81964 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 420

[FRL–6897–8]

RIN 2040–AC90

Effluent Limitations Guidelines,

Pretreatment Standards, and New

Source Performance Standards for the

Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point

Source Category

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This action presents the

Agency’s proposed effluent limitations

guidelines and standards for wastewater

discharges from iron and steel facilities.

The proposed regulation revises

technology-based effluent limitations

guidelines and standards for wastewater

discharges associated with the operation

of new and existing iron and steel

facilities. This action covers sites that

generate wastewater while performing

the following industrial activities:

Metallurgical cokemaking, ironmaking,

integrated steelmaking, non-integrated

steelmaking, hot forming, steel finishing

including electroplating, and other

operations including direct iron

reduction, briquetting, and forging.

EPA estimates that compliance with

this regulation as proposed would

reduce the discharge of priority and

non-conventional pollutants by at least

210 million pounds per year and would

cost an estimated $56.5 million to $61.4

million (1999 $, pre-tax) on an annual

basis, with the range reflecting two

options proposed for comment. In

addition, EPA expects that discharges of

conventional pollutants would be

reduced, by at least 31.3 million pounds

per year. EPA has estimated that the

annual quantifiable benefits of the

proposal would range from $1.1 million

to $2.7 million.

DATES: EPA must receive comments on

the proposal by midnight of February

26, 2001. EPA will conduct a public

hearing on February 20, 2001 at 9:00

a.m. For information on the location of

the public hearing, see SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION.

ADDRESSES: The public hearing will be

held at the EPA auditorium in

Waterside Mall, 401 M Street SW,

Washington, DC.

Submit written comments to Mr.

George M. Jett, Office of Water,

Engineering and Analysis Division

(4303), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460.

For hand-deliveries or federal express,

please send comments to Room 607a

West Tower, 401 M Street SW,

Washington 20460. For additional

information on how to submit

comments, see ‘‘Supplementary

Information, How to Submit to submit

comments’’.

The public record for this proposed

rulemaking has been established under

docket number W–00–25 and is located

in the Water Docket East Tower

Basement, Room EB57, 401 M St. SW,

Washington, DC 20460. The record is

available for inspection from 9:00 a.m.

to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding legal holidays. For access to

the docket materials, call (202) 260–

3027 to schedule an appointment. You

may have to pay a reasonable fee for

copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

technical information concerning

today’s proposed rule, contact Mr.

George M. Jett at (202) 260–7151 or Mr.

Kevin Tingley at (202) 260–9843. For

economic information contact Mr.

William Anderson at (202) 260–5131.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

Entities potentially regulated by this

action include:

Category Examples of regulated entities Primary SIC and NAICS

codes

Industry ............. • Facilities engaged in metallurgical cokemaking, ironmaking, integrated steelmaking, non-integrated steelmaking, hot forming, steel finishing including electroplating, and other operations

including direct iron reduction, briquetting, and forging.

SIC

• 3312

• 3316

NAICS

• 3311

• 3312

The preceding table is not intended to

be exhaustive, but rather provides a

guide for readers regarding entities

likely to be regulated by this action.

This table lists the types of entities that

EPA is now aware could potentially be

regulated by promulgation of this

proposed rule. Other types of entities

not listed in the table could also be

regulated. To determine whether your

facility would be regulated by

promulgation of this proposed rule, you

should carefully examine the

applicability criteria in § 420.1 of

today’s proposed rule and in the

applicability subsection of each

proposed subpart. You should also

examine the description of the proposed

scope of each subpart elsewhere in this

document. If you still have questions

regarding the applicability of this

proposed action to a particular entity,

consult one of the persons listed for

technical information in the preceding

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section.

How To Submit Comments

EPA requests an original and three

copies of your comments and enclosures

(including references). Commenters who

want EPA to acknowledge receipt of

their comments should enclose a selfaddressed, stamped envelope. No

facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.

Please submit any references cited in

your comments.

Comments may also be sent via e-mail

to jett.george@epa.gov. Electronic

comments must specify docket number

W–00–55 and must be submitted as an

ASCII, Word, or WordPerfect file

avoiding the use of special characters

and any form of encryption. Electronic

comments on this notice may be filed

online at many Federal Depository

Libraries. No confidential business

information (CBI) should be sent via email.

Protection of Confidential Business

Information (CBI)

EPA notes that certain information

and data in the record supporting the

proposed rule have been claimed as CBI

and, therefore, are not included in the

record that is available to the public in

the Water Docket. Further, the Agency

has withheld from disclosure some data

not claimed as CBI because release of

this information could indirectly reveal

information claimed to be confidential.

To support the proposed rulemaking,

EPA is presenting in the public record

certain information in aggregated form

or, alternatively, is masking facility

identities or employing other strategies

in order to preserve confidentiality

claims. This approach assures that the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 81965

information in the public record both

explains the basis for today’s proposal

and allows for a meaningful opportunity

for public comment, without

compromising CBI claims.

Some tabulations and analyses of

facility-specific data claimed as CBI are

available to the company that submitted

the information. To ensure that all data

or information claimed as CBI is

protected in accordance with EPA

regulations, any requests for release of

such company-specific data should be

submitted to EPA on company

letterhead and signed by a responsible

official authorized to receive such data.

The request must list the specific data

requested and include the following

statement, ‘‘I certify that EPA is

authorized to transfer confidential

business information submitted by my

company, and that I am authorized to

receive it.’’

Overview

The preamble describes the

background documents that support this

proposed regulation; the legal authority

for the proposal; a summary of the

proposal; background information; the

technical and economic methodologies

used by the Agency to develop these

proposed regulations and, in an

appendix, the definitions, acronyms,

and abbreviations used in this notice.

This preamble also solicits comment

and data on specific areas of interest.

Table of Contents

I. Legal Authority

II. Legislative Background

A. Clean Water Act

B. Section 304(m) Consent Decree

III. Scope/Applicability of Proposed

Regulation

A. Facilities Subject to 40 CFR Part 420

B. Interface with Metal Products and

Machinery Rule

C. Centralized Treatment Provision

IV. Rulemaking Background

A. Iron and Steel Effluent Guideline

Rulemaking History

B. Preliminary Study

C. Industry Profile

D. Summary of EPA Activities and Data

Gathering Efforts

1. Industry Surveys

a. Descriptions

b. Development of Survey Mailing List

c. Sample Selection

d. Survey Response

2. Wastewater Sampling and Site Visits

3. Analytical Methods

4. Database Sources

5. Summary of Public Participation

E. Subcategorization

1. Methodology and Factors Considered in

Developing Proposed Subcategorization

2. General Description of Manufacturing

Processes

3. Proposed Subcategories

F. Wastewater Characterization

1. Cokemaking

a. Wastewater Sources

b. Pollutants of Concern

c. Wastewater Flow Rates

2. Ironmaking

a. Wastewater Sources

b. Pollutants of Concern

c. Wastewater Flow Rates

3. Integrated Steelmaking

a. Wastewater Sources

b. Pollutants of Concern

c. Wastewater Flow Rates

4. Integrated and Stand Alone Hot Forming

a. Wastewater Sources

b. Pollutants of Concern

c. Wastewater Flow Rates

5. Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot

Forming

a. Wastewater Sources

b. Pollutants of Concern

c. Wastewater Flow Rates

6. Steel Finishing

a. Wastewater Sources

b. Pollutants of Concern

c. Wastewater Flow Rates

7. Other Operations

a. Wasterwater Sources

b. Pollutants of Concern

c. Wasterwater Flow Rates

V. Technology Options, Costs, and Pollutant

Reductions

A. Introduction

1. Focused Rulemaking Approach

2. Available Technologies

B. Methodology for Estimating Costs and

Pollutant Reductions Achieved by Model

Treatment Technologies

C. Technology Options, Regulatory Costs,

and Pollutant Reductions

1. Cokemaking

2. Ironmaking

3. Integrated Steelmaking

4. Integrated and Stand Alone Hot Forming

5. Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot

Forming

6. Steel Finishing

7. Other Operations

VI. Economic Analysis

A. Introduction and Overview

B. Economic Description of the Iron and

Steel Industry and Baseline Conditions

C. Economic Impact Methodology

D. Economic Costs of Impact of Technology

Options by Subcategory

E. Facility Level Economic Impacts of

Regulatory Options

F. Firm Level Impacts

G. Community Impacts

H. Foreign Trade Impacts

I. Small Business Analysis

J. Cost-Benefit Analysis

K. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

L. Cost-Reasonableness Analysis

VII. Water Quality Analysis 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. Effect an POTW Operations

F. Other Benefits not Quantified

G. Summary of Benefits

VIII. Non-Water Quality Environmental

Impacts

A. Air Pollution

B. Solid Waste

C. Energy Requirements

IX. Options Selected for Proposal

A. Introduction

1. Methodology for Proposed Selection of

Regulated Pollutants

2. Pollutants Selected for Pretreatment

Standards

3. Issues Related to the Methodology Used

to Determine POTW Performance

4. Determination of Long Term Averages,

Variability Factors, and Effluent

Limitations Guidelines and Standards

5. BPT

6. BCT

7. Consideration of Statutory Factors for

BAT, PSES, NSPS, and PSNS

Technology Options Selection

B. Cokemaking

1. By-Product Cokemaking

a. Regulated Pollutants

i. BAT

ii. PSES

iii. NSPS

iv. PSNS

b. Technology Selected

i. BAT

ii. PSES

iii. NSPS

iv. PSNS

2. Non-recovery Cokemaking

C. Ironmaking

1. Blast Furnace

a. Regulated Pollutants

i. BAT

ii. PSES

iii. NSPS

iv. PSNS

b. Technology Selected

i. BAT

ii. PSES

iii. NSPS

iv. PSNS

2. Sintering

a. Regulated Pollutants

i. BAT

ii. PSES

iii. NSPS

iv. PSNS

b. Technologies Selected

i. BAT/PSES/NSPS/PSNS

D. Integrated Steelmaking

1. Regulated Pollutants

a. BAT/PSES/NSPS/PSNS

2. Technology Selected

a. BAT/PSES/NSPS/PSNS

E. Integrated and Stand Alone Hot Forming

1. Carbon and Alloy

a. Regulated Pollutants

i. BAT

ii. PSES/PSNS

iii. NSPS

b. Technology Selected

i. BAT

ii. PSES

iii. NSPS

iv. PSNS

2. Stainless

a. Regulated Pollutants

i. BAT

ii. PSES/PSNS

iii. NSPS

b. Technology Selected

i. BAT

ii. PSES/PSNS

81966 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

iii. NSPS

F. Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot

Forming

1. Carbon and Alloy

a. Regulated Pollutants

i. BAT

ii. PSES

iii. NSPS/PSNS

b. Technology Selected

i. BAT

ii. PSES

iii. NSPS/PSNS

G. Finishing

1. Carbon and Alloy

a. Regulated Pollutants

i. BAT

ii. PSES

iii. NSPS

iv. PSNS

b. Technology Selected

i. BAT

ii. PSES

iii. NSPS/PSNS

2. Stainless

a. Regulated Pollutants

i. BAT

ii. PSES

iii. NSPS/PSNS

b. Technology Selected

i. BAT

ii. PSES

iii. NSPS/PSNS

H. Other

1. Direct-reduced Ironmaking (DRI)

a. Regulated Pollutants

b. Technology Selected

i. BPT/BCT/NSPS

ii. PSES/PSNS

2. Forging

a. Regulated Pollutants and Limits

i. (Direct Pollutants and Limits) BPT/BCT/

NSPS

ii. Indirect Discharges PSES/PSNS

b. Technology Selected

i. BPT/NSPS/PSES/PSNS

3. Briquetting

a. Technology Selected

X. Regulatory Implementation

A. Implementation of Part 420 through the

NPDES Permit and National

Pretreatment Programs

B. Upset and Bypass Provisions

C. Variances and Removal Credits

D. Production Basis for Calculation of

Permit Limitations

1. Background

2. Alternatives for Establishing Permit

Effluent Limitations

E. Water Bubble

XI. Other Coinciding Agency Activities

A. 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart L—National Air

Emission Standard for Coke Oven

Batteries

B. Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and

Battery Stacks Proposed Rule

C. Steel Pickling—HCL Process

D. Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing

NESHAP

XII. Related Acts of Congress, Executive

Orders, and Agency Initiatives

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory

Planning and Process

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act as Amended

by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

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

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. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

H. Executive Order 13084: Consultation

and Coordination with Indian Tribal

Governments

I. Plain Language Directive

XIII. Solicitation of Data and Comments

A. Introduction and General Solicitation

B. Specific Data and Comment

Solicitations

Appendix A: Definitions, Acronyms, and

Abbreviations Used in This Notice

I. Legal Authority

These regulations are proposed 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. Legislative 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 from

facilities that discharge wastewater

indirectly through sewers flowing to

publicly owned treatment works

(POTWs). See section 307(b) and (c), 33

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

pretreatment standards are established

for those pollutants in wastewater from

indirect dischargers that may pass

through, interfere with or are otherwise

incompatible with POTW operations.

Generally, pretreatment standards are

designed to ensure that wastewaters

from direct and indirect industrial

dischargers are subject to similar levels

of treatment. In addition, POTWs are

required to implement local treatment

limits applicable to their industrial

indirect dischargers to satisfy any local

requirements. See 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. Effluent limitations in

NPDES permits are derived from

effluent limitations guidelines and new

source performance standards

promulgated by EPA. These effluent

limitations guidelines 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)—Sec.

304(b)(1) of the CWA

EPA may promulgate BPT effluent

limits for conventional, priority, and

non-conventional pollutants. (Priority

pollutants consist of a specified list of

toxic pollutants. For more information,

see section IV.D.3 below.) 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,

engineering aspects of the control

technologies, application of various

types of process changes, non-water

quality environmental impacts

(including energy requirements), and

such other factors as the Administrator

deems appropriate. See CWA

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

establishes BPT effluent limitations

based on the average of the best

performances of facilities within the

industry, grouped to reflect various

ages, sizes, processes, or other common

characteristics. Where, however,

existing performance is uniformly

inadequate, EPA may establish

limitations based on higher levels of

control than currently in place in an

industrial category if the Agency

determines that the technology is

available in another category or

subcategory, and can be practically

applied.

