable fats/oils from grease traps or

interceptors generated by facilities

engaged in food service activities.

(9) Wastewater from the treatment of,

or recovery of material from, off-site

wastes generated by facilities engaged

only in food processing.

(10) Wastewater from facilities that

are subject to 40 CFR part 442.

Wastewater resulting from the treatment

of off-site wastewater generated in

cleaning transportation equipment (or

on-site wastewater generated in cleaning

equipment) along with other off-site

wastes (subject to this part) not

generated in cleaning transportation

equipment is, however, subject to this

part.

(11) Wastewater resulting from

solvent recovery operations if the

solvent recovery operations involve the

separation of solvent mixtures by

distillation.

(12) Wastewater from facilities that

are engaged exclusively in centralized

silver recovery from used photographic

or x-ray materials activities. The

discharge resulting from centralized

silver recovery from used photographic

or x-ray materials that is treated at a

CWT facility along with other off-site

wastestreams (subject to this part) is

subject to this part.

(13) Wastewater from facilities that

accept off-site wastes only for

treatability studies, research and

development, or chemical or physical

analysis. The wastewater resulting from

treatability studies, research and

development, or chemical or physical

analysis that is treated at a CWT facility

along with other off-site wastestreams

(subject to this part) is subject to this

part.

(c) This part also does not apply to the

following activities:

(1) ‘‘Dry’’ fuel blending operations,

‘‘dry’’ waste solidification/stabilization

operations, ‘‘dry’’ used oil filter or oily

absorbents recycling operations, or

‘‘dry’’ high temperature metals recovery

operations. However, this part does

apply to wastewater discharges from a

CWT resulting from any of these

operations that do produce wastewater.

(2) The discharge of marine generated

wastes including wash water from

equipment and tank cleaning, ballast

water, bilge water, and other wastes

generated (while operating on inland,

coastal, or open waters or while

berthed) as part of routine ship

maintenance and operation as long as

they are treated and discharged at the

ship servicing facility where it is offloaded. The discharges resulting from

the treatment of marine generated

wastes that are off-loaded and

subsequently sent to a centralized waste

treatment facility at a separate location

are, however, subject to this part.

(3) Discharge of wastewater from land

treatment units or land application

operations.

(4) Discharge of wastewater from

facilities that are engaged exclusively in

landfilling activities and/or the

treatment of landfill wastewaters

(whether generated on or off-site). The

discharge resulting from the treatment

of landfill wastewater, whether

generated on-site or off-site, treated at

CWT facilities along with other off-site

waste is, however, subject to this part.

(5) Discharge of wastewater from

facilities that are engaged exclusively in

incineration activities. The discharge

resulting from the treatment of off-site

wastewater generated in the

incineration of industrial waste that is

treated at a CWT facility along with

other off-site wastestreams (subject to

this part) is subject to this part.

(d) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of

this section, the provisions of this part

are not applicable to any metals

treatment and recovery wastewater

discharges which are subject to the

secondary metals provisions of 40 CFR

part 421, the Nonferrous Metals

Manufacturing Point Source Category.

These secondary metals subcategories

are Subpart C (Secondary Aluminum

Smelting Subcategory), Subpart F

(Secondary Copper Subcategory),

Subpart L (Secondary Silver

Subcategory), Subpart M (Secondary

Lead Subcategory), Subpart P (Primary

and Secondary Germanium and Gallium

Subcategory), Subpart Q (Secondary

Indium Subcategory), Subpart R

(Secondary Mercury Subcategory),

Subpart T (Secondary Molybdenum and

Vanadium Subcategory), Subpart V

(Secondary Nickel Subcategory),

Subpart X (Secondary Precious Metals

Subcategory), Subpart Z (Secondary

Tantalum Subcategory), Subpart AA

(Secondary Tin Subcategory), Subpart

AB (Primary and Secondary Titanium

Subcategory), Subpart AC (Secondary

Tungsten and Cobalt Subcategory), and

Subpart AD (secondary Uranium

Subcategory).

§ 437.2 General definitions.

As used in this part:

(a) The general definitions and

abbreviations in 40 CFR part 401 apply

to this part.

(b) Alternative effluent limitations or

pretreatment standards mean effluent

limitations determined on a case-bycase basis under section 402(a)(1) of the

CWA or pretreatment standards

developed as local limits by the control

authority under 40 CFR § 403.6(c) that

apply to the discharge of wastewater

subject to this provision. The permit

writer (or control authority) will

81302 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

calculate these limitations or standards

using a ‘‘building block’’ approach or

the ‘‘combined wastestream formula.’’

Under this approach, the permit writer

(or control authority) will develop flowweighted effluent limitations or

standards for the treated combined

wastestream by applying the limitations

or standards in 40 CFR subchapter N

that would otherwise apply to a

particular wastestream received from

off-site if the wastestream were treated

and discharged from the facility at

which it was generated.

(c) Centralized waste treatment (CWT)

facility means any facility that treats (for

disposal, recycling or recovery of

material) any hazardous or nonhazardous industrial wastes, hazardous

or non-hazardous industrial wastewater,

and/or used material received from offsite. ‘‘CWT facility’’ includes both a

facility that treats waste received

exclusively from off-site and a facility

that treats wastes generated on-site as

well as waste received from off-site. For

example, an organic chemical

manufacturing plant may, in certain

circumstances, be a CWT facility if it

treats industrial wastes received from

offsite as well as industrial waste

generated at the organic chemical

manufacturing plant. CWT facilities

may also include re-refiners and may be

owned by the federal government.

(d) Centralized waste treatment

wastewater means any wastewater

generated as a result of CWT activities.

CWT wastewater sources may include,

but are not limited to: liquid waste

receipts, solubilization water, used oil

emulsion-breaking wastewater, tanker

truck/drum/roll-off box washes,

equipment washes, air pollution control

scrubber blow-down, laboratory-derived

wastewater, on-site landfill wastewaters,

and contaminated storm water.

(e) Contaminated storm water means

storm water which comes in direct

contact with CWT wastes, the waste

handling and treatment areas, or other

centralized waste treatment wastewater

as defined in paragraph (d) of this

section.

(f) Discharger means a facility that

discharges wastewater directly to waters

of the United States or introduces

wastewater to a publicly-owned

treatment works.

(g) Dry means not producing a

wastewater.

(h) Equivalent treatment means a

wastewater treatment system that

achieves comparable pollutant removals

to the applicable treatment technology

selected as the basis for the limitations

and pretreatment standards. Comparable

removals may be demonstrated through

literature, treatability tests, or selfmonitoring data.

(i) Fuel blending means the process of

combining waste, wastewater, or used

material for the purpose of regenerating

a fuel for reuse. However, fuel blending

may be loosely applied to any process

where recovered hydrocarbons are

combined as a fuel product where some

pretreatment operations generate

wastewater.

(j) High temperature metals recovery

means a metals recovery process in

which solid forms of metal-containing

materials are processed with a heatbased pyrometallurgical technology to

produce a metal product.

(k) Marine generated waste means any

waste, wastewater, and/or used material

generated as part of the normal

maintenance and operation of a ship,

boat, or barge operating on inland,

coastal, or open waters, or while

berthed.

(l) Metal-bearing wastes means wastes

and/or used materials from

manufacturing or processing facilities or

other commercial operations that

contain significant quantities of metal

pollutants, but not significant quantities

of oil and grease (generally less than 100

mg/L). Examples of these wastes are

spent electroplating baths and sludges,

metal-finishing rinse water and sludges,

chromate wastes, blow-down water and

sludges from air pollution control, spent

anodizing solutions, incineration air

pollution control wastewaters, waste

liquid mercury, cyanide containing

wastes greater than 136 mg/L, and waste

acids and bases with or without metals.

(m) Multiple wastestream CWT

facility means a CWT facility which

accepts waste in more than one CWT

subcategory (metals, oils, or organics)

and combines any portion of these

different subcategory wastes at any

point prior to the compliance discharge

sampling location.

(n) Off-site means outside the

boundaries of a facility.

(o) Oily absorbent recycling means the

process of recycling oil-soaked or

contaminated disposable rags, paper, or

pads for the purpose of regenerating a

fuel for reuse.

(p) Oily wastes means wastes and/or

used materials that contain oil and

grease (generally at or in excess of 100

mg/L) from manufacturing or processing

facilities or other commercial

operations. Examples of these wastes are

used oils, oil-water emulsions or

mixtures, lubricants, coolants,

contaminated groundwater clean-up

from petroleum sources, used petroleum

products, oil spill clean-up, bilge water,

rinse/wash waters from petroleum

sources, interceptor wastes, offspecification fuels, underground storage

tank remediation waste, and tank clean

out from petroleum or oily sources.