2. Best Control Technology for

Conventional Pollutants (BCT)—Sec.

304(b)(4) of the CWA

The 1977 amendments to the CWA

required EPA to identify additional

levels of effluent reduction for

conventional pollutants associated with

BCT technology for discharges from

existing industrial point sources. In

addition to other factors specified in

Section 304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 81967

that EPA establish BCT limitations after

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

methodology for the development of

BCT limitations in July 1986 (51 FR

24974).

Section 304(a)(4) designates the

following as conventional pollutants:

biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5),

total suspended solids (TSS), fecal

coliform, pH, and any additional

pollutants defined by the Administrator

as conventional. The Administrator

designated oil and grease as an

additional conventional pollutant on

July 30, 1979 (44 FR 44501).

3. Best Available Technology

Economically Achievable (BAT)—Sec.

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 CWA establishes BAT as

a principal national means of

controlling the direct discharge of toxic

and nonconventional pollutants. 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 non-water quality

environmental impacts including energy

requirements, and such other factors as

the Administrator deems appropriate.

The Agency retains considerable

discretion in assigning the weight to be

accorded these factors. An additional

statutory factor considered in setting

BAT is economic achievability.

Generally, EPA determines economic

achievability on the basis of total costs

to the industry and the effect of

compliance with BAT limitations on

overall industry and subcategory

financial conditions. As with BPT,

where existing performance is

uniformly inadequate, BAT may reflect

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)—Sec. 306 of the CWA

New Source Performance Standards

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 (that is, conventional,

nonconventional, and priority

pollutants). In establishing NSPS, EPA

is directed to take into consideration the

cost of achieving the effluent reduction

and any non-water quality

environmental impacts and energy

requirements.

5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing

Sources (PSES)—Sec. 307(b) of the CWA

Pretreatment Standards for Existing

Sources 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). Pretreatment standards are

technology-based and are analogous to

BAT effluent limitations guidelines.

The General Pretreatment

Regulations, which set forth the

framework for the implementation of

categorical pretreatment standards, are

found at 40 CFR part 403. These

regulations contain a definition of passthrough that addresses localized rather

than national instances of pass-through

and establishes pretreatment standards

that apply to all non-domestic

dischargers. See 52 FR 1586 (Jan. 14,

1987).

6. Pretreatment Standards for New

Sources (PSNS)—Sec. 307(c) of the

CWA

Section 307(c) of the Act requires EPA

to promulgate pretreatment standards

for new sources at the same time it

promulgates new source performance

standards. Such pretreatment standards

must prevent the discharge of any

pollutant into a POTW that may

interfere with, pass through, or may

otherwise be incompatible with the

POTW. EPA promulgates categorical

pretreatment standards for existing

sources based principally on BAT

technology for existing sources. EPA

promulgates pretreatment standards for

new sources based on best available

demonstrated technology for new

sources. 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) Consent Decree

Section 304(m) requires EPA to

publish a plan every two years that

consists of three elements. First, under

section 304(m)(1)(A), EPA is required to

establish a schedule for the annual

review and revision of existing effluent

guidelines in accordance with section

304(b). Section 304(b) applies to effluent

limitations guidelines for direct

dischargers and requires EPA to revise

such regulations as appropriate. Second,

under section 304(m)(1)(B), EPA must

identify categories of sources

discharging toxic or nonconventional

pollutants for which EPA has not

published BAT effluent limitations

guidelines under 304(b)(2) or new

source performance standards under

section 306. Finally, under 304(m)(1)(C),

EPA must establish a schedule for the

promulgation of BAT and NSPS for the

categories identified under

subparagraph (B) not later than three

years after being identified in the

304(m) plan. Section 304(m) does not

apply to pretreatment standards for

indirect dischargers, which EPA

promulgates pursuant to sections 307(b)

and 307(c) of the Clean Water Act.

On October 30, 1989, Natural

Resources Defense Council, Inc., and

Public Citizen, Inc., filed an action

against EPA in which they alleged,

among other things, that EPA had failed

to comply with CWA section 304(m).

Plaintiffs and EPA agreed to a

settlement of that action in a consent

decree entered on January 31, 1992. The

consent decree, which has been

modified several times, established a

schedule by which EPA is to propose

and take final action for eleven point

source categories identified by name in

the decree and for eight other point

source categories identified only as new

or revised rules, numbered 5 through

12. After completing a preliminary

study as required by the decree, EPA

selected the iron and steel industry as

the subject for New or Revised Rule #5.

Under the decree, as modified, the

Administrator was required to sign a

proposed rule for the iron and steel

industry no later than October 31, 2000,

and must take final action on that

proposal no later than April 30, 2002.

III. Scope/Applicability of the Proposed

Regulation

EPA solicits comments on various

issues specifically identified in the

preamble as well as any other

applicability issues that are not

specifically addressed in today’s notice.

A. Facilities Subject to 40 CFR Part 420

EPA is proposing effluent limitations

guidelines and standards for seven

subcategories of Iron and Steel facilities.

Generally speaking, the universe of

facilities that would be potentially

subject to EPA’s proposed guideline

include facilities engaged in iron and

steel making, whether through the use

of blast furnaces and basic oxygen

furnaces (BOFs), or through electric arc

81968 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

furnaces (EAFs); metallurgical

cokemaking facilities; stand-alone

facilities engaged in hot forming and/or

finishing of steel, including

electroplating; and facilities engaged in

other related operations such as direct

iron reduction, forging, and iron

briquetting.

A detailed discussion of Iron and

Steel wastewaters is provided in Section

IV.F. In summary, all wastewater

discharges to a receiving stream or the

introduction of wastewater to a publicly

owned treatment works from a facility

that falls within the scope of one of the

proposed subparts would be subject to

the provisions of this proposed rule

unless specifically excluded as

discussed in the following sections.

The following proposed technology

options serve as the basis for the

effluent limitations guidelines and

standards being proposed today for the

iron and steel industry. For descriptions

of the subcategories, see Section IV.E.

For descriptions of the technologies, see

Section V.A.

Subcategory (segment) Regulatory level Option chosen Technical components

Subpart A. Cokemaking:

(By-Product Recovery) ............. BAT/NSPS/PSES/PSNS BAT–3(PSES–3) ............. tar removal, equalization, ammonia stripping, temperature control, equalization, single-stage biological treatment with nitrification, alkaline

chlorination, and sludge dewatering.

co-proposed ....................

PSES ..............................

PSES–1 .......................... tar removal, equalization, ammonia stripping.

(Non-Recovery) ........................ BAT/NSPS/PSES/PSNS zero discharge ................ no wastewater generated.

Subpart B. Ironmaking: (Blast Furnaces) and (Sintering).BAT/NSPS ...................... BAT–1 ............................. solids removal with high-rate recycle and metals

precipitation, alkaline chlorination, mixed-media

filtration of the blowdown wastewater, and

sludge dewatering.

PSES/PSNS ................... PSES–1 .......................... solids removal with high-rate recycle and metals

precipitation, and sludge dewatering.

Subpart C. Integrated Steelmaking BAT/NSPS/PSES/PSNS BAT–1 ............................. solids removal and high-rate recycle, with metals

precipitation for blowdown wastewater, cooling

towers for process wastewaters from vacuum

degassing or continuous casting operations, and

sludge dewatering.

Subpart D. Integrated and Stand

Alone Hot Forming:.

(Carbon & Alloy Steel) ............. BAT/NSPS ...................... BAT–1 ............................. scale pit with oil skimming, roughing clarifier, cooling tower with high rate recycle, mixed-media filtration of blowdown, and sludge dewatering.

PSES/PSNS ................... N/A .................................. no proposed modification from existing PSES/

PSNS.

(Stainless Steel) ....................... BAT/NSPS ...................... BAT–1 ............................. scale pit with oil skimming, roughing clarifier, cooling tower with high rate recycle, mixed-media filtration of blowdown, and sludge dewatering.

PSES/PSNS ................... N/A .................................. no proposed modification from existing PSES/

PSNS.

Subpart E. Non-Integrated

Steelmaking and Hot Forming:

(Carbon & Alloy Steel) ............. BAT ................................. BAT–1 ............................. solids removal, cooling tower, high rate recycle,

mixed-media filtration of recycled flow or of low

volume blowdown flow, and sludge dewatering.

PSES .............................. N/A .................................. no proposed modification from existing PSES.

NSPS/PSNS ................... zero discharge ................ water re-use, evaportion, or contract hauling.

(Stainless Steel) ....................... BAT/PSES ...................... BAT–1 ............................. solids removal, cooling tower, high-rate recycle,

mixed-media filtration of recycled flow or of low

volume blowdown flow, and sludge dewatering.

NSPS/PSNS ................... zero discharge ................ water re-use, evaportion, or contract hauling.

Subpart F. Steel Finishing:

(Carbon & Alloy Steel) ............. BAT/NSPS/PSNS ........... BAT–1 ............................. recycle of fume scrubber water, diversion tank, oil

removal, hexavalent chrome reduction (where

applicable), equalization, metals precipitation,

sedimentation, sludge dewatering, and countercurrent rinses.

PSES .............................. N/A .................................. no proposed modification from existing PSES.

(Stainless Steel) ....................... BAT/NSPS/PSNS ........... BAT–1 ............................. recycle of fume scrubber water, diversion tank, oil

removal, hexavalent chrome reduction (where

applicable), equalization, metals precipitation,

sedimentation, sludge dewatering, counter-current rinses, and acid purification.

PSES .............................. ......................................... no proposed modification from existing PSES

Subpart G. Other Operations:

(Direct Reduced Ironmaking) ... BPT/BCT/NSPS .............. BPT–1 ............................. solids removal, clarifier, high rate recycle, with filtration of blow-down, and sludge dewatering.

BAT/PSES/PSNS ........... ......................................... reserved.

(Forging) ................................... BPT/BCT/NSPS .............. BPT–1 ............................. high rate recycle, with oil/water separator for blowdown.

BAT/PSES/PSNS ........... ......................................... reserved.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 81969

Subcategory (segment) Regulatory level Option chosen Technical components

(Briquetting) .............................. BPT/BCT/BAT/NSPS/

PSES/PSNS.

zero discharge ................ no wastewater generated

B. Interface With Metal Products and

Machinery Rule

In preparation for this rulemaking, the

Agency determined that certain

facilities currently covered by the

current Iron and Steel rule have

manufacturing processes that more

closely resemble those in facilities to be

covered by the Metal Products and

Machinery (MP&M) rule than those

found in what are normally considered

to be steel facilities. So that these

facilities might be addressed under a

regulation that fits them better, EPA

proposes to move these types of

facilities into the MP&M category,

which will be regulated under part 438.

The notice proposing effluent

limitations guidelines and standards for

the MP&M category was also required to

be signed by the Administrator by

October 31, 2000. EPA is required to

take final action on that rule by

December 31, 2002 (eight months later

than the date for final action on the iron

and steel rule). In developing the MP&M

rule, EPA will consider survey data and

sampling data collected for these types

of facilities under Iron and Steel

auspices.

For operations that are currently

subject to part 420, EPA proposes to

retain certain operations in part 420 but

move others to part 438, as follows:

Retained in Part 420 (Iron and Steel) Moved to Part 438 (MP&M)

Cold forming for steel sheet and strip ...................................................... Cold forming for steel bar, rod, wire, pipe or tube.

Pipe and tube mills with hot forming ........................................................ Batch steel electroplating.

Finishing with continuous electroplating of flat products (e.g. plate,

sheet, strip).

Continuous electroplating or hot dip coating of long steel products (e.g.

wire, rod, bar).

Continuous hot dip coating of flat steel products (e.g. plate, sheet,

strip).

Batch hot dip coating of steel.

Hot forming ............................................................................................... Wire drawing and coating.

For facilities with both iron and steel

operations and MP&M or other

operations discharging process

wastewaters to the same wastewater

treatment system, NPDES permit writers

would need to use a building block

approach to develop the technologybased effluent limitations. Similarly,

pretreatment permit writers would need

to use a building block approach or the

combined wastestream formula to

develop appropriate pretreatment

requirements for facilities with process

operations in more than one category.

Permit writers and pretreatment control

authorities should refer to the

applicability of the proposed MP&M

rule for further clarification.

EPA solicits comment on the

proposed applicability of the Iron and

Steel (Part 420) rule and on the

proposed building block approach in

regulating facilities with both iron and

steel and MP&M or other operations.

C. Centralized Treatment Provision

Under the applicability section of the

current regulation, 40 CFR 420.01(b),

EPA identified 21 plants that were

temporarily excluded from the

provisions of Part 420 because of

economic considerations, provided that

the owner or operator of the facility

requested the Agency to consider

establishing alternative effluent

limitations and provided the Agency

with certain information consistent with

40 CFR 420.01(b)(2) on or before July 26,

1982. See 47 FR 23285 (May 27, 1982).

Today, each of the facilities identified

in that section has a permit that

includes effluent limitations derived

from part 420. Today’s proposed rule

would establish new BAT limitations

that EPA believes are economically

achievable for each subcategory as a

whole. Therefore, EPA believes that the

alternate effluent limitations provisions

of § 420.01(b) are no longer necessary

for these facilities, and proposes to

withdraw this exclusion from part 420.

IV. Rulemaking Background

A. Iron and Steel Industry Effluent

Guideline Rulemaking History

EPA promulgated BPT, BAT, NSPS,

and PSNS for the iron and steel category

in June 1974 for basic steelmaking

operations (Phase I). See 39 FR 24114

(June 28, 1974), codified at CFR part

420, subparts A–L. EPA promulgated

iron and steel effluent limitations

guidelines and standards (Phase II) in

March 1976 that established BPT, BAT,

NSPS, and PSNS for forming and

finishing operations. See 41 FR 12990

(March 29, 1976), codified at 40 CFR

part 420, subparts M–Z.

In response to petitions for review,

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third

Circuit remanded portions of the Phase

I regulation in November 1975. See

American Iron and Steel Institute, et.

al., v. EPA, 526 F.2d 1027 (3d Cir. 1975).

The Court rejected all technical

challenges to BPT, but ruled that BAT

and NSPS for certain subcategories in

Phase I were not demonstrated. The

Court also ruled that EPA had not

adequately considered the impact of

plant age on the cost or feasibility of

retrofitting pollution control equipment,

did not assess the impact of the

regulation on water scarcity in arid and

semi-arid regions, and failed to make

adequate ‘‘net/gross’’ provisions for

pollutants found in intake waters.

In response to petitions for review,

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third

Circuit also remanded portions of the

Phase II regulation in September 1977.

See American Iron and Steel Institute,

et. al., v EPA, 568 F.2d 284 (3d Cir.

1977). The Court again rejected all

technical challenges to BPT; however, it

ruled that EPA had not adequately

considered age/retrofit and water

scarcity issues for BAT. The Court also

invalidated the regulation as it applied

to the specialty steel industry for lack of

proper notice. The Court directed EPA

to reevaluate its estimates of compliance

costs with regard to certain ‘‘sitespecific’’ factors and to reexamine its

economic impact analysis for BAT. The

Court also ruled that EPA had no

authority to exempt certain steel

facilities located in the Mahoning Valley

of Ohio from the regulation.

The current iron and steel rule, 40

CFR part 420, was promulgated in May

1982, see 47 FR 23258 (May 27, 1982),

and was amended in May 1984 as part

of a Settlement Agreement among EPA,

the iron and steel industry, and the

Natural Resources Defense Council. See

81970 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

49 FR 21024 (May 17, 1984). In

promulgating part 420 in 1982, aside

from the temporary central treatment

exclusion for 21 specified steel facilities

at 40 CFR 420.01(b), EPA provided no

exclusions for facilities on the basis of

age, size, complexity, or geographic

location as a result of the remand issues.

EPA also revised the subcategorization

from that specified in the 1974 and 1976

regulations to more accurately reflect

major types of production operations

and to attempt to simplify

implementation of the regulation by

permit writers and the industry. The

factors EPA considered in establishing

the 1982 subcategories were:

Manufacturing processes and

equipment; raw materials; final

products; wastewater characteristics;

wastewater treatment methods; size and

age of facilities; geographic location;

process water usage and discharge rates;

and costs and economic impacts. Of

these, EPA found that the type of

manufacturing process was the most

significant factor and employed this

factor as the basis for dividing the

industry into the twelve process

subcategories currently in part 420.

The 1984 amendment to part 420

affected three portions of the rule: The

water bubble (see Section X.E), effluent

limitations guideline modifications for

BPT, BAT, BCT, and NSPS, and

modifications to the pretreatment

standards for PSES and PSNS for the

Sintering, Ironmaking, Acid Pickling,

Cold Forming, and Hot Coating

Subcategories.

B. Preliminary Study

EPA was required by the terms of the

consent decree described in section II.B

to initiate preliminary reviews of a

number of categorical effluent

limitations guidelines and standards on

a set schedule. The ‘‘Preliminary Study

of the Iron and Steel Category’’ (EPA

821–R–95–037) was completed in 1995.

In the preliminary study, EPA

assessed the status of the industry with

respect to the regulation promulgated in

1982 and amended in 1984; identified

better performing facilities that use

conventional and innovative in-process

pollution prevention and end-of-pipe

technologies; estimated possible effluent

reduction benefits if the industry were

upgraded to the level of better

performing facilities; discussed

regulatory and implementation issues

associated with the current regulation;

and identified possible solutions to

those issues.

Comparisons of long-term average

effluent quality data for a number of

better performing facilities (data

represent time periods ranging from six

months to more than one year) with the

long-term average performance data

underlying the current effluent

limitations in part 420 revealed that, in

all subcategories, some facilities are

achieving substantially greater

reductions than is required by the

current regulation. In a limited number

of cases, zero discharge of pollutants is

being approached through pollution

prevention practices. This performance

reflects increased high-rate process

water recycle, advances in application

of treatment technologies, and advances

in treatment system operations. At the

same time, however, the study showed

that a number of facilities fail to achieve

the effluent limitations currently

required by part 420.

The study also found that, because

most process wastewaters from basic

steelmaking operations are generated as

a result of air emission control and gas

cleaning, there are substantial pollutant

transfers from the air media to the water

and solid waste media. Also, there

appear to be many pollution prevention

opportunities in the areas of increased

process water recycle and reuse, the

cascade of process wastewaters from

one operation to another, residuals

management, and nondischarge disposal

methods.

The Preliminary Study can be found

on-line at www.epa.gov/OST/ironsteel.

C. Industry Profile

The Agency estimates that in 1997,

the iron and steel industry consisted of

252 facilities owned by at least 109

companies. This estimate is based upon

responses to EPA’s data gathering

efforts, as described in Section IV.D.

Many of these companies are joint

ventures with both domestic and foreign

owners, including partners located in

Japan, Great Britain, Germany, and

India.

Although there are several iron and

steel manufacturing processes

(described in Section IV.E.3), the

Agency has identified nine general

types of sites in the Iron and Steel

Category based on the operations

present at each site. Table IV.C.1 shows

the estimated number of facilities for

each of the nine types of sites. Each

facility is likely to engage in more than

one manufacturing process. For

instance, integrated facilities engaged in

iron and steel making using blast

furnaces and basic oxygen furnaces may

also have one or more of the

manufacturing operations, such as

vacuum degassing or continuous

casting, on site. Non-integrated sites

engaged in steelmaking with the use of

electric arc furnaces may also have

vacuum degassing, ladle metallurgy,

casting, hot forming, and finishing

processes on site. On the other hand,

stand-alone finishers that produce coldrolled and/or coated products from hot

rolled steel produced elsewhere tend to

have only finishing operations on site.

Finally, there are stand-alone pipe and

tube facilities producing pipe and/or

tube from materials manufactured off

site. It is worth noting that only those

pipe and tube facilities that produce hot

formed pipe and tube are to be included

in the Iron and Steel Category. These

sites have hot forming operations and

may also have finishing processes.

TABLE IV.C.1.—GENERAL TYPES OF

IRON AND STEEL SITES IN THE

UNITED STATES

Type of site

Total

Number

of sites

operating

in 1997

Integrated with Cokemaking ......... 9

Integrated without Cokemaking .... 11

Stand-alone Cokemaking 1 ........... 15

Stand-alone Sintering 2 ................. 2

Stand-alone Direct-Reduced

Ironmaking 3 .............................. 1

Non-integrated .............................. 94

Stand-alone Hot Forming ............. 39

Stand-alone Finishing ................... 70

Stand-alone Pipe and Tube ......... 11

Total ....................................... 252

1One of the stand-alone cokemaking plants

is a nonrecovery cokemaking plant. One additional nonrecovery cokemaking plant started

operations after 1997 and is not reflected in

this table. 2One of these stand-alone sinter plants has

been shut down indefinitely since 1997. 3One additional stand-alone direct-reduced

ironmaking plant started operations after 1997.

As shown Table IV.C.1, nonintegrated facilities outnumber

integrated facilities by more than four to

one, and stand-alone finishing facilities

form the second largest group. This

reflects a trend that has affected the

industry for the past 25 years—a shift of

steel production from generally larger,

older integrated facilities to newer,

smaller non-integrated facilities, and the

emergence of specialized, stand-alone

finishing facilities that process semifinished sheet, strip, bars, and rods

obtained from integrated or nonintegrated facilities.

Integrated steel facilities are primarily

located east of the Mississippi River in

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio,

Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland,

Kentucky, and Alabama; one integrated

steel facility operates in Utah. Coke

plants, either stand-alone or co-located

at integrated steel facilities, are located

in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 81971

New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia,

Kentucky, Alabama, and Utah. Nonintegrated steel facilities are located

throughout the continental U.S., and

smaller stand-alone forming and

finishing facilities are generally located

near steel manufacturing sites. Process

wastewater discharges in 1997 ranged

from less than 200 gallons per day for

a stand-alone finisher to more than 50

million gallons per day for an integrated

facility.

D. Summary of EPA Activities and Data

Gathering Efforts

1. Industry Surveys

EPA developed an Information

Collection Request (ICR) entitled ‘‘U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

Collection of 1997 Iron and Steel

Industry Data’’ that explains the

regulatory basis and usefulness of the

industry surveys. The ICR was approved

by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) in August 1998. The

Agency published three Federal

Register Notices announcing (1) the

intent to distribute the surveys, see 62

FR 54453 (October 20, 1997), (2) the

submission of the ICR to the OMB, see

63 FR 16500 (April 3, 1998), and (3)

OMB’s approval of the survey

instrument, see 63 FR 47023 (August 3,

1998). The Agency consulted with the

major industry trade associations to

develop a useful survey instrument and

to ensure an accurate mailing list.

a. Descriptions. EPA obtained

approval to distribute four industry

surveys. The first two surveys were

similar in content and purpose; both

were designed to collect detailed

technical and financial information

from iron and steel sites, but they

differed in size and were mailed to

different facilities. In October 1998, EPA

mailed the first survey, entitled ‘‘U.S.

EPA Collection of 1997 Iron and Steel

Industry Data’’ (detailed survey) to 176

iron and steel sites and the second

survey, entitled ‘‘U.S. EPA Collection of

1997 Iron and Steel Industry Data (Short

Form),’’ to 223 iron and steel sites. The

short form is an abbreviated version of

the detailed survey and was designed

for those iron and steel sites known not

to produce or process liquid steel (e.g.,

stand alone hot forming or steel

finishing mills). EPA mailed the third

and fourth surveys to subsets of

facilities to obtain more detailed

information on wastewater treatment

system costs, analytical data, and

facility production. EPA mailed the

third survey, entitled ‘‘U.S. EPA

Collection of Iron and Steel Industry

Wastewater Treatment Capital Cost

Data’’ (cost survey), to 90 iron and steel

sites. EPA mailed the fourth survey,

entitled ‘‘U.S. EPA Analytical and

Production Data Follow-Up to the

Collection of 1997 Iron and Steel

Industry Data’’ (analytical daily data

and production survey), to 38 iron and

steel sites.

The detailed survey and short form

were divided into two parts: Part A:

Technical Information and Part B:

Financial and Economic Information.

The technical questions in the detailed

survey were divided into four sections,

with Sections 3 and 4 being combined

in the short form:

• Section 1: General site information

• Section 2: Manufacturing process

information

• Section 3: In-process and end-ofpipe wastewater treatment and

pollution prevention information

• Section 4: Wastewater outfall

information

The financial and economic

information in the detailed survey was

divided into four sections:

• Section 1: Site identification

• Section 2: Site financial information

• Section 3: Business entity financial

information

• Section 4: Corporate parent

financial information

The financial and economic

information part of the short form

contained a single section for site

identification and financial information.

The general information questions

asked the site to identify itself,

characterize itself by certain parameters

(including manufacturing operations,

age, and location), and confirm that it

was engaged in iron and steel activities.

The Agency used this information to

develop the subcategorization of the

industry proposed today.

The manufacturing process section

included questions about products,

types of steel produced, production

levels, unit operations, chemicals and

coatings used, wastewater discharge

from unit operations, miscellaneous

wastewater sources, pollution

prevention activities, and air pollution

control. The Agency used data received

in response to these questions to

evaluate manufacturing processes,

wastewater generation, and to develop

regulatory options. EPA also used these

data to develop the subcategorization

proposed today and to estimate

compliance costs and pollutant

removals associated with proposed

regulatory options.

EPA requested detailed information

(including diagrams) on the wastewater

treatment systems and discharge flow

rates; monitoring analytical data; and

operating and maintenance cost data

(including treatment chemical usage).

The Agency used data received in

response to these questions to identify

treatment technologies in place, to

determine the feasibility of regulatory

options, and to estimate compliance

costs, pollutant removals, and potential

environmental impacts associated with

the regulatory options EPA considered

for this proposal.

The outfall information questions

covered permit information, discharge

location, wastewater sources to the

outfall, flow rates, regulated parameters

and limits, and permit monitoring data.

The Agency used this information to

calculate the effluent limitations

guidelines and standards and pollutant

loadings associated with the regulatory

options that EPA considered for this

proposal.

The financial and economic questions

requested general information, such as

location and employment, information

on the sites’s finances, and corporate

structure. EPA used data received in

response to these questions to estimate

economic impacts on sites and

companies from the regulatory options

EPA considered for this proposal.

EPA used the cost survey to request

detailed capital cost data on selected

wastewater treatment systems installed

since 1993, including equipment,

engineering design, and installation

costs. EPA incorporated these data into

a cost model and used them to calculate

compliance costs associated with the

regulatory options EPA considered for

this proposal.

The analytical and production survey

requested detailed daily analytical and

flow rate data for selected sampling

points and monthly production data and

operating hours for selected

manufacturing operations. The Agency

used the analytical data to estimate

baseline pollutant loadings and

pollutant removals from facilities with

treatment in place resembling projected

regulatory options and to evaluate the

variability associated with iron and steel

industry discharges. The Agency used

the production data collected to

evaluate the production basis for

applying today’s proposed rule in

NPDES permits and pretreatment

control mechanisms.

b. Development of Survey Mailing

List. EPA has collected industry

supplied data from the iron and steel

industry through survey questionnaires.

The iron and steel industry survey

questionnaires were sent by mail to a

random sample of facilities that were

identified from the following sources:

Association of Iron and Steel

Engineers 1997 Directory: Iron and Steel

Plants Volume 1, Plants and Facilities;

81972 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Iron and Steel Works of the World

(12th edition) directory;

Iron and Steel Society’s Steel Industry

of Canada, Mexico, and the United

States: Plant Locations map;

Member lists from the following trade

associations:

—American Coke and Coal Chemicals

Institute

—American Galvanizers Association

—American Iron and Steel Institute

—American Wire Producers Association

—Cold Finished Steel Bar Institute

—Specialty Steel Industry of North

America

—Steel Manufacturers Association

—Steel Tube Industry of North America

—Wire Association International;

Dun and Bradstreet Facility Index

database; EPA Permit Compliance

System (PCS) database;

EPA Toxic Release Inventory (TRI)

database;

Iron and Steelmaker Journal

‘‘Roundup’’ editions;

33 Metalproducing Journal

‘‘Roundup’’ editions;

33 Metalproducing Journal ‘‘Census of

the North American Steel Industry’’.