(q) On-site means within the

boundaries of a facility. A facility may

encompass land areas that are bisected

by public thoroughfares but are under

the control of a common owner.

(r) Organic wastes means wastes and/

or used materials that contain organic

pollutants, but not a significant quantity

of oil and grease (generally less than 100

mg/L) from manufacturing or processing

facilities or other commercial

operations. Examples of these wastes are

landfill leachate, contaminated

groundwater clean-up from nonpetroleum sources, solvent-bearing

wastes, off-specification organic

product, still bottoms, byproduct

glycols, wastewater from paint washes,

wastewater from adhesives and/or

epoxies, wastewater from chemical

product operations, and tank clean-out

from organic, non-petroleum sources.

(s) The following regulated

parameters are listed with approved

methods of analysis in Table 1B at 40

CFR 136.3, and are defined as follows:

(1) Antimony means total antimony.

(2) Arsenic means total arsenic.

(3) Barium means total barium.

(4) BOD5 means 5-day biochemical

oxygen demand.

(5) Cadmium means total cadmium.

(6) Chromium means total chromium.

(7) Cobalt means total cobalt.

(8) Copper means total copper.

(9) Cyanide means total cyanide.

(10) Lead means total lead.

(11) Mercury means total mercury.

(12) Molybdenum means total

molybdenum.

(13) Nickel means total nickel.

(14) O&G means total recoverable oil

and grease (n-hexane extractable

material).

(15) Selenium means total selenium.

(16) Silver means total silver.

(17) Tin means total tin.

(18) Titanium means total titanium.

(19) TSS means total suspended

solids.

(20) Vanadium means total vanadium.

(21) Zinc means total zinc.

(t) The following regulated parameters

are listed with approved methods of

analysis in Table 1C at 40 CFR 136.3:

(1) Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate.

(2) Butylbenzyl phthalate.

(3) Fluoranthene.

(4) Phenol.

(5) 2,4,6-trichlorophenol.

(u) The following regulated

parameters are listed with approved

methods of analysis (Methods 625 and

1625) at 40 CFR 136.3, Appendix A:

(1) Acetone.

(2) Acetophenone.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 81303

(3) Aniline.

(4) 2-Butanone.

(5) Carbazole.

(6) o-Cresol.

(7) p-Cresol.

(8) n-Decane.

(9) 2,3-dichloroaniline.

(10) n-Octadecane.

(11) Pyridine.

(v) Pipeline means an open or closed

conduit used for the conveyance of

material. A pipeline includes a channel,

pipe, tube, trench, or ditch, or fixed

delivery system.

(w) Product stewardship means a

manufacturer’s treatment or recovery of

its own unused products, shipping and

storage containers with product

residues, off-specification products, and

does not include spent or used materials

from use of its products.

(x) Re-refining means the processing

of used oil using distillation,

hydrotreating, and/or other treatment

employing acid, caustic, solvent, clay

and/or chemicals in order to produce

high quality base stock for lubricants or

other petroleum products.

(y) Recovery means the recycling or

processing of a waste, wastewater or

used material such that the material, or

a portion thereof, may be reused or

converted to a raw material,

intermediate, or product. Recovery does

not include the re-use of treated or

untreated wastewater in place of potable

or pure water in industrial processes

such as the use of secondary POTW

effluents as non-contact cooling water,

storm water in place of process water,

or the re-use of spent chemicals in place

of virgin treatment chemicals.

(z) Solidification means the addition

of sorbents to convert liquid or semiliquid waste to a solid by means of

adsorption, absorption or both. The

process is usually accompanied by

stabilization.

(aa) Solvent recovery includes fuel

blending operations and the recycling of

spent solvents through separation of

solvent mixtures in distillation

columns. Solvent recovery may require

an additional, pretreatment step prior to

distillation.

(bb) Stabilization means a waste

process that decreases the mobility of

waste constituents by means of a

chemical reaction. For the purpose of

this rule, chemical precipitation is not

a technique for stabilization.

(cc) Treatment means any method,

technique, or process designed to

change the physical, chemical or

biological character or composition of

any metal-bearing, oily, or organic

wastes to neutralize such wastes; to

render such wastes amenable to

discharge; or to recover energy or

recover metal, oil, or organic content

from the wastes. Treatment does not

include (a) the re-use of treated or

untreated wastewater in place of potable

or pure water in industrial processes

such as the use of secondary POTW

effluents as non-contact cooling water or

storm water in place of process water or

(b) the re-use of treated or untreated

spent chemicals (such as pickle liquor)

as treatment chemicals.

(dd) Non-contaminated storm water

means storm water which does not

come in direct contact with CWT

wastes, the waste handling and

treatment areas, or other CWT

wastewater that is defined in paragraph

(d) of this section.

(ee) Used oil filter recycling means

crushing and draining of used oil filters

of entrained oil and/or shredding and

separation of used oil filters.

(ff) Waste includes aqueous, nonaqueous, and solid waste, wastewater,

and/or used material.

§ 437.3 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.

§ 437.4 Monitoring requirements.

(a) Permit compliance monitoring is

required for each regulated parameter.

(b) Any CWT facility that discharges

wastewater resulting from the treatment

of metal-bearing waste, oily waste, or

organic-bearing waste must monitor as

follows:

(1) Facilities subject to more than one

subpart of this part must monitor for

compliance for each subpart after

treatment and before mixing of the

waste with wastes of any other subpart.

Alternatively, a multiple wastestream

subcategory facility may certify that it

provides equivalent treatment as

defined in § 437.2(h) for the applicable

waste and monitor for compliance with

the applicable set of multiple

wastestream subcategory limitations

after mixing.

(2) Facilities subject to one or more

subpart of this part must monitor for

compliance with the applicable subpart

after treatment and before mixing of the

waste with wastes of any other subpart,

uncontaminated storm water, or

wastewater subject to another effluent

limitation or standard in Subchapter N.

If, however, the facility can demonstrate

to the receiving POTW or permitting

authority the capability of achieving the

effluent limitation or standard for each

subpart after treatment and before

mixing with other wastestreams, the

facility may monitor for compliance

after mixing. In the case of a facility

which elects to comply with the

applicable set of multiple wastestream

subcategory limitations or standards, it

is only subject to one subpart.

(3) When a CWT facility treats any

waste receipt that contains cyanide at a

concentration higher than 136 mg/L, the

CWT facility must monitor for cyanide

after cyanide treatment and before

dilution with other wastestreams. If,

however, the facility can demonstrate to

the receiving POTW or permitting

authority the capability of achieving the

cyanide limitation or standard after

cyanide treatment and before mixing

with other wastestreams, the facility

may monitor for compliance after

mixing.

Subpart A—Metals Treatment and

Recovery

§ 437.10 Applicability.

(a) Except as provided in § 437.1(b),

(c), or (d) or in paragraph (b) of this

section, this subpart applies to that

portion of the discharge of wastewater

from a CWT facility that results from the

treatment of, or recovery of metals from,

both metal-bearing wastes received from

off-site and other CWT wastewater

associated with the treatment of, or

recovery of metal-bearing wastes.

(b) In order to ensure appropriate

treatment rather than dilution of

dissimilar wastes, an NPDES permit

writer or control authority may require

a new source or an existing facility

subject to this subpart to achieve

alternative effluent limitations and

standards as defined in § 437.2(b) in the

following circumstances:

(1) The facility receives, on a

continuing basis, flows of process

wastewater from five or fewer facilities

subject to 40 CFR Subchapter N

limitations and standards; and

(2) The process wastewater flows

received for treatment at the facility

have relatively consistent pollutant

profiles.

§ 437.11 Effluent limitations attainable by

the application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR

125.30 through 125.32 or 437.10(b), any

existing point source subject to this

subpart must achieve the following

effluent limitations representing the

application of BPT:

81304 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

BPT LIMITATIONS

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg.1

Conventional Parameters

O&G .............. 205 50.2

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

TSS ............... 60.0 31.0

Metal Parameters

Antimony ....... 0.249 0.206

Arsenic .......... 0.162 0.104

Cadmium ...... 0.474 0.0962

Chromium ..... 15.5 3.07

Cobalt ........... 0.192 0.124

Copper .......... 4.14 1.06

Lead .............. 1.32 0.283

Mercury ......... 0.00234 0.000739

Nickel ............ 3.95 1.45

Selenium ....... 1.64 0.408

Silver ............. 0.120 0.0351

Tin ................. 0.409 0.120

Titanium ........ 0.0947 0.0618

Vanadium ...... 0.218 0.0662

Zinc ............... 2.87 0.641

1 mg/L (ppm).

2Within the range 6 to 9.

(b) The following in-plant limitations

apply to metal-bearing wastewater

containing cyanide:

IN-PLANT LIMITATIONS

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly

avg.1

Cyanide ............. 500 178

1 mg/L (ppm).

§ 437.12 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 or 437.10(b), any

existing point source subject to this

subpart must achieve the following

effluent limitations representing the

application of BCT: Limitations for oil

and grease, pH, and TSS are the same

as the corresponding limitation

specified in § 437.11(a).

§ 437.13 Effluent limitations attainable by

the application of the best available

technology economically achievable (BAT).

(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR

125.30 through 125.32 or 437.10(b), any

existing point source subject to this

subpart must achieve the following

effluent limitations representing the

application of BAT: Limitations for

antimony, arsenic, cadmium,

chromium, cobalt, copper, lead,

mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, tin,

titanium, vanadium, and zinc are the

same as the corresponding limitation

specified in § 437.11(a).

(b) In-plant standards for cyanide are

the same as the limitations specified in

§ 437.11(b).

§ 437.14 New source performance

standards (NSPS).

(a) Except as provided in § 437.10(b),

any new source subject to this subpart

must achieve the following performance

standards:

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly

avg. 1

Contentional Parameters

O&G .............. 205 50.2

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

TSS ............... 29.6 11.3

Metal Parameters

Antimony ....... 0.111 0.0312

Arsenic .......... 0.0993 0.0199

Cadmium ...... 0.782 0.163

Chromium ..... 0.167 0.0522

Cobalt ........... 0.182 0.0703

Copper .......... 0.659 0.216

Lead .............. 1.32 0.283

Mercury ......... 0.000641 0.000246

Nickel ............ 0.794 0.309

Selenium ....... 0.176 0.0698

Silver ............. 0.0318 0.0122

Tin ................. 0.0955 0.0367

Titanium ........ 0.0159 0.00612

Vanadium ...... 0.0628 0.0518

Zinc ............... 0.657 0.252

1 mg/L (ppm).

2Within the range 6 to 9.

(b) In-plant standards for cyanide are

the same as the limitations specified in

§ 437.11(b).

§ 437.15 Pretreatment standards for

existing sources (PSES).

(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR

403.7, 403.13 or 437.10(b), and no later

than December 22, 2003, any existing

source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following pretreatment

standards: Standards for antimony,

arsenic, cadmium, chromium, cobalt,

copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium,

silver, tin, titanium, vanadium, and zinc

are the same as the corresponding

limitation specified in § 437.11(a).

(b) In-plant standards for cyanide are

the same as the limitations specified in

§ 437.11(b).

§ 437.16 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS).

(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR

403.7 or 437.10(b), any new source

subject to this subpart must achieve the

following pretreatment standards:

Standards for antimony, arsenic,

cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper,

lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver,

tin, titanium, vanadium, and zinc are

the same as the corresponding

limitation specified in § 437.11(a)

(b) In-plant standards for cyanide are

the same as the limitations specified in

§ 437.11(b).

Subpart B—Oils Treatment and

Recovery

§ 437.20 Applicability.

(a) Except as provided in § 437.1(b),

(c), or (d) or in paragraph (b) of this

section, this subpart applies to that

portion of the discharge of wastewater

from a CWT facility that results from the

treatment or recovery of oil from both

oily wastes received from off-site and

other CWT wastewater associated with

the treatment of, or recovery of oily

wastes.

(b) In order to ensure appropriate

treatment rather than dilution of

dissimilar wastes, an NPDES permit

writer or control authority may require

a new source or an existing source

subject to this subpart to achieve

alternative effluent limitations and

standards, as defined in § 437.2(b), in

the following circumstances:

(1) The facility receives, on a

continuing basis, flows of process

wastewater from five or fewer facilities

subject to 40 CFR Subchapter N

limitations and standards; and

(2) The process wastewater flows

received for treatment at the facility

have relatively consistent pollutant

profiles.

§ 437.21 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 or 437.20(b), any

existing point source subject to this

subpart must achieve the following

effluent limitations representing the

application of BPT:

BPT LIMITATIONS

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg.1

Conventional Parameters

O&G .............. 127 38.0

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

TSS ............... 74.1 30.6

Metal Parameters

Antimony ....... 0.237 0.141

Arsenic .......... 2.95 1.33

Barium .......... 0.427 0.281

Cadmium ...... 0.0172 0.0102

Chromium ..... 0.746 0.323

Cobalt ........... 56.4 18.8

Copper .......... 0.500 0.242

Lead .............. 0.350 0.160

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 81305

BPT LIMITATIONS—Continued

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg.1

Mercury ......... 0.0172 0.00647

Molybdenum 3.50 2.09

Tin ................. 0.335 0.165

Titanium ........ 0.0510 0.0299

Zinc ............... 8.26 4.50

Organic Parameters

Bis(2-

ethylhexyl)

phthalate ... 0.215 0.101

Butylbenzyl

phthalate ... 0.188 0.0887

Carbazole ..... 0.598 0.276

n-Decane ...... 0.948 0.437

Fluoranthene 0.0537 0.0268

n-Octadecane 0.589 0.302

1 mg/L (ppm).

2Within the range 6 to 9.

§ 437.22 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 or 437.20(b), any

existing point source subject to this

subpart must achieve the following

effluent limitations attainable by the

application of BCT: Limitations for

O&G, pH, and TSS are the same as the

corresponding limitation specified in

§ 437.21.

§ 437.23 Effluent limitations attainable by

the application of the best available

technology economically achievable (BAT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32 or 437.20(b), any

existing point source subject to this

subpart must achieve the following

effluent limitations by the application of

BAT: Limitations for antimony, arsenic,

barium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt,

copper, lead, mercury, molybdenum,

tin, titanium, zinc, butylbenzyl

phthalate, carbazole, n-decane, bis(2-

ethylhexyl) phthalate, fluoranthene, and

n-octadecane are the same as the

corresponding limitation specified in

§ 437.21.

§ 437.24 New source performance

standards (NSPS).

Except as provided in § 437.20(b), any

new source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following performance

standards: Standards for oil and grease,

pH, TSS, antimony, arsenic, barium,

cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper,

lead, mercury, molybdenum, tin,

titanium, zinc, butylbenzyl phthalate,

carbazole, n-decane, bis(2-ethylhexyl)

phthalate, fluoranthene, and noctadecane are the same as the

corresponding limitation specified in

§ 437.21.

§ 437.25 Pretreatment standards for

existing sources (PSES).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7,

403.13 or § 437.20(b), and no later than

December 22, 2003, any existing source

subject to this subpart must achieve the

following pretreatment standards:

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS (PSES)

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg.1

Metal Parameters

Antimony ....... 0.237 0.141

Barium .......... 0.427 0.281

Chromium ..... 0.947 0.487

Cobalt ........... 56.4 18.8

Copper .......... 0.405 0.301

Lead .............. 0.222 0.172

Molybdenum 3.50 2.09

Tin ................. 0.249 0.146

Zinc ............... 6.95 4.46

Organic Parameters

Bis(2-

ethylhexyl)

phthalate ... 0.267 0.158

Carbazole ..... 0.392 0.233

n-Decane ...... 5.79 3.31

Fluoranthene 0.787 0.393

n-Octadecane 1.22 0.925

1 mg/L (ppm).

§ 437.26 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7

or § 437.20(b), any new source subject to

this subpart must achieve the following

pretreatment standards: Standards for

antimony, barium, chromium, cobalt,

copper, lead, molybdenum, tin, zinc,

carbazole, n-decane, bis(2-ethylhexyl)

phthalate, fluoranthene, and noctadecane are the same as the

corresponding limitation specified in

§ 437.21.

Subpart C—Organics Treatment and

Recovery

§ 437.30 Applicability.

(a) Except as provided in § 437.1(b),

(c), or (d) or in paragraph (b) of this

section, this subpart applies to that

portion of the discharge of wastewater

from a CWT facility that results from the

treatment of, or recovery of organic

material from, both organic wastes

received from off-site and other CWT

wastewater associated with the

treatment of, or recovery of organic

wastes.

(b) In order to ensure appropriate

treatment rather than dilution of

dissimilar wastes, an NPDES permit

writer or control authority may require

a new source or an existing facility

subject to § 437.30 to achieve alternative

effluent limitations and standards as

defined in § 437.2 (h) in the following

circumstances:

(1) The facility receives, on a

continuing basis, flows of process

wastewater from five or fewer facilities

subject to 40 CFR Subchapter N

limitations and standards; and

(2) The process wastewater flows

received for treatment at the facility

have relatively consistent pollutant

profiles.