These sources were cross-referenced

with one another to obtain site level

information and to ensure the accuracy

and applicability of each site’s

information before inclusion in the

questionnaire mailing list. Based on

these sources, EPA estimated there were

822 facilities generating iron and steel

wastewater. These facilities include the

ones that EPA proposes to include in

the MP&M category regulated under part

438.

c. Sample Selection. To minimize the

burden on the respondents to the survey

questionnaire, EPA grouped the

facilities into 12 strata by the type of

manufacturing processes that took place

in each facility, or if the facility

presented a unique feature (strata 5 & 8).

EPA intends that each stratum

encompasses facilities with similar

operations. This grouping of similar

facilities is known as stratification. The

stratification of the iron and steel

industry is described in Table IV.D.1–1.

TABLE IV.D.1—IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY STRATA

Stratum No. Stratum name No. of sites

in stratum

1 Integrated steel sites with cokemaking ....................................................................................................................... 9

2 Integrated steel sites without cokemaking .................................................................................................................. 12

3 Stand-alone cokemaking sites .................................................................................................................................... 16

4 Stand-alone direct-reduced ironmaking and sintering sites ....................................................................................... 5

5 Detailed survey certainty stratum 1 ............................................................................................................................. 60

6 Non-integrated steel sites ........................................................................................................................................... 69

7 Stand-alone finishing sites and stand-alone hot forming sites ................................................................................... 54

8 Short survey certainty stratum 2 .................................................................................................................................. 13

9 Stand-alone cold forming sites ................................................................................................................................... 62

10 Stand-alone pipe and tubes sites ............................................................................................................................... 164

11 Stand-alone hot coating sites ..................................................................................................................................... 106

12 Stand-alone wire sites ................................................................................................................................................ 252

Total ................................................................................................................................................................................. 822

1This straturm encompasses facilities that otherwise would have included within stratum 6 and stratum 7.

2This stratum encompasses facilities that otherwise would have been included within strata 9 to 12.

Depending on the amount/type of

information EPA determined it needed

for this rulemaking and the number of

facilities in a stratum, EPA either

solicited information from all facilities

within a stratum (i.e., performed a

census) or selected a random sample of

facilities within each stratum. EPA sent

a survey to all the facilities in strata 5

and 8 because of the size, complexity,

or uniqueness of the steel operations

present at these sites. EPA also sent

surveys to all the facilities in strata 1

though 4 because of their manageable

numbers and because of the size,

complexity, and uniqueness of steel

operation present. The remaining sites

in strata 6, 7, and 9 through 12 were

statistically sampled. If the stratum was

censused, those facilities based on the

facility’s probability of selection

represent themselves only. For

statistically sampled strata, the selected

facility is given a survey weight that

allows it to represent itself and other

facilities, within that stratum, that were

not selected to receive a survey

questionnaire. See the Statistical

Support Document for the Effluent

Limitations Guidelines and Standards

for Iron and Steel Industry.

d. Survey Response. Of the 822

facilities generating iron and steel

wastewater, 399 facilities were mailed

either a detailed survey or a short

survey questionnaire.

Eleven sites receiving a survey did not

return a completed survey and thus are

considered non-respondents. Ten sites

receiving surveys were not considered

for further review: seven of these sites

were closed, two sites were considered

part of another site owned by the same

company, and one site received two

surveys under two mailing addresses.

EPA received 378 completed surveys,

including 33 sites that certified that they

were not engaged in iron and steel

activities.

One hundred fifty-four of the

completed surveys were from sites that

EPA later determined to be within the

scope of the MP&M Category; EPA did

not consider those responses for this

proposal. Similarly, two recipients of

MP&M surveys were determined to be

within the scope of the Iron and Steel

Category. See Section III.B for a

discussion of the applicability interface

between these two rules. Therefore, 191

completed iron and steel surveys and

the two MP&M surveys were used in the

development of today’s proposed rule.

In addition to the Detailed and Short

Form surveys, follow-up surveys

regarding treatment system capital costs

and analytical and production data were

also mailed. Of the 90 Cost Surveys

mailed, 88 were completed. All of the

38 Analytical and Production Surveys

were completed. EPA has included in

the public record all information

collected for which the site has not

asserted a claim of Confidential

Business Information.

2. Wastewater Sampling and Site Visits

EPA visited 70 iron and steel sites in

19 states and Canada between 1997 and

1999 to collect information about each

site’s operations, process wastewater

management practices, and wastewater

treatment systems, and to evaluate each

facility for potential inclusion in the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 81973

sampling program. Site visit selection

was based on the type of site (as

described in Section IV.C), the

manufacturing operations at each

facility, the type of steel produced

(carbon, alloy, stainless), and the

wastewater treatment operations.

EPA collected detailed information

from the sites visited such as the

operations associated with each

manufacturing process, wastewater

generation, in-process treatment and

recycling systems, end-of-pipe treatment

technologies, and, if the facility was a

candidate for sampling, the logistics of

collecting samples. EPA has included in

the public record all information

collected during site visits for which the

site has not asserted a claim of

Confidential Business Information.

Based on the information obtained

during site visits, EPA selected 16

facilities to perform wastewater

sampling. EPA selected sites for

sampling using the following criteria:

• The site performed iron and steel

operations representative of iron and

steel industry facilities;

• The site performed high-rate

recycling, in-process treatment, or endof-pipe treatment technologies that EPA

was considering for technology option

development; and

• The site’s compliance monitoring

data indicated that it was operating

among the better performing treatment

systems in the industry or that it

contained wastewater treatment process

for which EPA sought data for option

development.

During each sampling episode, EPA

collected samples of untreated process

wastewater, treatment system effluents,

and other samples that would

demonstrate the performance of

individual treatment units. Samples

were analyzed for approximately 300

analytes spanning the following

pollutant classes: conventional and

nonconventional pollutants, metals,

volatile organics, semivolatile organics,

and dioxins and furans. Analytical

results from untreated samples

contributed to EPA’s characterization of

the industry, development of the list of

pollutants of concern, and development

of raw wastewater characteristics. EPA

used all collected data to evaluate

treatment system performance and to

develop discharge concentrations,

pollutant loadings, and the treatment

technology options for the iron and steel

industry (see Section V). EPA used data

collected from the effluent points to

calculate the long-term averages (LTAs)

and limitations for each of the proposed

regulatory options (see Section IX.A.3);

EPA also used industry-provided data

from the Analytical and Production

Survey to complement the sampling

data for these calculations. During each

sampling episode, EPA also collected

flow rate data corresponding to each

sample collected and production

information from each associated

manufacturing operation for use in

calculating pollutant loadings and

production-normalized flow rates. EPA

has included in the public record all

information collected for which the site

has not asserted a claim of Confidential

Business Information.

3. Analytical Methods

Section 304(h) of the Clean Water Act

directs EPA to promulgate guidelines

establishing test procedures (methods)

for the analysis of pollutants. These

methods allow the analyst 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. To date, EPA

has promulgated methods for all

conventional and toxic pollutants and

for several nonconventional pollutants.

Table I–B at 40 CFR part 136 lists the

analytical methods approved for the five

conventional pollutants. Part 136 also

sets forth the analytical methods for

toxic pollutants. EPA has listed,

pursuant to section 307(a)(1) of the Act,

65 metals and organic pollutants and

classes of pollutants as ‘‘toxic

pollutants’’ at 40 CFR 401.15. From the

list of 65 classes of toxic pollutants, EPA

identified a list of 126 ‘‘Priority

Pollutants.’’ This list of Priority

Pollutants is shown at 40 CFR part 423,

appendix A. The list includes nonpesticide organic pollutants, metal

pollutants, cyanide, asbestos, and

pesticide pollutants.

Currently approved methods for

metals and cyanide are included in the

table of approved inorganic test

procedures at 40 CFR 136.3, Table I–B.

Table I–C at 40 CFR 136.3 lists approved

methods for measurement of nonpesticide organic pollutants, and Table

I–D lists approved methods for the toxic

pesticide pollutants and for other

pesticide pollutants. Direct and indirect

dischargers must use the test methods

approved under 40 CFR 136.3, where

available, to monitor pollutant

discharges from the Iron and Steel

industry, unless specified otherwise in

part 420 or by the permitting authority.

See 40 CFR 122.44 (i)(1)(iv) and

403.12(b)(5)(vi). Sometimes, methods in

part 136 apply only to waste streams

from specified point source categories.

For pollutants with no methods

approved under 40 CFR part 136, the

discharger must use the test procedure

specified in the permit or, in the case of

indirect dischargers, other validated

methods or applicable procedures. See

40 CFR 122.44 (i)(1)(iv) and

403.12(b)(5)(vi).

4. Data Sources

EPA evaluated existing data sources

to gather technical and financial

information and to identify potential

survey recipients and facilities for site

visits.

The Agency gathered technical

information from iron and steel industry

trade journals published from 1985

through 1997 as well as information

from Iron and Steel Society Conference

Proceedings. Trade journals included

Iron and Steel Engineer, published by

the Association of Iron and Steel

Engineers (AISE); Iron and Steelmaker,

published by the Iron and Steel Society

(ISS); and New Steel (formerly Iron

Age), published by Chilton Publications.

These sources provided background

information on industry storm water

and wastewater issues; new and existing

wastewater treatment technologies;

wastewater treatment and

manufacturing equipment upgrades and

installations; company mergers,

acquisitions, and joint ventures; and

identified potential survey recipients

and facilities for site visits.

EPA consulted the U.S. Bureau of

Census publications, Census

Manufacturers—Industry Series and

Current Industrial Reports; the Paine

Webber publication, World Steel

Dynamics; and the American Iron and

Steel Institute (AISI) publication, The

Annual Statistical Report. These sources

provided a variety of financial

information, ranging from aggregate data

on employment and payroll to steel

shipments by product, grade, and

market.

The Agency performed searches on

the following on-line databases:

Pollution Abstracts, Water Resources

Abstracts, Engineering Index, Materials

Business File, National Technical

Information Service (NTIS), Enviroline,

Compendex, and Metadex. The Agency

also searched EPA’s Toxic Release

Inventory and Permit Compliance

System. In addition, the Agency

conducted a review of secondary

sources, which include data, reports,

and analyses published by government

agencies; reports and analyses

published by the iron and steel industry

and its associated organizations; and

publicly available financial information

compiled by both government and

private organizations.

81974 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

5. Summary of Public Participation

EPA has strived to encourage the

participation of all interested parties

throughout the development of the

proposed iron and steel effluent

limitations guidelines and standards.

EPA has conducted outreach with the

following trade associations (which

represent the vast majority of the

facilities that will be affected by this

guideline): American Iron and Steel

Institute (AISI), Steel Manufacturers

Association (SMA), Specialty Steel

Industry of North America (SSINA),

Cold Finished Steel Bar Institute

(CFSBI), the Wire Association

International, Incorporated (WAI), the

American Wire Producers Association

(AWPA), the Steel Tube Institute of

North America (STINA), the American

Galvanizers Association, Incorporated

(AGA), and the American Coke and Coal

Chemicals Association (ACCCI). EPA

has met on several occasions with

various industry representatives,

including the AISI, SMA, AWPA, and

STINA, to discuss aspects of the

regulation development. EPA has also

participated in industry meetings,

giving presentations on the status of the

regulation development on numerous

occasions.

Because some facilities affected by

this proposal are indirect dischargers,

the Agency also conducted outreach to

publicly owned treatment works

(POTWs). EPA also made a concerted

effort to consult with pretreatment

coordinators and state and local entities

that will be responsible for

implementing this regulation.

EPA sponsored five stakeholders’

meetings between December 1998 and

January 2000. Four were in Washington,

DC, and the fifth was in Chicago, IL. The

primary objectives of the meetings were

to present the Agency’s current thinking

regarding the technology bases for

today’s proposed revisions to 40 CFR

part 420 and to solicit comments, issues,

and new ideas from interested

stakeholders, including members of

environmental groups such as the

Natural Resources Defense Council, the

Environmental Defense Fund (now

Environmental Defense), Atlantic States

Legal Foundation, Friends of the Earth,

and Save the Dunes.

During the meetings, EPA presented

process flow diagrams showing

preliminary technology options and

potential best management practices

(BMPs) that may be incorporated into a

revised part 420 and/or included in

National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) permit and

pretreatment guidance. The

presentations were organized by type of

manufacturing process. A discussion

period followed each presentation. In

addition to soliciting comments on the

preliminary options, EPA requested

ideas from the stakeholders to identify

useful incentives for greater pollution

control.

At the meeting, EPA encouraged

participants to supplement their oral

statements with written comments and

supporting data. In that regard, EPA

provided a set of data-quality protocols

for use when submitting data for this

rulemaking effort. This handout, along

with all other handouts and meeting

summaries, are posted on the EPA Iron

and Steel web site at http://

www.epa.gov/OST/ironsteel/. All of the

materials presented at the stakeholders’

meetings, as well as meeting summaries

and any written comments from

participants, also may be found in the

public record for today’s proposal.

E. Subcategorization

1. Methodology and Factors Considered

in Developing Proposed

Subcategorization

The CWA requires EPA, when

developing effluent limitations

guidelines and standards, to consider a

number of different factors. For

example, when developing limitations

that represent the best available

technology economically achievable for

a particular industry category, EPA must

consider, among other factors, the age of

the equipment and facilities in the

category, location, manufacturing

processes employed, types of treatment

technology to reduce effluent

discharges, the cost of effluent

reductions and non-water quality

environmental impacts. See section

304(b)(2)(B) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C.

1314(b)(2)(B). The statute also

authorizes EPA to take into account

other factors that the Administrator

deems appropriate and requires BAT

model technology chosen by EPA to be

economically achievable, which

generally involves consideration of both

compliance costs and the overall

financial condition of the industry.