§ 437.31 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 or § 437.30(b), any

existing point source subject to this

subpart must achieve the following

effluent limitations representing the

application of BPT:

BPT LIMITATIONS

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg.1

Conventional Parameters

BOD5 ............. 163 53.0

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

TSS ............... 216 61.3

Metal Parameters

Antimony ....... 0.928 0.679

Copper .......... 0.865 0.757

Molybdenum 1.01 0.965

Zinc ............... 0.497 0.420

Organic Parameters

Acetone ......... 30.2 7.97

Acetophenone 0.114 0.0562

Aniline ........... 0.0333 0.0164

2–Butanone .. 4.81 1.85

o-Cresol ........ 1.92 0.561

p-Cresol ........ 0.698 0.205

2,3–

Dichloroaniline ............. 0.0731 0.0361

Phenol ........... 3.65 1.08

Pyridine ......... 0.370 0.182

2,4,6–

Trichlorophenol ........... 0.155 0.106

1 mg/L (ppm).

2Within the range 6 to 9.

§ 437.32 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 or § 437.30(b), any

existing point source subject to this

subpart must achieve the following

effluent limitations representing the

application of BCT: Limitations for

BOD5, pH, and TSS are the same as the

corresponding limitation specified in

§ 437.31.

81306 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

§ 437.33 Effluent limitations attainable by

the application of the best available

technology economically achievable (BAT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32 or § 437.30(b), any

existing point source subject to this

subpart must achieve limitations

representing the application of BAT:

Limitations for antimony, copper,

molybdenum, zinc, acetone,

acetophenone, aniline, 2-butanone, ocresol, p-cresol, 2,3-dichloroaniline,

phenol, pyridine, and 2,4,6-

trichlorophenol are the same as the

corresponding limitation specified in

§ 437.31.

§ 437.34 New source performance

standards (NSPS).

Except as provided in § 437.30(b), any

new source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following new source

performance standards: Standards for

BOD5, pH, TSS, antimony, copper,

molybdenum, zinc, acetone,

acetophenone, aniline, 2-butanone, ocresol, p-cresol, 2,3-dichloroaniline,

phenol, pyridine, and 2,4,6-

trichlorophenol are the same as the

corresponding limitation specified in

§ 437.31.

§ 437.35 Pretreatment standards for

existing sources (PSES).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7,

403.13 or § 437.30(b), and no later than

December 22, 2003, any existing source

subject to this subpart must achieve the

following pretreatment standards:

Standards for molybdenum, 2,3-

dichloroaniline, o-cresol, p-cresol, 2,4,6-

trichlorophenol are the same as the

corresponding limitation specified in

§ 437.31.

§ 437.36 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7

or § 437.30(b), any new source subject to

this subpart must achieve the following

pretreatment standards: Standards for

molybdenum, 2,3-dichloroaniline, ocresol, p-cresol, 2,4,6-trichlorophenol

are the same as the corresponding

limitation specified in § 437.31.

Subpart D—Multiple Wastestreams

§ 437.40 Applicability.

(a) Except as provided in § 437.1(b),

(c), or (d) or in paragraph (b) of this

section, facilities that treat wastes

subject to more than one of the previous

Subparts must comply with either

provisions of this subpart or the

applicable provisions of Subpart A, B,

or C. The provisions of this subpart are

applicable to that portion of wastewater

discharges from a centralized waste

treatment facility that results from

mixing any combination of treated or

untreated waste otherwise subject to

Subpart A, Subpart B, or Subpart C of

this part only if a facility requests the

permit writer or control authority to

develop Subpart D limitations (or

standards) and establishes that it

provides equivalent treatment as

defined in § 437.2(h).

(b) In order to ensure appropriate

treatment rather than dilution of

dissimilar wastes, an NPDES permit

writer or control authority may require

a new or existing facility subject to

paragraph (a) of this section to achieve

alternative effluent limitations or

standards as defined in § 437.2 (b) in the

following circumstances:

(1) The facility receives, on a

continuing basis, flows of process

wastewater from five or fewer facilities

subject to 40 CFR Subchapter N

limitations and standards; and

(2) The process wastewater flows

received for treatment at the facility

have relatively consistent pollutant

profiles.

§ 437.41 Special definitions.

(a) Initial Certification Statement for

this subpart means a written submission

to the appropriate permitting authority

(either the local control authority (the

POTW) or NPDES permit writer) that is

signed by the responsible corporate

officer as defined in 40 CFR 403.12(l) or

40 CFR 122.22. The statement must:

(1) List and describe the subcategories

of wastes accepted for treatment at the

facility;

(2) List and describe the treatment

systems in-place at the facility and

conditions under which the treatment

systems are operated for the

subcategories of wastes accepted for

treatment at the facility;

(3) Include information and

supporting data establishing that these

treatment systems will achieve

equivalent treatment.

(b) Periodic Certification Statement

for this subpart means a written

submission to the appropriate

permitting authority (the local control

authority (the POTW) or NPDES permit

writer) which certifies that the facility is

operating its treatment systems to

provide equivalent treatment as set forth

in the initial certification. In the event

that the facility has modified its

treatment systems, the facility should

submit a description of the modified

systems and information and supporting

data to establish that the modified

system will achieve equivalent

treatment. The periodic certification

statement must be signed by the

responsible corporate officer as defined

in 40 CFR 403.12(l) or 40 CFR 122.22.

(c) On-site Compliance Paperwork for

this subpart means data or information

retained in the offices of the facility

which supports the initial and periodic

certification statements. This Paperwork

must:

(1) List and describe the subcategory

wastes being accepted for treatment at

the facility;

(2) List and describe the treatment

systems in-place at the facility,

modifications to the treatment systems

and the conditions under which the

systems are operated for the

subcategories of wastes accepted for

treatment at the facility;

(3) Provide information and

supporting data establishing that these

treatment systems will achieve

equivalent treatment;

(4) Describe the procedures it follows

to ensure that its treatment systems are

well-operated and maintained; and

(5) Explain why the procedures it has

adopted will ensure its treatment

systems are well-operated and

maintained.

§ 437.42 Effluent limitations attainable by

the application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR

125.30 through 125.32 or § 437.40(b),

any existing facility subject to this

subpart which combines treated or

untreated wastes from subparts A, B, or

C of this part may be subject to Multiple

Wastestream Subcategory effluent

limitations representing the application

of BPT set forth in paragraphs (b), (c),

(d), or (e) of this section if the discharger

agrees to the following conditions in its

NPDES permit:

(1) The discharger will meet the

applicable Multiple Wastestream

Subcategory limitations set forth in (b),

(c), (d) or (e);

(2) The discharger will notify its

NPDES permit writer at the time of

renewal or modification of its permit, of

its desire to be subject to the Multiple

Waste Subcategory by submitting to the

NPDES permit writer an initial

certification statement as described in

§ 437.41(a);

(3) The discharger will submit to its

NPDES permitting authority a periodic

certification statement as described in

§ 437.41(b) once a year; and

(4) The discharger will maintain at the

office of the facility and make available

for inspection the on-site compliance

paperwork as described in § 437.41(c).

(b) Combined waste receipts from

subparts A, B, and C of this part. (1) As

provided in § 437.42(a), any existing

point source subject to this paragraph

must achieve the following effluent

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 81307

limitations representing the application

of BPT:

BPT LIMITATIONS

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg.1

Conventional Parameters

BOD5 ............. 163 53.0

O&G .............. 127 38.0

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

TSS ............... 74.1 30.6

Metal Parameters

Antimony ....... 0.237 0.141

Arsenic .......... 0.162 0.104

Barium .......... 0.427 0.281

Cadmium ...... 0.0172 0.0102

Chromium ..... 0.746 0.323

Cobalt ........... 0.192 0.124

Copper .......... 0.500 0.242

Lead .............. 0.350 0.160

Mercury ......... 0.00234 0.000739

Molybdenum 1.01 0.965

Nickel ............ 3.95 1.45

Selenium ....... 1.64 0.408

Silver ............. 0.120 0.0351

Tin ................. 0.409 0.120

Titanium ........ 0.0510 0.0299

Vanadium ...... 0.218 0.0662

Zinc ............... 0.497 0.420

Organic Parameters

Acetone ......... 30.2 7.97

Acetophenone 0.114 0.0562

Aniline ........... 0.0333 0.0164

Bis(2-

ethylhexyl)

phthalate ... 0.215 0.101

2-Butanone ... 4.81 1.85

Butylbenzyl

phthalate ... 0.188 0.0887

Carbazole ..... 0.598 0.276

o-Cresol ........ 1.92 0.561

p-Cresol ........ 0.698 0.205

n-Decane ...... 0.948 0.437

2,3-

Dichloroaniline ............. 0.0731 0.0361

Fluoranthene 0.0537 0.0268

n-Octadecane 0.589 0.302

Phenol ........... 3.65 1.08

Pyridine ......... 0.370 0.182

2,4,6-

Trichlorophenol ........... 0.155 0.106

1 mg/L (ppm).