EPA took these factors into account in

considering whether different effluent

limitations guidelines and standards

were appropriate for subcategories

within the industry. For example, EPA

broke down categories of industries into

separate classes with similar

characteristics. This classification

recognized the major differences among

companies within an industry that may

reflect, for example, different

manufacturing processes, economies of

scale, or other factors. Subdividing an

industry by subcategories results in

developing more tailored regulatory

standards, thereby increasing regulatory

practicability and diminishing the need

to address variations among facilities

through a variance process. See

Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d

1011, 1053 (D.C. Cir. 1978).

For this iron and steel rulemaking,

EPA used industry survey data and EPA

sampling data for the subcategorization

analysis. Various subcategorization

criteria were analyzed for trends in

discharge flow rates, pollutant

concentrations, and treatability to

determine where subcategorization was

warranted. Equipment and facility age

were not found to impact wastewater

generation or wastewater characteristics;

therefore, age was not used as a basis for

subcategorization. Location impacts iron

and steel facilities only in that facilities

located in arid regions tend to

experience greater water loss through

evaporation, resulting in reduced

discharge in some cases. EPA addressed

this difference by selecting flow

allowances for today’s proposed

regulation that are achievable in all

regions of the country irrespective of

climate. Therefore, the Agency deemed

location to be insufficient grounds for

subcategorization. Size (e.g., acreage,

number of employees) was not used as

a subcategorization criterion because it

did not have an influence on

production-normalized wastewater flow

rates or pollutant loadings. Economic

impacts are discussed in Section VI and

with one exception did not show a need

for subcategorization on this basis. The

exception is subpart E (the Integrated

and Stand Alone Hot Forming

subcategory) for which EPA is

proposing alternative BAT approaches

to account for possible economic issues.

See Section IX.E.1. While non-water

quality environmental characteristics

(solid waste and air emission effects) are

of concern to EPA, these characteristics

did not constitute a basis for

subcategorization. Environmental

impacts from solid waste disposal and

from the transport of potentially

hazardous wastewater are dependant on

individual facility practices; EPA could

not identify any common characteristics

particular to a given segment of the

industry. Air emissions also provided

EPA with no basis for different

treatment than those suggested by the

prevailing factors.

EPA identified manufacturing

processes as the determinative factor for

subcategorization. In addition, EPA

used manufacturing processes, type of

product, and wastewater characteristics

(i.e., production-normalized flow rates,

pollutants present) to establish segments

within each subcategory where

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 81975

appropriate. The following section

describes the iron and steel

manufacturing processes.

2. General Description of Manufacturing

Processes

The Iron and Steel Category covers

sites that generate wastewater while

performing one or more of the following

industrial activities: Cokemaking,

sintering, ironmaking, steelmaking,

vacuum degassing, ladle metallurgy,

casting, hot forming, finishing processes

(which include salt bath descaling, acid

pickling, cold rolling, annealing,

alkaline cleaning, hot coating, and

electroplating), direct-reduced

ironmaking, briquetting, and forging.

The following is a brief description of

each of these manufacturing processes.

Cokemaking: Carbon in the form of

metallurgical coke is used to reduce

beneficiated iron ores and other forms of

iron oxides to metallic iron in blast

furnaces. In by-product coke plants, coal

is distilled in refractory-lined, slot-type

ovens at high temperatures in the

absence of air. The moisture and volatile

components of the coal are collected

and processed to recover by-products,

including crude coal tars, crude light oil

(aromatics, paraffins, cycloparaffins and

naphthenes, sulfur compounds, nitrogen

and oxygen compounds), anhydrous

ammonia or ammonium sulfate,

naphthalene, and sodium phenolate.

Wastewater is generated from moisture

contained in the coal charge to the coke

ovens (waste ammonia liquor) and from

some of the by-product recovery

operations.

Two cokemaking operations in the

U.S. use nonrecovery technology. Both

plants use Sun Coke Company’s

proprietary non-recovery technology.

These plants use negative pressure coke

ovens to prevent leakage of air/smoke to

the atmosphere, and higher

temperatures to destroy volatile

organics. The organic compounds are

destroyed within the oven during the

cokemaking process. The nonrecovery

cokemaking process does not generate

any process wastewater.

Sintering: Sinter plants are used to

beneficiate (upgrade the iron content of)

iron ores and to recover iron values

from wastewater treatment sludges and

mill scale generated at integrated steel

mills. A mixture of coke breeze (fine

coke particles), iron ores, sludges, mill

scales, and limestone are charged to a

traveling grate furnace. The mixture is

ignited and air is drawn through the bed

as it travels toward the exit end. Sinter

of suitable size and weight is formed for

charging to the blast furnace.

Wastewaters are generated from wet air

pollution control devices on the wind

box and discharge ends of the sinter

machine.

Ironmaking: Blast furnaces are used to

produce molten iron, which makes up

about two-thirds of the charge to basic

oxygen steelmaking furnaces. The raw

materials charged to the top of the blast

furnace include coke, limestone,

beneficiated iron ores, and sinter. Hot

blast (preheated air) is blown into the

bottom of the furnace. Molten iron is

tapped into refractory-lined cars for

transport to the steelmaking furnaces.

Molten slag, which floats on top of the

molten iron, is also tapped and

processed for sale as a by-product.

The hot blast exits the furnace top as

blast furnace gas in enclosed piping and

is cleaned and cooled in a combination

of dry dust catchers and high-energy

venturi scrubbers. Direct contact water

used in the gas coolers and high-energy

scrubbers comprises nearly all of the

wastewater from blast furnace

operations.

Steelmaking: Steelmaking in the U.S.

is conducted either in basic oxygen

furnaces (BOFs) or electric arc furnaces

(EAFs). BOFs are typically used for high

tonnage production of carbon steels at

integrated mills; EAFs are used to

produce carbon steels and low tonnage

alloy and specialty steels at nonintegrated mills.

Integrated steel mills use BOFs to

refine a metallic charge consisting of

approximately two-thirds molten iron

and one-third steel scrap by oxidizing

silicon, carbon, manganese, phosphorus

and a portion of the iron. Oxygen is

injected into the molten bath. Off-gases

from BOFs in the U.S. are controlled by

one of three methods:

Semi-wet: Furnace off-gases are

conditioned with moisture prior to

processing in electrostatic precipitators;

Wet-open combustion: Excess air is

admitted to the off-gas collection system

allowing carbon monoxide to combust prior

to high-energy wet scrubbing for air pollution

control; and

Wet-suppressed combustion: Excess air is

not admitted to the off-gas collection system

prior to high-energy wet scrubbing for air

pollution control.

Non-integrated mills use EAFs to melt

and refine a metallic charge of scrap

steel. Most EAFs are operated with dry

air cleaning systems with no process

wastewater discharges. There are a

small number of wet and semi-wet

systems.

Vacuum degassing: In this batch

process, molten steel is subjected to a

vacuum for composition control,

temperature control, deoxidation,

degassing, decarburization, and to

otherwise remove impurities from the

steel. Oxygen and hydrogen are the

principal gases removed from the steel.

In most degassing systems, vacuum is

provided by barometric condensers;

thus, direct contact between the gases

and the barometric water occurs.

Ladle metallurgy: In this batch

process, molten steel is refined in

addition to, or in place of, vacuum

degassing. These operations include

argon bubbling, argon-oxygen

decarburization (AOD), electroslag

remelting (ESR), and lance injection.

These additional refining operations do

not use process water.

Casting: Molten steel is tapped from

the BOF or EAF into ladles for transport.

From the ladles, the molten steel is

either processed in ladle metallurgy

stations and/or vacuum degassers prior

to casting into semi-finished shapes in

continuous casters. Less than ten per

cent of the steel produced in the United

States is cast into ingots. Steel cast into

ingot molds must undergo cooling, mold

stripping, reheating, and primary hot

rolling to produce the same semifinished shape that can be produced

with continuous casting. The

continuous casting machine includes a

tundish (receiving vessel for molten

steel), water-cooled molds, secondary

cooling water sprays, containment rolls,

oxygen-acetylene torches for cutoff, and

a runout table. Molten steel is

transferred from the ladle to the tundish

and then to the water-cooled molds at

controlled rates. The steel solidifies as

it passes through the molds and is cut

to length on the runout table.

Wastewater is generated by a direct

contact water system used for spray

cooling and for flume flushing to

transport scale from below the caster

runout table.

Hot forming: Ingots, blooms, billets,

slabs, or rounds are heated to rolling

temperatures in gas-fired or oil-fired

reheat furnaces, and formed under

mechanical pressure with work rolls to

produce semi-finished shapes for

further hot or cold rolling, or finished

shapes for shipment. Process water is

used for scale breaking, flume flushing,

and direct contact cooling.

Finishing processes: These processes

include salt bath and electrolytic

sodium sulfate descaling, acid pickling,

cold forming, annealing, cleaning, and

hot coating and electroplating:

Salt bath descaling—Oxidizing and

reducing molten salt baths are used to

remove heavy scale from specialty and

high-alloy steels. Process wastewaters

originate from quenching and rinsing

operations conducted after processing in

the molten salt baths.

Electrolytic sodium sulfate descaling

is performed on stainless steels for

81976 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

essentially the same purposes as salt

bath descaling.

Acid pickling—Solutions of

hydrochloric, sulfuric, hydrofluoric/

nitric and nitric acids are used to

remove oxide scale from the surfaces of

semi-finished products prior to further

processing by cold rolling, cold

drawing, and subsequent cleaning and

coating operations. Process wastewaters

include spent pickling acids, rinse

waters, and pickling line fume

scrubbers.

Cold rolling—Cold rolling is

conducted on hot rolled and pickled

steels at ambient temperatures to impart

desired mechanical and surface

properties in the steel. Process

wastewater results from using synthetic

or animal-fat based rolling solutions,

many of which are proprietary.

Annealing—Annealing is a heat

treatment process performed to relieve

stresses, increase softness, ductility, and

toughness, and/or to produce a specific

microstructure to the steel. It is

performed in a batch or continuous

process. Batch processes do not use

process water. Wastewaters from

continuous processes result principally

from associated alkaline cleaning

operations and quenching.

Hot coating—Immersion of

precleaned steel into baths of molten

metal. Common metal types include:

Tin, zinc (galvanizing), combinations of

lead and tin (terne coating), and

combinations of aluminum and zinc.

Hot coating is typically used to improve

resistance to corrosion, and for some

products, to improve appearance and

paintability. Wastewaters result

principally from cleaning operations

prior to the molten bath.

Electroplating—Immersion of

precleaned steel into baths for the

purpose of electrodepositing a metal

onto the steel surface. Common metal

types include: tin, chromium, zinc, and

nickel. Process wastewaters include

spent plating baths, rinse waters, and

blowdowns from fume scrubbers.

Direct-reduced ironmaking (DRI): This

process produces relatively pure iron by

reducing iron ore in a furnace below the

melting point of the iron produced. DRI

is used as a substitute for scrap steel in

EAFs to minimize contaminant levels in

the melted steel and to allow economic

steel production when market prices for

scrap are high. Process wastewaters are

generated from air pollution control

devices.

Briquetting: The process of

agglomerating or forming materials into

discrete shapes of sufficient size,

strength, and weight for charging to a

subsequent process (e.g., briquetting

wastewater sludges for charging to a

blast furnace). Briquetting does not

generate process wastewaters.

Forging: A hot forming operation in

which a metal piece is shaped by

hammering. Process wastewaters are

generated in the form of direct contact

cooling water.

3. Proposed Subcategories

In today’s notice, EPA proposes to

discard the current subcategorization

scheme and to establish seven new

subcategories for the iron and steel

industry. The proposed revised

subcategorization not only reflects the

modern state of the industry, in terms of

both process and wastewater

management, but it also incorporates the

experience that the Agency and other

regulatory entities have gained from

implementing the current iron and steel

effluent limitations guidelines and

standards. Additionally, the proposed

revised subcategorization simplifies the

regulatory structure by reflecting cotreatment of compatible wastewaters,

which is currently practiced by the

industry. This practice also provides

economic advantage because compatible

pollutants from different manufacturing

processes can be treated in a single

treatment unit. The seven revised

subcategories proposed for the iron and

steel rulemaking are as follows:

• Cokemaking

• Ironmaking

• Integrated Steelmaking

• Integrated Hot Forming—Stand

Alone Hot Forming Mills

• Non-Integrated Steelmaking and

Hot Forming Operations

• Steel Finishing Operations

• Other Operations

The following table presents a

comparison of the current

subcategorization scheme and the one

being proposed today:

TABLE IV.E.1.—SUBCATEGORY COMPARISON OF CURRENT AND PROPOSED REGULATIONS

Current regulation Proposed regulation

A. Cokemaking A. Cokemaking

B. Sintering B. Ironmaking

C. Ironmaking

D. Steelmaking C. Integrated Steelmaking E. Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot Forming

E. Vacuum Degassing

F. Continuous Casting

G. Hot Forming D. Integrated and Stand-Alone Hot Forming

H. Salt Bath Descaling F. Steel Finishing

I. Acid Pickling

J. Cold Forming

K. Alkaline Cleaning

L. Hot Coating

G. Other Operations

Each subcategory is described in more

detail immediately below in terms of its

manufacturing processes and

wastewater characteristics. Some

subcategories are further segmented to

reflect differences in manufacturing

operations, wastewater characteristics,

or required treatment technologies.

Cokemaking—Subpart A

Subcategory Segment

A: Cokemaking Operations.By-Product

Other (Non-recovery,

etc.)

Cokemaking is proposed as a

subcategory because of the uniqueness

of the manufacturing processes within

the iron and steel industry and the

characteristics of wastewaters generated

by by-product cokemaking operations.

EPA proposes to drop the current

segmentation on the basis of ‘‘iron and

steel’’ and ‘‘merchant’’ coke plants

because differences in wastewater flow

rates observed in the 1982 rulemaking

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 81977

are no longer apparent within the

current population of by-product coke

plants.