2OSC Within the range 6 to 9.

(2) The following in-plant limitations

apply to metal-bearing wastewater

containing cyanide:

IN-PLANT LIMITATIONS

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly

avg. 1

Cyanide ............. 500 178

1 mg/L (ppm).

(c) Combined waste receipts from

subparts A and B of this part. (1) As

provided in § 437.42(a), any existing

point source subject to this paragraph

must achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the application

of BPT:

BPT LIMITATIONS

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly

avg. 1

Conventional Parameters

O&G .............. 127 38.0

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

TSS ............... 74.1 30.6

Metal Parameters

Antimony ....... 0.237 0.141

Arsenic .......... 0.162 0.104

Barium .......... 0.427 0.281

Cadmium ...... 0.0172 0.0102

Chromium ..... 0.746 0.323

Cobalt ........... 0.192 0.124

Copper .......... 0.500 0.242

Lead .............. 0.350 0.160

Mercury ......... 0.00234 0.000739

Molybdenum 3.50 2.09

Nickel ............ 3.95 1.45

Selenium ....... 1.64 0.408

Silver ............. 0.120 0.0351

Tin ................. 0.409 0.120

Titanium ........ 0.0510 0.0299

Vanadium ...... 0.218 0.0662

Zinc ............... 2.87 0.641

Organic Parameters

Bis(2-

ethylhexyl)

phthalate ... 0.215 0.101

Butylbenzyl

phthalate ... 0.188 0.0887

Carbazole ..... 0.598 0.276

n-Decane ...... 0.948 0.437

Fluoranthene 0.0537 0.0268

n-Octadecane 0.589 0.302

1 mg/L (ppm).

2Within the range 6 to 9.

(2) The following in-plant limitations

apply to metal-bearing wastewater

containing cyanide:

IN-PLANT LIMITATIONS

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly

avg. 1

Cyanide ............. 500 178

1 mg/L (ppm).

(d) Combined waste receipts from

subparts A and C of this part. (1) As

provided in § 437.42(a), any existing

point source subject to this paragraph

must achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the application

of BPT:

BPT LIMITATIONS

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly

avg. 1

Conventional Parameters

BOD 5 ............ 163 3.0

O&G .............. 205 50.2

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

TSS ............... 60.0 31.0

Metal Parameters

Antimony ....... 0.249 0.206

Arsenic .......... 0.162 0.104

Cadmium ...... 0.474 0.0962

Chromium ..... 15.5 3.07

Cobalt ........... 0.192 0.124

Copper .......... 0.865 0.757

Lead .............. 1.32 0.283

Mercury ......... 0.00234 0.000739

Molybdenum 1.01 0.965

Nickel ............ 3.95 1.45

Selenium ....... 1.64 0.408

Silver ............. 0.120 0.0351

Tin ................. 0.409 0.120

Titanium ........ 0.0947 0.0618

Vanadium ...... 0.218 0.0662

Zinc ............... 0.497 0.420

Organic Parameters

Acetone ......... 30.2 7.97

Acetophenone 0.114 0.0562

Aniline ........... 0.0333 0.0164

2-Butanone ... 4.81 1.85

o-Cresol ........ 1.92 0.561

p-Cresol ........ 0.698 0.205

2,3-

Dichloroaniline ............. 0.0731 0.0361

Phenol ........... 3.65 1.08

Pyridine ......... 0.370 0.182

2,4,6-

Trichlorophenol ........... 0.155 0.106

1 mg/L (ppm).

2Within the range 6 to 9.

(2) The following in-plant limitations

apply to metal-bearing wastewater

containing cyanide:

IN-PLANT LIMITATIONS

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly

avg.1

Cyanide ............. 500 178

1 mg/L )ppm).

(e) Combined waste receipts from

subparts B and C of this part. As

provided in § 437.42(a), any existing

point source subject to this paragraph

must achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the application

of BPT:

81308 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

BPT LIMITATIONS

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly

avg. 1

Conventional Parameters

BOD5 ............. 163 53.0

O&G .............. 127 38.0

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

TSS ............... 74.1 30.6

Metal Parameters

Antimony ....... 0.237 0.141

Arsenic .......... 2.95 1.33

Barium .......... 0.427 0.281

Cadmium ...... 0.0172 0.0102

Chromium ..... 0.746 0.323

Cobalt ........... 56.4 18.8

Copper .......... 0.500 0.242

Lead .............. 0.350 0.160

Mercury ......... 0.0172 0.00647

Molybdenum 1.01 0.965

Tin ................. 0.335 0.165

Titanium ........ 0.0510 0.0299

Zinc ............... 0.497 0.420

Organic Parameters

Acetone ......... 30.2 7.97

Acetophenone 0.114 0.0562

Aniline ........... 0.0333 0.0164

Bis(2-

ethylhexyl)

phthalate ... 0.215 0.101

2–Butanone .. 4.81 1.85

Butylbenzyl

phthalate ... 0.188 0.0887

Carbazole ..... 0.598 0.276

o-Cresol ........ 1.92 0.561

p-Cresol ........ 0.698 0.205

n-Decane ...... 0.948 0.437

2,3–

Dichloroaniline ............. 0.0731 0.0361

Fluoranthene 0.0537 0.0268

n-Octadecane 0.589 0.302

Phenol ........... 3.65 1.08

Pyridine ......... 0.370 0.182

2,4,6–

Trichlorophenol ........... 0.155 0.106

1 mg/L (ppm).

2Within the range 6 to 9.

§ 437.43 Effluent limitations attainable by

the application of the best conventional

pollutant control technology (BCT).

(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR

125.30 through 125.32 or 437.40(b), any

existing facility subject to this subpart

which combines treated or untreated

wastes from subparts A, B, or C of this

part may be subject to Multiple

Wastestream Subcategory effluent

limitations representing the application

of BCT set forth in paragraphs (b), (c),

(d), or (e) of this section if the discharger

agrees to the following conditions in its

NPDES permit:

(1) The discharger will meet the

applicable Multiple Wastestream

Subcategory limitations set forth in

paragraphs (b), (c), (d) or (e) of this

section;

(2) The discharger will notify its

NPDES permit writer at the time of

renewal or modification of its permit, of

its desire to be subject to the Multiple

Waste Subcategory by submitting to the

NPDES permit writer an initial

certification statement as described in

§ 437.41(a);

(3) The discharger will submit to its

NPDES permitting authority a periodic

certification statement as described in

§ 437.41(b) once a year; and

(4) The discharger will maintain at the

office of the facility and make available

for inspection the on-site compliance

paperwork as described in § 437.41(c).

(b) Combined waste receipts from

subparts A, B and C of this part:

Limitations for BOD5, O&G, pH, and

TSS are the same as the corresponding

limitation specified in § 437.42(b).

(c) Combined waste receipts from

subparts A and B of this part:

Limitations for O&G, pH, and TSS are

the same as the corresponding

limitation specified in § 437.42(c).

(d) Combined waste receipts from

subparts A and C of this part:

Limitations for BOD5, O&G, pH, and

TSS are the same as the corresponding

limitation specified in § 437.42(d).

(e) Combined waste receipts from

subparts B and C of this part:

Limitations for BOD5, O&G, pH, and

TSS are the same as the corresponding

limitation specified in § 437.42(e).

§ 437.44 Effluent limitations attainable by

the application of the best available

technology economically achievable (BAT).

(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR

125.30 through 125.32 or 437.40(b), any

existing facility subject to this subpart

which combines treated or untreated

wastes from subparts A, B, or C of this

part may be subject to Multiple

Wastestream Subcategory effluent

limitations representing the application

of BAT set forth in paragraphs (b), (c),

(d), or (e) of this section if the discharger

agrees to the following conditions in its

NPDES permit:

(1) The discharger will meet the

applicable Multiple Wastestream

Subcategory limitations set forth in

paragraphs (b), (c), (d) or (e) of this

section;

(2) The discharger will notify its

NPDES permit writer at the time of

renewal or modification of its permit, of

its desire to be subject to the Multiple

Waste Subcategory by submitting to the

NPDES permit writer an initial

certification statement as described in

§ 437.41(a);

(3) The discharger will submit to its

NPDES permitting authority a periodic

certification statement as described in

§ 437.41(b) once a year; and

(4) The discharger will maintain at the

office of the facility and make available

for inspection the on-site compliance

paperwork as described in § 437.41(c).

(b) Combined waste receipts from

subparts A, B and C of this part. (1)

Limitations for the following parameters

are the same as the corresponding

limitation specified in § 437.42(b)(1):

Organic parameters Metal parameters

Acetone ..................... Antimony.

Acetophenone ........... Arsenic.

Aniline ....................... Barium.

bis (2-ethylhexyl)

phthalate.

Cadmium.

2-Butanone ................ Chromium.

Butylbenzyl phthalate Cobalt.

Carbazole .................. Copper.

o-Cresol ..................... Lead.

p-Cresol ..................... Mercury.

n-Decane ................... Molybdenum.

2,3-dichloroaniline ..... Nickel.

Fluoranthene ............. Selenium.

n-Octadecane ............ Silver.

Phenol ....................... Tin.

Pyridine ..................... Titanium.

2,4,6-trichlorophenol Vanadium.

Zinc.

(2) The in-plant limitations that apply

to metal-bearing wastewater containing

cyanide are the same as the

corresponding limitations specified in

§ 437.42(b)(2).

(c) Combined waste receipts from

subparts A and B of this part. (1)

Limitations for the following parameters

are the same as the corresponding

limitation specified in § 437.42(c)(1):

Organic parameters Metal parameters

Bis (2-ethylhexyl)

phthalate.

Antimony.

Butylbenzyl phthalate Arsenic.

Carbazole .................. Barium.

n-Decane ................... Cadmium.

Fluoranthene ............. Chromium.

n-Octadecane ............ Cobalt.

Copper.

Lead.

Mercury.

Molybdenum.

Nickel.

Selenium.

Silver.

Tin.

Titanium.

Vanadium.

Zinc.

(2) The in-plant limitations that apply

to metal-bearing wastewater containing

cyanide are the same as the

corresponding limitations specified in

§ 437.42(c)(2).

(d) Combined waste receipts from

subparts A and C of this part. (1)

Limitations for the following parameters

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 81309

are the same as the corresponding

limitation specified in § 437.42(d)(1):

Organic parameters Metal parameters

Acetone ..................... Antimony.

Acetophenone ........... Arsenic.

Aniline ....................... Cadmium.

2-Butanone ................ Chromium.

o-Cresol ..................... Cobalt.

p-Cresol ..................... Copper.

Phenol ....................... Lead.

Pyridine ..................... Mercury.

2,4,6-trichlorophenol Molybdenum.

Nickel.

Selenium.

Silver.

Tin.

Titanium.

Vanadium.

Zinc.

(2) The in-plant limitations that apply

to metal-bearing wastewater containing

cyanide are the same as the

corresponding limitations specified in

§ 437.42(e)(2).

(e) Combined waste receipts from

subparts B and C of this part.

Limitations for the following parameters

are the same as the corresponding

limitation specified in § 437.42(e):

Organic parameters Metal parameters

Acetone ..................... Antimony.

Acetophenone ........... Arsenic.

Aniline ....................... Barium.

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)

phthalate.

Cadmium.

2-Butanone ................ Chromium.

Butylbenzyl phthalate Cobalt.

Carbazole .................. Copper.

o-Cresol ..................... Lead.

p-Cresol ..................... Mercury.

n-Decane ................... Molybdenum.

2,3-dichloroaniline ..... Tin.

Fluoranthene ............. Titanium.

n-Octadecane Zinc.

Phenol

Pyridine

2,4,6-trichlorophenol

§ 437.45 New source performance

standards (NSPS).

(a) Except as provided in § 437.40(b),

any new source subject to this subpart

which combines treated or untreated

wastes from subparts A, B, or C of this

part may be subject to Multiple

Wastestream Subcategory effluent

limitations representing the application

of NSPS set forth in paragraphs (b), (c),

(d), or (e) of this section if the discharger

agrees to the following conditions in its

NPDES permit:

(1) The discharger will meet the

applicable Multiple Wastestream

Subcategory limitations set forth in

paragraphs (b), (c), (d) or (e) of this

section;

(2) The discharger will notify its

NPDES permit writer at the time of

submitting its application for permit, of

its desire to be subject to the Multiple

Waste Subcategory by submitting to the

NPDES permit writer an initial

certification statement as described in

§ 437.41(a);

(3) The discharger will submit to its

NPDES permitting authority a periodic

certification statement as described in

§ 437.41(b) once a year; and

(4) The discharger will maintain at the

office of the facility and make available

for inspection the on-site compliance

paperwork as described in § 437.41(c).

(b) Combined waste receipts from

subparts A, B and C of this part. (1) As

provided in § 437.45(a), any new source

subject to this paragraph must achieve

the following performance standards:

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg.1

Conventional Parameters

BOD 5 ............ 163 53.0

O&G .............. 127 38.0

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

TSS ............... 29.6 11.3

Metal Parameters

Antimony ....... 0.111 0.0312

Arsenic .......... 0.0993 0.0199

Barium .......... 0.427 0.281

Cadmium ...... 0.0172 0.0102

Chromium ..... 0.167 0.0522

Cobalt ........... 0.182 0.0703

Copper .......... 0.659 0.216

Lead .............. 0.350 0.160

Mercury ......... 0.000641 0.000246

Molybdenum 1.01 0.965

Nickel ............ 0.794 0.309

Selenium ....... 0.176 0.0698

Silver ............. 0.0318 0.0122

Tin ................. 0.0955 0.0367

Titanium ........ 0.0159 0.00612

Vanadium ...... 0.0628 0.0518

Zinc ............... 0.657 0.252

Organic Parameters

Acetone ......... 30.2 7.97

Acetophenone 0.114 0.0562

Aniline ........... 0.0333 0.0164

Bis(2-

ethylhexyl)

phthalate ... 0.215 0.101

2-Butanone ... 4.81 1.85

Butylbenzyl

phthalate ... 0.188 0.0887

Carbazole ..... 0.598 0.276

o-Cresol ........ 1.92 0.561

p-Cresol ........ 0.698 0.205

n-Decane ...... 0.948 0.437

2,3-

Dichloroaniline ............. 0.0731 0.0361

Fluoranthene 0.0537 0.0268

n-Octadecane 0.589 0.302

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS—

Continued

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg.1

Phenol ........... 3.65 1.08

Pyridine ......... 0.370 0.182

2,4,6-

Trichlorophenol ........... 0.155 0.106

1 mg/L (ppm).

2Within the range 6 to 9.

(2) The following in-plant limitations

apply to metal-bearing wastewater

containing cyanide:

IN-PLANT LIMITATIONS

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly

avg.1

Cyanide ............. 500 178

1 mg/L (ppm).

(c) Combined waste receipts from

subparts A and B of this part. (1) As

provided in § 437.45(a), any new source

subject to this paragraph must achieve

the following standards:

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily1

Maximum

monthly avg.1

Conventional Parameters

O&G .............. 127 38.0

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

TSS ............... 29.6 11.3

Metal Parameters

Antimony ....... 0.111 0.0312

Arsenic .......... 0.0993 0.0199

Barium .......... 0.427 0.281

Cadmium ...... 0.0172 0.0102

Chromium ..... 0.167 0.0522

Cobalt ........... 0.182 0.0703

Copper .......... 0.659 0.216

Lead .............. 0.350 0.160

Mercury ......... 0.000641 0.000246

Molybdenum 3.50 2.09

Nickel ............ 0.794 0.309

Selenium ....... 0.176 0.0698

Silver ............. 0.0318 0.0122

Tin ................. 0.0955 0.0367

Titanium ........ 0.0159 0.00612

Vanadium ...... 0.0628 0.0518

Zinc ............... 0.657 0.252

Organic Parameters

Bis(2-

ethylhexyl)

phthalate ... 0.215 0.101

Butylbenzyl

phthalate ... 0.188 0.0887

Carbazole ..... 0.598 0.276

n-Decane ...... 0.948 0.437

Fluoranthene 0.0537 0.0268

81310 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS—

Continued

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily1

Maximum

monthly avg.1

n-Octadecane 0.589 0.302

1 mg/L (ppm).

2Within the range 6 to 9.

(2) The following in-plant limitations

apply to metal-bearing wastewater

containing cyanide:

IN-PLANT LIMITATIONS

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily1

Maximum

monthly

avg.1

Cyanide ............. 500 178

1 1 mg/L (ppm).