Cokemaking operations are segmented

into by-product and other operations,

which comprise currently non-recovery

and heat-recovery coke plants. Any new

cokemaking technologies would fall in

this segment. This segmentation reflects

the fundamental differences in the

respective manufacturing processes. The

by-product cokemaking technology

provides for extensive processing of

materials derived from the coal charged

to the coke ovens, including coke oven

gas and coal tars, as well as light oils

and ammonia or ammonia compounds.

The cokemaking process itself generates

a waste ammonia liquor made up of the

moisture from the coal and volatile and

semi-volatile organic compounds. Other

wastewaters are generated from the byproduct recovery operations. Nonrecovery and heat-recovery coke plants,

on the other hand, do not generate

process wastewaters. Only limited

amounts of non-process wastewaters in

the form of boiler blowdown result from

these operations.

Ironmaking—Subpart B

Subcategory Segment

B: Ironmaking Operations.Blast Furnace

Sintering

The proposed ironmaking subcategory

comprises sintering and blast furnace

operations. Wastewaters result from wet

air pollution control systems at sinter

plants and wet gas cleaning systems for

blast furnaces. The wastewaters are

similar in character in terms of the

pollutants present (ammonia, cyanide,

phenolic compounds and metals) and

are universally co-treated where wet

sinter plants are co-located with blast

furnaces. The subcategory is segmented

to take into account differences in the

model treatment system flow rates used

to develop the proposed effluent

limitations guidelines and standards.

Integrated Steelmaking—Subpart C

The proposed integrated steelmaking

subcategory comprises four

manufacturing processes: Basic Oxygen

Furnace (BOF) steelmaking, ladle

metallurgy, vacuum degassing, and

continuous casting. Section IV.E.2

describes these processes in more

details. The wastewater generated from

the integrated steelmaking operations

originates from wet scrubbing for air

pollution control of the BOF process,

direct contact water with gases from the

vacuum degassing process, and direct

contact water used for spray cooling and

for flume flushing to transport scale

from the casting process. Although these

processes differ in wastewater flow rates

per ton of production, their wastewaters

can be and are commonly co-treated.

The proposed limitations for this

subcategory are based on a single

treatment technology but reflect

different production normalized flow

rates for each process.

This proposed subcategory would

encompass steelmaking operations at

integrated mills and at non-integrated

mills operating basic oxygen furnaces.

Currently, one BOF shop is operated at

a non-integrated mill and would be

included in this proposed subcategory.

Integrated and Stand-Alone Hot

Forming Mills—Subpart D

Subcategory Segment

D: Integrated and

Stand-Alone Hot

Forming Mills.

Carbon and Alloy

Stainless

This proposed subcategory would

encompass hot forming operations at

integrated and stand-alone hot forming

mills. The wastewater generated from

the proposed integrated and stand-alone

hot forming subcategory originates from

process water used for scale braking,

flume flushing, and direct contact

cooling. Although these processes differ

in wastewater flow rates per ton of

production, their wastewaters can be

and are commonly co-treated. The

proposed limitations for this

subcategory are based on a single

treatment technology but reflect

different production normalized flow

rates for each process.

EPA proposes to divide the integrated

and stand-alone hot forming mills

subcategory into two segments—carbon

and alloy steel and stainless steel—in

order to account for the different

product types and wastewater

characteristics. Both segments produce

steel in primary, section, flat, pipe, or

tube.

Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot

Forming Operations—-Subpart E

Subcategory Segment

E: Non-Integrated

Steelmaking and

Hot Forming Operations.

Carbon and Alloy

Stainless

This proposed subcategory would

encompass steelmaking and hot forming

operations at non-integrated mills. The

wastewater generated from this

proposed subcategory originates from

the air pollution control process of

EAFs, direct contact water with gases in

the vacuum degassing process; direct

contact water used for spray cooling and

for flume flushing to transport scale in

the casting process; and process water

used for scale braking, flume flushing,

and direct contact cooling in the hot

forming process. EPA proposes to divide

the non-integrated steelmaking and hot

forming operations subcategory into two

segments—carbon and alloy steel

operations and stainless steel

operations—because of the difference in

product types and in the wastewater

characteristics. Each segment

encompasses the following

manufacturing processes: EAF

steelmaking, ladle metallurgy, vacuum

degassing, continuous casting, and hot

forming. Although these processes differ

in wastewater flow rates per ton of

production, their wastewaters can be

and are commonly co-treated. The

proposed limitations for this

subcategory are based on a single

treatment technology but reflect

different production normalized flow

rates for each process.

Steel Finishing Operations—Subpart F

Subcategory Segment

F: Steel Finishing Operations.Carbon and Alloy

Stainless

This proposed subcategory would

encompass all finishing operations that

take place at integrated, non-integrated,

and stand-alone mills. The wastewater

generated from the proposed steel

finishing subcategory originates from

cleaning, rinsing, and quenching

operations, spent solution from the acid

pickling, alkaline cleaning, and

electroplating operations, fume scrubber

wastewater, and process water resulting

from the use of synthetic or animal-fat

based solutions. EPA proposes to

segment the steel finishing subcategory

into carbon and alloy steel operations

and stainless steel operations because of

the nature of the steel finishing

operations and the associated

wastewater characteristics. Each

segment may include a combination of

the following processes: acid pickling

and other descaling, cold forming,

alkaline cleaning, hot coating, and

electroplating. Section IV.E.2 describes

these manufacturing processes in more

detail. Although these processes differ

in wastewater flow rates per ton of

production, their wastewaters can be

and are commonly co-treated. The

proposed limitations for this

subcategory are based on a single

treatment technology but reflect

different production normalized flow

rates for each process.

81978 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Other Operations—Subpart G

Subcategory Segment

G: Other Operations Direct-Reduced

Ironmaking

Forging

Briquetting

EPA proposes to combine the three

remaining iron and steel operations in a

single catch-all subcategory with

segments for three specific operations:

direct-reduced ironmaking (DRI),

forging, and briquetting. Section IV.E.2

describes these manufacturing processes

in more detail. The three segments differ

in manufacturing operations and in

waste generation and characteristics.

DRI operations currently take place at

stand-alone facilities and non-integrated

mills. Forging operations take place at

stand-alone and non-integrated mills.

Briquetting operations take place at

integrated and non-integrated mills. The

wastewater generated from this

proposed subcategory originates from

fume scrubbers from the DRI process

and direct contact cooling water from

the forging process.

F. Wastewater Characterization

The following sections present

wastewater sources, pollutants of

concern, and flow rates for each

proposed subcategory. Estimates for

pollutant loadings are presented in

Section V.C.

The principal purpose of identifying

subcategory-specific pollutants of

concern (POCs) is to screen pollutants

for possible regulation. Such pollutants

may be either conventional, priority, or

non-conventional pollutants as defined

by the Clean Water Act, and may be

limited directly in part 420, or limited

indirectly through control of other

pollutants. The Agency took the

following approach to identify POCs

and, thereafter, to narrow that list to

those pollutants that are proposed for

regulation.

As the first step, EPA conducted a

sampling and analytical program at 16

steel industry sites. EPA sampled and

analyzed a broad list of pollutants for

purposes of identifying pollutants

present in wastewaters from each type

of process operation and determining

their fate in industry wastewater

treatment systems. As the next step,

EPA determined for each pollutant

subject to the sampling and analytical

program whether it met the following

detection criteria in wastewaters from

that subcategory:

• The pollutant was detected at

greater than or equal to ten times the

analytical minimum level (ML)

concentration in at least 10 percent of

all untreated process wastewater

samples; and

• The mean detected concentration in

untreated process wastewater samples

was greater than the mean detected

concentration in the source water

samples.

EPA identified as pollutants of

concern all pollutants that met these

screening criteria. EPA’s final step was

to determine which of these pollutants

to regulate, either directly through

promulgated limitations and standards

or indirectly through the control of

another pollutant (e.g., an indicator or

surrogate). Of the POCs identified by

EPA, the Agency is proposing not to

regulate those that were detected at

environmentally insignificant

concentrations; those typically not

associated with process wastewaters

from specific process operations; and

those that were detected at low

concentrations, but determined to be

below treatability levels for those

pollutants.

The Agency considered three

pollutants as POCs for all subcategories,

independent of the above criteria: total

suspended solids (TSS), Oil and Grease

measured as hexane extractable material

(HEM), and total petroleum

hydrocarbons measured as silica gel

treated-hexane extractable material

(SGT–HEM). These pollutants are

present to some degree in nearly all

steel industry process wastewaters and

are important indicators of overall

wastewater treatment system

performance. The pH level is also an

important wastewater characteristic and

an important indicator of wastewater

treatment system performance in many

applications in the steel industry.

Therefore, EPA is proposing to regulate

pH in today’s proposed rule. However,

EPA did not evaluate pH for the

purposes of the Agency’s effluent

reduction benefit or cost-effectiveness

analyses, since pH is not expressed in

terms of quantity or concentration.

This section also discusses the

Agency’s methodology for selecting the

process wastewater flow rate for each

manufacturing operation that

corresponds to the best available

technology for the particular

subcategory or segment. These flow

rates are expressed in terms of gallons

of water discharged per ton of

production (gpt) for all operations

except with respect to certain wet air

pollution control devices for steel

finishing operations where the flow

rates are expressed in gallons per

minute (gpm).

For those manufacturing operations

where high-rate recycle is a principal

component of the model BAT, NSPS,

PSES, or PSNS treatment systems, the

Agency has selected productionnormalized flow rates (PNFs) on the

basis of best demonstrated flows

achievable by the subcategory or

segment as a whole. (For some

segments, the best demonstrated flow

for the subcategory as a whole is zero.)

In these systems, the owner or operator

directly controls the volume of the

discharge by controlling the process

water treatment and recycle system.

This is accomplished by managing the

amounts of make-up water and storm

water entering the system; removing

and/or minimizing the potential for

once-through non-process wastewaters

entering the system; and by controlling

recirculating water chemistry to prevent

fouling and scaling, where necessary. In

general, the PNFs for these

subcategories/segments have been

significantly reduced for the proposed

standards, relative to those on which the

original standards are based. This means

that the proposed mass-based standards

are significantly tighter than existing

standards, even where the wastewater

treatment technology on which the

standards are based has not changed. A

detailed presentation of the PNFs on

which the existing standards are based

can be found in Section VII of the

Technical Development Document.

For those manufacturing operations

where high-rate recycle is not a

principal component of the model BAT,

NSPS, PSES, or PSNS treatment

systems, the Agency has chosen to use

a PNF representing the PNFs reported

by the better performing facilities in

those subcategories and segments. In

general, these also represent reductions

in the PNFs used to derive the existing

standards, although not by as much as

for the subcategories/segments where

high-rate recycle is part of the proposed

technology basis. EPA recognizes that in

some cases, the PNFs selected by the

Agency may not be appropriate for all

mills within a subcategory or

manufacturing process subdivision.

Therefore, the Agency solicits

comments and supporting information

and data regarding alternative PNFs that

may be appropriate for particular

manufacturing operations.

1. Cokemaking

a. Wastewater Sources. The proposed

Cokemaking Subcategory encompasses

segments for by-product and nonrecovery cokemaking. Non-recovery

cokemaking does not generate process

wastewater. Wastewater from byproduct cokemaking operations is

generated from a number of sources.

The greatest volume of wastewater

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 81979

generated at every by-product site is

excess ammonia liquor, which is the

condensed combination of coal moisture

and volatile compounds liberated from

the coal during the coking process.

Nearly all sites reported other sources of

wastewater, including: coke oven gas

desulfurization, crude light oil recovery,

ammonia still operation, final gas

coolers, NESHAP controls for benzene,

barometric condensers, coke oven gas

condensates, equipment cleaning, and

wet air pollution control devices used to

control emissions from coal charging

and coke pushing. Excess water used for

coke quenching is another wastewater

source. Water used for coke quenching

is typically plant service water or

treated coke plant wastewater. EPA does

not advocate the practice of coke

quenching with untreated wastewater

because of potential air pollution and

ground water contamination associated

with this practice. Most plants now

collect and treat some process area

storm water and at least one facility

collects and treats contaminated ground

water from its coke plant ground water

remediation system.

b. Pollutants of Concern. From

sampling data and industry-provided

data from the Analytical and Production

Survey, EPA determined that byproduct cokemaking wastewaters

contain oil & grease, ammonia-N,

cyanides, thiocyanates, phenolics,

benzene, toluene, xylene,

benzo(a)pyrene, and numerous other

volatile organic compounds and

polynuclear aromatic compounds. From

these data, EPA identified 74 POCs for

the Cokemaking Subcategory: 4

conventionals, 1 non-conventional

metal, 30 non-conventional organics, 10

other non-conventionals, 22 priority

organics, 3 priority metals, 1 other

priority pollutant (total cyanide),

biochemical oxygen demand (BOD),

total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), and

nitrate/nitrite-N as POCs (the last three

because of their importance as

indicators of biological treatment

effectiveness).

c. Wastewater Flow Rates. The

median volume of process wastewater

generated at well-operated by-product

coke plants is approximately 100 to 110

gallons per ton (gpt) of coke and coke

breeze produced. Approximately 30 to

40 gpt is excess ammonia liquor; the

remaining flow comprises the other

sources listed above. Operators of some

direct discharging facilities often add up

to 50 gpt of control water to their

biological treatment systems to dilute

wastewater toxicity and, to some extent,

control temperature. The Agency is

using a PNF for the by-product recovery

cokemaking segment of 158 gpt. EPA is

proposing that supplemental allowances

be available to sites operating wet coke

oven gas desulfurization systems (15

gpt) or NESHAP control systems (10

gpt). EPA believes that these PNFs can

be achieved by all by-product recovery

coke plants with good water

management practices.

The Agency is using a PNF of 0 gpt

of process wastewater for the nonrecovery cokemaking segment.

2. Ironmaking

a. Wastewater Sources. The proposed

Ironmaking Subcategory encompasses

segments for sintering and blast furnace

ironmaking. Wet air pollution control

systems are the primary source of

process wastewater at sinter plants. All

of the sinter plants generating process

wastewater reported using scrubbers to

control wind box emissions and some

sites also used scrubbers to control

emissions at the discharge end of the

sinter strand.