(d) Combined waste receipts from

subparts A and C of this part. (1) As

provided in § 437.45(a), any new source

subject to this paragraph must achieve

the following performance standards:

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg.1

Conventional Parameters

BOD5 ......... 163 53.0

O&G .......... 205 50.2

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

TSS ........... 29.6 11.3

Metal Parameters

Antimony ... 0.111 0.0312

Arsenic ...... 0.0993 0.0199

Cadmium .. 0.782 0.163

Chromium 0.167 0.0522

Cobalt ....... 0.182 0.0703

Copper ...... 0.659 0.216

Lead .......... 1.32 0.283

Mercury ..... 0.000641 0.000246

Molybdenum ... 1.01 0.965

Nickel ........ 0.794 0.309

Selenium ... 0.176 0.0698

Silver ......... 0.0318 0.0122

Tin ............. 0.0955 0.0367

Titanium .... 0.0159 0.00612

Vanadium .. 0.0628 0.0518

Zinc ........... 0.657 0.252

Organic Parameters

Acetone ..... 30.2 7.97

Acetophenone ...... 0.114 0.0562

Aniline ....... 0.0333 0.0164

2-Butanone 4.81 1.85

o-Cresol .... 1.92 0.561

p-Cresol .... 0.698 0.205

2,3-

Dichloroaniline .... 0.0731 0.0361

Phenol ....... 3.65 1.08

Pyridine ..... 0.370 0.182

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS—

Continued

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg.1

2,4,6-

Trichlorophenol ... 0.155 0.106

1 mg/L (ppm).

2Within the range 6 to 9.

(2) The following in-plant limitations

apply to metal-bearing wastewater

containing cyanide:

IN-PLANT LIMITATIONS

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly

avg.1

Cyanide ............. 500 178

1 mg/L (ppm).

(e) Combined waste receipts from

subparts B and C of this part. As

provided in § 437.45(a), any new source

subject to this paragraph must achieve

the following performance standards:

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly

avg. 1

Conventional Parameters

BOD5 ............. 163 53.0

O&G .............. 127 38.0

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

TSS ............... 74.1 30.6

Metal Parameters

Antimony ....... 0.237 0.141

Arsenic .......... 2.95 1.33

Barium .......... 0.427 0.281

Cadmium ...... 0.0172 0.0102

Chromium ..... 0.746 0.323

Cobalt ........... 56.4 18.8

Copper .......... 0.500 0.242

Lead .............. 0.350 0.160

Mercury ......... 0.0172 0.00647

Molybdenum 1.01 0.965

Tin ................. 0.335 0.165

Titanium ........ 0.0510 0.0299

Zinc ............... 0.497 0.420

Organic Parameters

Acetone ......... 30.2 7.97

Acetophenone 0.114 0.0562

Aniline ........... 0.0333 0.0164

Bis(2-

ethylhexyl)

phthalate ... 0.215 0.101

2-Butanone ... 4.81 1.85

Butylbenzyl

phthalate ... 0.188 0.0887

Carbazole ..... 0.598 0.276

o-Cresol ........ 1.92 0.561

p-Cresol ........ 0.698 0.205

n-Decane ...... 0.948 0.437

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS—

Continued

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly

avg. 1

2,3-

Dichloroaniline ............. 0.0731 0.0361

Fluoranthene 0.0537 0.0268

n-Octadecane 0.589 0.302

Phenol ........... 3.65 1.08

Pyridine ......... 0.370 0.182

2,4,6-

Trichlorophenol ........... 0.155 0.106

1 mg/L (ppm).

2Within the range 6 to 9.

§ 437.46 Pretreatment standards for

existing sources (PSES)

(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR

403.7, 403.13 or 437.40(b), any new

source subject to this subpart which

combines treated or untreated wastes

from subparts A, B, or C of this part may

be subject to Multiple Wastestream

Subcategory pretreatment standards

representing the application of PSES set

forth in paragraphs (b), (c), (d), or (e) of

this section if the discharger agrees to

the following conditions in its permit:

(1) The discharger will meet the

applicable Multiple Wastestream

Subcategory standards set forth in

paragraphs (b), (c), (d) or (e) of this

section;

(2) The discharger will notify its local

control authority of its desire to be

subject to the Multiple Waste

Subcategory by submitting to the local

control authority an initial certification

statement as described in § 437.41(a);

(3) The discharger will submit to its

local control authority a periodic

certification statement as described in

§ 437.41(b) once a year; and

(4) The discharger will maintain at the

office of the facility and make available

for inspection the on-site compliance

paperwork as described in § 437.41(c).

(b) Combined waste receipts from

subparts A, B and C of this part. (1) As

provided in § 437.46(a), and no later

than [Insert date—three years after

publication], any existing source subject

to this paragraph must achieve the

following pretreatment standards:

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS (PSES)

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg.1

Metal Parameters

Antimony ....... 0.237 0.141

Arsenic .......... 0.162 0.104

Barium .......... 0.427 0.281

Cadmium ...... 0.474 0.0962

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 81311

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS (PSES)—

Continued

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg.1

Chromium ..... 0.947 0.487

Cobalt ........... 0.192 0.124

Copper .......... 0.405 0.301

Lead .............. 0.222 0.172

Mercury ......... 0.00234 0.000739

Molybdenum 1.01 0.965

Nickel ............ 3.95 1.45

Selenium ....... 1.64 0.408

Silver ............. 0.120 0.0351

Tin ................. 0.409 0.120

Titanium ........ 0.0947 0.0618

Vanadium ...... 0.218 0.0662

Zinc ............... 2.87 0.641

Organic Parameters

Bis(2-

ethylhexyl)

phthalate ... 0.267 0.158

Carbazole ..... 0.392 0.233

o-Cresol ........ 1.92 0.561

p-Cresol ........ 0.698 0.205

n-Decane ...... 5.79 3.31

2,3-

Dichloroaniline ............. 0.0731 0.0361

Fluoranthene 0.787 0.393

n-Octadecane 1.22 0.925

2,4,6-

Trichlorophenol ........... 0.155 0.106

1 mg/L (ppm).

(2) The following in-plant limitations

apply to metal-bearing wastewater

containing cyanide:

IN-PLANT LIMITATIONS

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly

avg.1

Cyanide ............. 500 178

1 mg/L (ppm).

(c) Combined waste receipts from

subparts A and B of this part. (1) As

provided in § 437.46(a), and no later

than December 22, 2003, any existing

source subject to this paragraph must

achieve the following pretreatment

standards:

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS (PSES)

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily1

Maximum

monthly avg.1

Metal Parameters

Antimony ....... 0.237 0.141

Arsenic .......... 0.162 0.104

Barium .......... 0.427 0.281

Cadmium ...... 0.474 0.0962

Chromium ..... 0.947 0.487

Cobalt ........... 0.192 0.124

Copper .......... 0.405 0.301

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS (PSES)—

Continued

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily1

Maximum

monthly avg.1

Lead .............. 0.222 0.172

Mercury ......... 0.00234 0.000739

Molybdenum 3.50 2.09

Nickel ............ 3.95 1.45

Selenium ....... 1.64 0.408

Silver ............. 0.120 0.0351

Tin ................. 0.409 0.120

Titanium ........ 0.0947 0.0618

Vanadium ...... 0.218 0.0662

Zinc ............... 2.87 0.641

Organic Parameters

Bis(2-

ethylhexyl)

phthalate ... 0.267 0.158

Carbazole ..... 0.392 0.233

n-Decane ...... 5.79 3.31

Fluoranthene 0.787 0.393

n-Octadecane 1.22 0.925

1 mg/L (ppm).

(2) The following in-plant limitations

apply to metal-bearing wastewater

containing cyanide:

IN-PLANT LIMITATIONS

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily1

Maximum

monthly

avg.1

Cyanide ............. 500 178

1 mg/L (ppm).

(d) Combined waste receipts from

subparts A and C of this part. (1) As

provided in § 437.46(a), and no later

than December 22, 2003, any existing

source subject to this paragraph must

achieve the following pretreatment

standards:

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS (PSES)

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg.1

Metal Parameters

Antimony ....... 0.249 0.206

Arsenic .......... 0.162 0.104

Cadmium ...... 0.474 0.0962

Chromium ..... 15.5 3.07

Cobalt ........... 0.192 0.124

Copper .......... 4.14 1.06

Lead .............. 1.32 0.283

Mercury ......... 0.00234 0.000739

Molybdenum 1.01 0.965

Nickel ............ 3.95 1.45

Selenium ....... 1.64 0.408

Silver ............. 0.120 0.0351

Tin ................. 0.409 0.120

Titanium ........ 0.0947 0.0618

Vanadium ...... 0.218 0.0662

Zinc ............... 2.87 0.641

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS (PSES)—

Continued

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg.1

Organic Parameters

o-Cresol ........ 1.92 0.561

p-Cresol ........ 0.698 0.205

2,3-

Dichloroaniline ............. 0.0731 0.0361

2,4,6-

Trichlorophenol ........... 0.155 0.106

1 mg/L (ppm).