Gas cleaning systems that utilize highenergy scrubbers and gas coolers are the

primary sources of process wastewater

for blast furnace operations. Other,

relatively minor sources of process

wastewater include blast furnace gas

seals, blast furnace drip legs. Some sites

reported excess water from slag

quenching.

b. Pollutants of Concern. Based on its

analysis sampling data and industryprovided data from the Analytical and

Production Survey, EPA determined

that sintering wastewaters contain the

following principal pollutants: TSS,

O&G, ammonia-N, cyanide, phenolic

compounds, and metals (principally

lead and zinc), while the principal

pollutants from blast furnaces are TSS,

ammonia-N, cyanides, phenolic

compounds, and metals (copper, lead,

and zinc). EPA also found that sintering

wastewaters contain polychlorinated

dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated

dibenzofurnas (PCDDs and PCDFs, or

dioxins and furans).

EPA identified 28 POCs for the blast

furnace segment of the Ironmaking

Subcategory: 2 conventionals, 7 nonconventional metals, 1 nonconventional organic, 10 other nonconventionals, 6 priority metals, 1 other

priority pollutant (total cyanide), and

TKN because of its direct relationship to

ammonia-N, a principal pollutant in

ironmaking wastewaters.

EPA identified 66 POCs for the

sintering segment of the Ironmaking

Subcategory: 2 conventionals, 6 nonconventional metals, 24 nonconventional organics, 11 other nonconventionals, 11 priority organics, 10

priority metals, 1 other priority

pollutant (total cyanide), and TKN

because of its direct relationship to

ammonia-N, a principal pollutant in

ironmaking wastewaters.

EPA documented dioxins and furans

in air emissions from two U.S. sinter

plants, one with dry and one with wet

air pollution control. These findings of

PCDDs/PCDFs (dioxins) in air emissions

from sintering are consistent with the

results of studies in Europe and

Scandinavia during the 1980s. On the

basis of process considerations (e.g.,

feed materials, combustion), EPA

sampled for dioxins and furans in

wastewaters from the following primary

steelmaking operations: by-product coke

plants, sinter plants, blast furnaces, and

steelmaking basic oxygen furnaces. EPA

found several dioxin and furan

congeners in one of two sampled sinter

plant treatment effluents. EPA did not

find 2,3,7,8-TCDD, which is considered

to be the most toxic of all dioxin and

furan congeners. However, EPA did

detect a furan congener in the form of

2,3,7,8-TCDF, as well as other

congeners. In order to evaluate the

toxicity of all of these congeners, EPA

converted the detected quantities into

values equivalent to the toxicity of

2,3,7,8-TCDD. Taken together, these

dioxin and furan congeners are

equivalent in toxicity to 0.09

nanograms/L of 2,3,7,8-TCDD. EPA thus

considers these dioxin and furan

congeners to be Pollutants of Concern

for sinter plants with wet air pollution

control technology under the

ironmaking subcategory.

c. Wastewater Flow Rates. Nearly half

of the operating sinter plants use dry air

pollution control systems and, therefore,

do not generate process wastewater.

Discharge flow rates below 75 gpt are

demonstrated at two of the six sinter

plants with wet air pollution controls.

Eight of the 24 blast furnaces achieve

blowdown rates of 25 gpt and lower by

operating high-rate (>95%) gas cleaning

recycle systems. Several sites report

zero discharge by using blowdown from

gas cleaning systems for slag quenching.

EPA does not advocate slag quenching

with blast furnace process wastewaters

because of documented ground water

contamination associated with this

practice. EPA is using a 75 gpt PNF for

the sintering segment, representing a

flow achievable by sites operating their

process water systems at recycle rates

equal to or greater than 95%, and 25 gpt

for the blast furnaces segment,

representing a flow achievable by sites

operating their process water systems at

recycle rates equal to or greater than

98%. The Agency believes that all sites

can achieve these selected PNFs through

good water management practices in

81980 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

blast furnace and sinter plant process

water treatment and recycle systems.

3. Integrated Steelmaking

a. Wastewater Sources. The proposed

Integrated Steelmaking Subcategory

encompasses the following operations:

BOF steelmaking, ladle metallurgy,

vacuum degassing and continuous

casting. Wet air pollution control

systems are the primary process

wastewater source from BOF

steelmaking. Three types of wet air

pollution control systems are used to

control BOF emissions: Semi-wet, wetopen combustion, and wet-suppressed

combustion. Some sites reported other

BOF process wastewater sources

including excess slag quenching water,

and equipment cleaning water. Vacuum

systems (e.g., barometric condensers,

steam ejectors) are the process

wastewater source from vacuum

degassing systems. Spray contact water

systems used for product cooling and

flume flushing are the largest process

wastewater sources from continuous

casters. Some sites reported other

continuous casting process wastewater

sources including torch table water and

equipment cleaning water. Other

process wastewater sources include

intermittent water losses from closed

caster mold and machine noncontact

cooling water systems.

b. Pollutants of Concern. Based on its

analysis of sampling data and industryprovided data from the Analytical and

Production Survey, EPA determined

that the principal pollutants from BOFs

are TSS and metals (lead and zinc).

Vacuum degassing wastewaters contain

low levels of TSS and metals (lead and

zinc) which volatilize from the steel.

Casting wastewaters typically contain

TSS, O&G measured as HEM, and low

levels of particulate metals.

Using the POC selection criteria

presented above, EPA identified the

following 28 POCs for the Integrated

Steelmaking Subcategory: 2

conventionals, 9 non-conventional

metals, 6 other non-conventionals, 1

priority organic, and 10 priority metals.

c. Wastewater Flow Rates. Three types

of wet air pollution control systems

(semi-wet, wet-suppressed combustion,

wet-open combustion) are commonly

used in the BOF steelmaking operations,

and each system has a different

wastewater flow rate. EPA is using a

PNF of 10 gpt for BOFs operating semiwet systems. Half the operating BOFs

operating semi-wet systems are

discharging less than this amount. Some

operators report achieving zero

discharge by balancing the applied

water for gas conditioning with

evaporative losses. Two of eight BOFs

operating wet-open combustion gas

cleaning systems discharge less than 20

gpt, and two of the seven BOFs

operating wet-suppressed combustion

gas cleaning systems discharge less than

20 gpt. EPA is using a PNF for recycle

system blowdown of 20 gpt at BOFs

with wet-open combustion gas cleaning

systems, and 20 gpt for BOFs equipped

with wet-suppressed combustion gas

cleaning systems. A small number of

BOFs report achieving zero discharge, or

very low discharge, but not all sites are

able to achieve this because of safety

considerations. Four of 12 sites

operating vacuum degassing systems

report a flow rate less than 15 gpt, and

six of 29 continuous casters report a

wastewater discharge rate less than or

equal to 20 gpt. EPA is using a PNF of

15 gpt for vacuum degassing operations,

and a PNF of 20 gpt for continuous

casting operations.

4. Integrated and Stand-Alone Hot

Forming

a. Wastewater Sources. The proposed

Integrated and Stand-Alone Hot

Forming subcategory consists of two

segments: Carbon and alloy, and

stainless. The primary process

wastewater source for facilities in both

segments is contact water systems used

for scale removal, roll cooling, product

cooling, flume flushing, and other line

operations. Some sites reported other

wastewater sources, including roll

shops, basement sumps, lubricating oil

conditioning systems, strip coilers,

scarfer water, wet air pollution control

systems, and equipment cleaning water.

b. Pollutants of Concern. Based on its

analysis of sampling data and industryprovided data from the Analytical and

Production Survey, EPA determined

that the principal pollutants from

integrated and stand-alone hot forming

facilities are TSS, O&G measured as

HEM, and low levels of particulate

metals.

EPA identified the following 12 POCs

for the carbon and alloy segment of the

Integrated and Stand-Alone Hot

Forming Subcategory: 1 conventional

metal, 4 non-conventional metals, 4

other non-conventionals, and 3 priority

metals. EPA identified the following 16

POCs for the stainless segment of the

Integrated and Stand-Alone Hot

Forming Subcategory: 2 conventionals,

4 non-conventional metals, 4 other nonconventionals, and 6 priority metals.

Although EPA found lead at relatively

low concentrations in sampled hot

forming wastewaters, lead is considered

as a POC for both segments of this

subcategory because extensive industrysupplied data indicates lead exists in

appreciable quantities in many hot

forming wastewaters across the

industry.

c. Wastewater Flow Rates. High-rate

recycle, with recycle rates in excess of

95%, is a standard pollution prevention

technique for all types of hot forming

operations. Twenty-one of 68 integrated

and stand-alone hot forming mills have

reported flow rates less than or equal to

100 gpt. EPA is using a 100 gpt PNF at

integrated and stand-alone hot forming

mills. EPA has determined that 100 gpt

PNF represents the best demonstrated

flows at integrated and stand-alone hot

forming mills that operate at a 95%

recycle rate.

5. Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot

Forming

a. Wastewater Sources. The proposed

Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot

Forming Subcategory consists of two

segments: carbon and alloy, and

stainless. These segments encompass

the following operations: EAF (electric

arc furnace) steelmaking, ladle

metallurgy, vacuum degassing,

continuous casting, and hot forming. All

but one EAF in the United States are

equipped with dry or semi-wet air

pollution controls and operate with no

process wastewater discharges. The

process wastewater source from the one

EAF with a wet air pollution control

system is the scrubber water; however

that facility is being converted to a dry

air cleaning system, and no new EAFs

are likely to be constructed with wet air

controls. Accordingly, the Agency is not

proposing separate limits for EAFs with

wet air pollution controls. Any EAF

constructed in the future with wet air

controls will have to meet the limits for

dry systems. The wastewater sources for

non-integrated vacuum degassing, nonintegrated continuous casting, and nonintegrated hot forming are the same as

those listed for operations at integrated

and stand-alone facilities.

b. Pollutants of Concern. From

sampling data and industry-provided

data from the Analytical and Production

Survey, EPA determined that the

principal pollutants for vacuum

degassing operations, continuous casters

and hot forming mills are TSS and

metals. O&G (measured as HEM and

SGT–HEM) is found in process

wastewaters from continuous casting

and hot forming operations.

EPA identified the following 11 POCs

for the carbon and alloy segment of the

Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot

Forming Subcategory: 2 conventionals,

1 non-conventional metal, 5 other nonconventionals, and 3 priority metals.

EPA selected lead as a POC for the

reasons set out above for integrated and

stand-alone hot forming mills. EPA

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 81981

identified the following 23 POCs for the

stainless segment of the Non-Integrated

Steelmaking and Hot Forming

Subcategory: 2 conventionals, 6 nonconventional metals, 7 other nonconventionals, 1 priority organic, and 7

priority metals. EPA selected lead as a

POC for the reasons set out above for

integrated and stand-alone hot forming

mills.

c. Wastewater Flow Rates. Nonintegrated mills have demonstrated

lower discharge volumes than hot

forming at integrated and stand alone

mills because less water is used at these

mills. Two types of air pollution control

systems (semi-wet, and dry) are

commonly used in the EAF steelmaking

operations, and each system has a

different wastewater flow rate. Dry air

cleaning systems generate no process

wastewater. In addition, the hot-forming

manufacturing process produces steel in

primary, section, flat, pipe, or tube; each

product type generates a different

wastewater flow rate. Ten of 25 nonintegrated vacuum degassing systems

and 30 of 73 non-integrated continuous

casting systems reported discharge rates

less than 10 gpt. EPA is using PNFs for

non-integrated vacuum degassing

systems and continuous casters of 10

gpt each. Forty-two of 94 non-integrated

hot forming operations report flows less

than or equal to 50 gpt. EPA is using a

PNF of 50 gpt for non-integrated hot

forming operations, which represents

the best demonstrated flows for nonintegrated hot forming operations

operating at a 95% recycle rate. Many

non-integrated sites report zero

discharge of process wastewater using

high-rate recycle systems for the entire

mill and alternative disposal methods,

although available data suggests that it

would not be economically achievable

for the entire subcategory, or even any

definable sub-group of the existing

facilities, to be able to achieve zero

discharge of process wastewater.

6. Steel Finishing

a. Wastewater Sources. The proposed

Steel Finishing Subcategory consists of

two segments: Carbon and Alloy Steels

and Stainless Steels. The Carbon and

Alloy segment comprises acid pickling

(typically with hydrochloric or sulfuric

acids), cold forming, alkaline cleaning,

hot coating, and electroplating

operations. The Stainless segment

includes salt bath and electrolytic

sodium sulfate (ESS) descaling, acid

pickling (typically with sulfuric, nitric,

and nitric/hydrofluoric acids), cold

forming, and alkaline cleaning. Salt bath

descaling process wastewaters are

generated from quenching and rinsing

operations conducted after the steel is

processed in the molten salt baths and

from fume scrubbers. ESS descaling

wastewaters result from spent baths,

rinse waters, and fume scrubbers. Acid

pickling process wastewaters include

spent pickling acids, rinse waters, and

pickling line fume scrubbers. Process

wastewaters from cold rolling processes

result from spent synthetic or animal-fat

based rolling solutions and equipment

cleaning. Continuous annealing

wastewaters originate from associated

alkaline cleaning operations. Alkaline

cleaning process wastewaters include

cleaning solution and rinse water

blowdown. Wastewaters from hot

coating operations result from product

rinses, fume scrubbers, and cleaning

operations. Wastewaters from

electroplating operations result from

acid and alkaline cleaning operations,

plating solution losses, plating solution

conditioning and treatment, and fume

scrubbers. Tank clean-outs and

equipment cleaning are other

wastewater sources reported by a

number of sites.

b. Pollutants of Concern. Based on its

analysis of sampling data and industryprovided data from the Analytical and

Production Survey, EPA determined

that the principal pollutants from salt

bath descaling in the stainless segment

are TSS, cyanides, hexavalent and

trivalent chromium, and nickel. The

principal pollutants from acid pickling

in both segments are TSS and metals,

although for carbon steel operations, the

principal metals are lead and zinc; and

for stainless steel, chromium and nickel.