(2) The following in-plant limitations

apply to metal-bearing wastewater

containing cyanide:

IN-PLANT LIMITATIONS

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly

avg.1

Cyanide ............. 500 178

1 mg/L (ppm).

(e) Combined waste receipts from

subparts B and C of this part. As

provided in § 437.46(a), and no later

than December 22, 2003, any existing

source subject to this paragraph must

achieve the following pretreatment

standards:

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS (PSES)

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg.1

Metal Parameters

Antimony ....... 0.237 0.141

Barium .......... 0.427 0.281

Chromium ..... 0.947 0.487

Cobalt ........... 56.4 18.8

Copper .......... 0.405 0.301

Lead .............. 0.222 0.172

Molybdenum 1.01 0.965

Tin ................. 0.249 0.146

Zinc ............... 6.95 4.46

Organic Parameters

Bis (2-

ethylhexyl)

phthalate ... 0.267 0.158

Carbazole ..... 0.392 0.233

o-Cresol ........ 1.92 0.561

p-Cresol ........ 0.698 0.205

n-Decane ...... 5.79 3.31

2,3-

Dichloroaniline ............. 0.0731 0.0361

Fluoranthene 0.787 0.393

n-Octadecane 1.22 0.925

2,4,6-

Trichlorophenol ........... 0.155 0.106

1 mg/L (ppm).

81312 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

§ 437.47 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS).

(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR

403.7 or 437.40(b), any new source

subject to this subpart which combines

treated or untreated wastes from

subparts A, B, or C of this part may be

subject to Multiple Wastestream

Subcategory pretreatment standards

representing the application of PSNS set

forth in paragraphs (b), (c), (d), or (e) of

this section if the discharger agrees to

the following conditions in its permit:

(1) The discharger will meet the

applicable Multiple Wastestream

Subcategory standards set forth in

paragraphs (b), (c), (d) or (e) of this

section;

(2) The discharger will notify its local

control authority at the time of

submitting its application for an

individual control mechanism or

pretreatment agreement of its desire to

be subject to Multiple Waste

Subcategory by submitting to the local

control authority an initial certification

statement as described in § 437.41(a);

(3) The discharger will submit to its

local control authority a periodic

certification statements as described in

§ 437.41(b) once a year; and

(4) The discharger will maintain at the

office of the facility and make available

for inspection the on-site compliance

paperwork as described in § 437.41(c).

(b) Combined waste receipts from

subparts A, B and C of this part. (1) As

provided in § 437.47(a), any new source

subject to this paragraph must achieve

the following pretreatment standards:

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS (PSNS)

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg.1

Metal Parameters

Antimony ....... 0.237 0.141

Arsenic .......... 0.162 0.104

Barium .......... 0.427 0.281

Cadmium ...... 0.474 0.0962

Chromium ..... 0.746 0.323

Cobalt ........... 0.192 0.124

Copper .......... 0.500 0.242

Lead .............. 0.350 0.160

Mercury ......... 0.00234 0.000739

Molybdenum 1.01 0.965

Nickel ............ 3.95 1.45

Selenium ....... 1.64 0.408

Silver ............. 0.120 0.0351

Tin ................. 0.409 0.120

Titanium ........ 0.0947 0.0618

Vanadium ...... 0.218 0.0662

Zinc ............... 2.87 0.641

Organic Parameters

Bis(2-

ethylhexyl)

phthalate ... 0.215 0.101

Carbazole ..... 0.598 0.276

o-Cresol ........ 1.92 0.561

p-Cresol ........ 0.698 0.205

n-Decane ...... 0.948 0.437

2,3-

Dichloroaniline ............. 0.0731 0.0361

Fluoranthene 0.0537 0.0268

n-Octadecane 0.589 0.302

2,4,6-

Trichlorophenol ........... 0.155 0.106

1 mg/L (ppm).

(2) The following in-plant limitations

apply to metal-bearing wastewater

containing cyanide:

IN-PLANT LIMITATIONS

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly

avg.1

Cyanide ............. 500 178

1 mg/L (ppm).

(c) Combined waste receipts from

subparts A and B of this part. (1) As

provided in § 437.47(a), any new source

subject to this paragraph must achieve

the following pretreatment standards:

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS (PSNS)

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg.1

Metal Paratmeters

Antimony ....... 0.237 0.141

Arsenic .......... 0.162 0.104

Barium .......... 0.427 0.281

Cadmium ...... 0.474 0.0962

Chromium ..... 0.746 0.323

Cobalt ........... 0.192 0.124

Copper .......... 0.500 0.242

Lead .............. 0.350 0.160

Mercury ......... 0.00234 0.000739

Molybdenum 3.50 2.09

Nickel ............ 3.95 1.45

Selenium ....... 1.64 0.408

Silver ............. 0.120 0.0351

Tin ................. 0.409 0.120

Titanium ........ 0.0947 0.0618

Vanadium ...... 0.218 0.0662

Zinc ............... 2.87 0.641

Organic Parameters

Bis (2-

ethylhexyl)

phthalate ... 0.215 0.101

Carbazole ..... 0.598 0.276

n-Decane ...... 0.948 0.437

Fluoranthene 0.0537 0.0268

n-Octadecane 0.589 0.302

1 mg/L (ppm).

(2) The following in-plant limitations

apply to metal-bearing wastewater

containing cyanide:

IN-PLANT LIMITATIONS

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly

avg.1

Cyanide ............. 500 178

1 mg/L (ppm).

(d) Combined waste receipts from

subparts A and C of this part. (1) As

provided in § 437.47(a), any new source

subject to this paragraph must achieve

the following pretreatment standards:

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS (PSNS)

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg.1

Metal Parameters

Antimony ....... 0.249 0.206

Arsenic .......... 0.162 0.104

Cadmium ...... 0.474 0.0962

Chromium ..... 15.5 3.07

Cobalt ........... 0.192 0.124

Copper .......... 4.14 1.06

Lead .............. 1.32 0.283

Mercury ......... 0.00234 0.000739

Molybdenum 1.01 0.965

Nickel ............ 3.95 1.45

Selenium ....... 1.64 0.408

Silver ............. 0.120 0.0351

Tin ................. 0.409 0.120

Titanium ........ 0.0947 0.0618

Vanadium ...... 0.218 0.0662

Zinc ............... 2.87 0.641

Organic Parameters

o-Cresol ........ 1.92 0.561

p-Cresol ........ 0.698 0.205

2,3-

Dichloroaniline ............. 0.0731 0.0361

2,4,6-

Trichlorophenol ........... 0.155 0.106

1 mg/L (ppm).

(2) The following in-plant limitations

apply to metal-bearing wastewater

containing cyanide:

IN-PLANT LIMITATIONS

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly

avg.1

Cyanide ............. 500 178

1 mg/L (ppm).

(e) Combined waste receipts from

subparts B and C of this part. As

provided in § 437.47(a), any new source

subject to this paragraph must achieve

the following pretreatment standards:

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 81313

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS (PSNS)

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg.1

Metal Parameters

Antimony ....... 0.237 0.141

Barium .......... 0.427 0.281

Chromium ..... 0.746 0.323

Cobalt ........... 56.4 18.8

Copper .......... 0.500 0.242

Lead .............. 0.350 0.160

Molybdenum 1.01 0.965

Tin ................. 0.335 0.165

Zinc ............... 8.26 4.50

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS (PSNS)—

Continued

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg.1

Organic Parameters

Bis(2-

ethylhexyl)

phthalate ... 0.215 0.101

Carbazole ..... 0.598 0.276

o-Cresol ........ 1.92 0.561

p-Cresol ........ 0.698 0.205

n-Decane ...... 0.948 0.437

2,3-

Dichloroaniline ............. 0.0731 0.0361

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS (PSNS)—

Continued

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg.1

Fluoranthene 0.0537 0.0268

n-Octadecane 0.589 0.302

2,4,6-

Trichlorophenol ........... 0.155 0.106

1 mg/L (ppm).

[FR Doc. 00–24565 Filed 12–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U