The principal pollutants in cold rolling

wastewaters are TSS, O&G measured as

HEM, and metals (lead and zinc for

carbon steels and chromium and nickel

for stainless steels; chromium may also

be a contaminant from cold rolling of

carbon steels resulting from wear on

chromium-plated work rolls). Toxic

organic pollutants including

naphthalene, other polynuclear

aromatic compounds, and chlorinated

solvents have been found in cold rolling

wastewaters.

Because alkaline cleaning baths do

not attack or dissolve the surface of the

steel processed, the principal pollutants

generated from alkaline cleaning

operations are O&G removed from the

steel. There is the potential for the

presence of low levels of toxic organic

pollutants found in cold rolling

solutions. The principal hot coating

pollutants are usually those associated

with the coating metal or metal

combinations and hexavalent chromium

for lines with chromium brightening or

passivation operations. Typical

electroplating pollutants are TSS and

O&G generated from the precleaning

operations and the plated metals from

plating solution losses, rinsing, and

fume scrubbers.

In addition to these pollutants which

EPA identified through its POC

selection criteria process, EPA selected

sulfate and total cyanide as POCs

because these pollutants are present in

sulfuric acid pickling wastewaters and

reducing salt bath descaling

wastewaters, respectively. (EPA did not

sample these two wastewaters during

the sampling program and therefore did

not apply its POC selection criteria.)

EPA identified a total of 38 POCs for

the carbon and alloy segment of the

Steel Finishing Subcategory: 2

conventionals, 10 non-conventional

metals, 7 non-conventional organics, 9

other non-conventionals, 2 priority

organics, and 8 priority metals. EPA

identified a total of 51 POCs for the

stainless segment of the Steel Finishing

Subcategory: 11 non-conventional

metals, 17 non-conventional organics, 9

other non-conventionals, 4 priority

organics, 9 priority metals, and one

other priority pollutant (total cyanide).

c. Wastewater Flow Rates. EPA

subdivided manufacturing operations by

product type to capture differences in

flow associated with different types of

products and different metals coated.

This approach should address product

quality issues associated with water use.

Although a number of mills engaging in

certain finishing operations claim to

need a relatively high PNF, information

in today’s record did not support a

different PNF for the subcategory as a

whole.

The acid pickling, other descaling,

and alkaline cleaning operations are

performed on various steel products

such as sheet, strip, coil, bar, billet, rod,

pipe, tube, and plate; and each product

type generates a different wastewater

flow rate. For cold forming, the

manufacturing process could be

conducted in either single or multiple

mill stands, and the rolling solutions

can be applied in a once-through,

recirculated, or a combined manner; and

the various application technique

generates a different wastewater flow

rate. For the electroplating process,

either chrome/tin or other metals can be

applied to sheet, strip, coil, and plate;

and each product type generates a

different wastewater flow rate.

No stand-alone salt bath descaling

lines were found during the analysis of

the iron and steel industry, and the

industry did not report isolated flows

for salt bath descaling lines that are colocated with combination acid pickling

lines. Therefore, flow rates for salt bath

descaling are included in the flow rates

for combination acid pickling.

81982 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Wastewater discharge rates for acid

pickling vary by product and steel type.

Wastewater discharge rates for acid

pickling vary by product and steel type,

as well as acid used (in the case of

carbon and alloy steels). For

hydrochloric acid pickling of carbon

and alloy steel, EPA is using a PNF of

50 gpt for sheet and strip (achieved by

18 of 47 lines), 490 gpt for bar, billet,

rod, and coil, and 1020 gpt for pipe and

tube. For sulfuric acid pickling of

carbon and alloy steel, EPA is using a

PNF of 230 gpt for strip and sheet

(achieved by five of nine lines), 280 gpt

for bar, billet, rod, and coil, and 500 gpt

for pipe and tube. For acid pickling of

stainless steel, EPA is using a PNF of

230 gpt for bar and billet (representing

the median flow rate), 700 gpt for sheet

and strip (achieved by 19 of 50 lines),

and 35 gpt for plate (representing the

median flow rate). For all pickling

operations with fume scrubbers, EPA is

using a normalized flow rate of 15

gallons per minute (gpm). The PNFs for

hydrochloric and sulfuric acid pickling

for bar, billet, rod, and coil and pipe and

tube are retained from the 1982 Iron and

Steel regulation. The Agency obtained

current PNFs for the other four pickling

operations. EPA is using a PNF of 100

gpm for acid regeneration.

Wastewater discharge rates for cold

forming vary by the number of mill

stands, steel type, and whether rolling

solutions are recirculated. EPA is using

the following PNFs: single stand, direct

application—3 gpt; single stand,

recirculation—1 gpt; multi-stand, direct

application—275 gpt; multi-stand,

recirculation—25 gpt; multi-stand,

combination—143 gpt. EPA is using a

PNF for the alkaline cleaning sections of

continuous annealing lines of 20 gpt

(achieved by seven of 16 stand alone

annealing lines). Wastewater discharge

rates for alkaline cleaning vary by

product and steel type. For carbon and

alloy steel, EPA is using a PNF of 350

gpt for sheet and strip and 20 gpt for

pipe and tube. EPA is using a PNF of

2,500 gpt for stainless sheet and strip.

EPA is using a PNF of 550 gpt for hot

dip coating operations. With the

exception of continuous annealing, each

of these represents the median of PNFs

observed.

Discharge rates for electroplating vary

by the type of metal applied. EPA is

using a PNF of 1,100 gpt for tin and

chromium sheet and strip lines; 550 gpt

for other sheet and strip lines. EPA is

using a PNF of 35 gpt for electroplating

of steel plate. Each of these represents

the median of PNFs observed. For all

electroplating operations with fume

scrubbers, EPA is using a normalized

flow rate of 15 gpm.

7. Other Operations

a. Wastewater Sources. The

subcategory EPA proposes for other

operations encompasses segments for

direct-reduced ironmaking, forging, and

briquetting. Wet air pollution control

systems are the primary process

wastewater source for DRI operations.

Contact water comprises the majority of

the process wastewater from forging

operations. Some sites identified

equipment cleaning as another source of

wastewater from forging operations.

Briquetting operations use dry air

pollution controls and do not generate

process wastewater.

b. Pollutants of Concern. EPA has

only limited sampling and industryprovided data from the Analytical and

Production Survey for forging,

briquetting, and DRI operations. EPA

solicits comments and additional data

for these operations.

Based on all available data, EPA

found that the principal pollutant

parameter from DRI facilities is TSS. For

forging, the principal pollutants are

TSS, O&G measured as HEM, and

metals. All briquetting operations are

dry.

Using the POC selection criteria

presented above, EPA identified 8 POCs

for the Other Operations Subcategory: 1

conventional, 4 non-conventional

metals, and 3 other non-conventionals.

c. Wastewater Flow Rates. The

Agency found forging operations to be

similar to other hot forming operations,

and therefore used a 96% recycle rate,

as demonstrated for other hot forming

operations, as the basis for PNF

determination, giving a PNF for forging

operations of 100 gpt. EPA is using a

PNF for DRI operations of 90 gpt, which

was demonstrated by two of three DRI

plants engaged in high rate recycling of

their scrubber wastewater.

V. Technology Options, Costs, and

Pollutant Reductions

A. Introduction

This section describes the technology

options and associated costs and

pollutant reductions that EPA evaluated

in developing the effluent limitations

guidelines and standards proposed

today for the seven subcategories. To

determine the technology basis and

performance level for the proposed

regulations, EPA developed a database

consisting of daily effluent data

collected from the Analytical and

Production Survey and the EPA

wastewater sampling program. EPA

used this database to support the BPT,

BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS effluent

limitations guidelines and standards

proposed today. While EPA has

proposed effluent limitations guidelines

and standards based on a combination

of processes and treatment technologies,

EPA is not proposing to require a

discharger to use those processes or

technologies in treating the wastewater.

Rather, the processes and technologies

used to treat iron and steel wastewaters

are left to the discretion of each facility;

EPA would require only that the

numerical discharge limits are achieved.

In order to establish the proposed

limits, EPA reviewed data from

treatment systems in operation at a

number of iron and steel facilities and

used the data to calculate concentration

limits that are achievable based on a

well-operated system using the

proposed model processes and

wastewater treatment technologies. In

Section C below, EPA presents a

summary of the technology options EPA

considered for the proposed effluent

limitations guidelines and standards in

each subcategory.

1. Focused Rulemaking Approach

EPA is developing this regulation

using a focused rulemaking approach,

which involves conducting several

aspects of data gathering and analysis

activities in parallel and assessing only

a limited number of regulatory options.

This is unlike the traditional approach

where EPA conducts these efforts in a

serial manner and considers a wider

range of regulatory options. The focused

rulemaking approach is feasible for the

iron and steel regulation because the

Agency has acquired a good

understanding of the industry, its

associated pollutants, and the available

control and treatment technologies from

its prior rulemaking efforts.

Furthermore, EPA also adopted the

focused approach for the iron and steel

regulation in order to meet a courtordered schedule (see Section II.B). In

general, the focused approach allows

EPA to have a more focused data

gathering process and reduces the time

spent investigating marginal regulatory

options. EPA then evaluates each option

it identifies in accordance with the

statutory factors, e.g., the removal

efficiencies and economic achievability

of various model treatment

technologies.

A successfully implemented focused

rulemaking process involves a

combination of early analysis of

available information, focused data

collection effort, and extensive

stakeholder involvement. A key

component of the data gathering process

was using a questionnaire distributed

under authority of section 308 of the

Clean Water Act. See Section IV.D. EPA

worked with stakeholders in developing

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 81983

this questionnaire, which was approved

by the Office of Management and

Budget. For the iron and steel

rulemaking, EPA utilized its 1997

questionnaire results from individual

facilities, in conjunction with EPA’s

field sampling data, to assess the

wastewater characteristics and the

effectiveness of various pollution

control and treatment technologies for

the industry. In addition, EPA also

supplemented the database with

information voluntarily submitted by

industry, permitting and pretreatment

authorities, and vendors. Furthermore,

by involving the stakeholders early in

the rulemaking, the Agency also

developed a good understanding of the

experience that the industry has gained

from pollution control technologies

implemented since the 1980’s, when the

current rule was promulgated.

In addition to early information

gathering and analysis, extensive

stakeholder involvement is also an

important element of the focused

rulemaking process. EPA met with the

industry, environmental groups and

other stakeholders at various stages of

the rulemaking process to discuss the

preferred options and identify issues of

concern. For instance, between

December 1998 and January 2000, EPA

sponsored five stakeholder meetings to

present the technology bases for the

Agency’s preliminary options and to

solicit comments and ideas from the

stakeholders. Section IV.D.5 contains

additional information regarding the

various stakeholder meetings. EPA also

expects to gather additional information

through the public comment process.

As the result of this focused process,

the Agency is proposing a streamlined

group of seven subcategories that will be

used as the framework for revising the

existing effluent limitations guidelines

and standards. Section IV.E explains the

basis for the proposed

subcategorization. Section V.C and IX

contain detailed information on

technology options that were considered

and the selected technologies,

respectively.

During the public comment period on

today’s proposed rule, EPA plans to

continue its data gathering and analysis

efforts for support of the final rule. EPA

may publish in the Federal Register a

subsequent notice of data availability for

data and information that the Agency

may use to support the final rule. Such

data may be generated by EPA or

submitted by stakeholders in response

to this proposal.

EPA encourages full public

participation in developing the final

Iron and Steel Effluent Limitations

Guidelines and Standards. EPA

welcomes comment on all options and

issues and encourages commenters to

submit additional data during the

comment period. EPA also is willing to

talk with interested parties during the

comment period to ensure that EPA

considers the views of all stakeholders

and the best possible data upon which

to base a decision for the final

regulation. EPA will conduct a public

hearing during the public comment

period.

2. Available Technologies

The treatment technologies used by

the iron and steel industry consist of inprocess treatment and reuse of process

solutions and process waters, and endof-pipe physical-chemical and

biological treatment.

The in-process, physical-chemical,

and biological treatment technologies in

use at Iron and Steel facilities include:

• Acid purification: An in-process

resin technology applied to spent acid

baths to adsorb acid and allow

contaminants to pass into a waste

stream. The process produces an acid

which is reused for acid pickling.

• Acid Regeneration: Thermal

decomposition of spent pickle liquor,

which contains free hydrochloric acid,

ferrous chloride, and water.

• Alkaline Chlorination: Chemical

addition of chlorine in a two-stage, pHadjusted system to oxidize cyanide,

ammonia, phenols, and other organic

compounds.

• Biological Treatment: There are

several forms of biological treatment.

For the purpose of this regulation,

biological treatment refers to an

activated sludge system with

nitrification; a continuous flow, aerobic

treatment process which employs

suspended-growth aerobic

microorganisms to biodegrade organic

contaminants and oxidize ammonia to

nitrate. A portion of the biomass is

collected and returned to the activated

sludge system.

• Clarification: Usually a circular,

cone-bottom steel or concrete tank with

a center stilling well and mechanical

equipment at the bottom for settling and

subsequent removal of suspended solids

from the wastewater stream.

• Classification: Any device, such as

a dragout tank or screw classifier, used

to aggregate and remove large

suspended solids from wastewater.

• Coagulation/flocculation:

Coagulation/flocculation causes small

suspended solids such as precipitated

metal hydroxides and biological mixed

liquor solids to aggregate into larger

particles with a density greater than

water. The particles are then separated

from the wastewater by gravity settling.

• Cooling Tower: Direct cooling

through evaporative heat transfer to

lower the temperature of non-contact

cooling water or process water prior to

further treatment or recycle.

• Countercurrent Rinses: The use of a

series of rinse tanks to minimize the

amount of water used to clean the

surface of steel products. Rinse water

overflows from one tank to another in a

direction opposite the flow of steel

product.

• Cyanide Precipitation: Cyanide

precipitation combines free cyanide

with iron to form an insoluble ironcyanide complex that can be

precipitated and removed by gravity

settling.

• Diversion Tank: Tank used to

handle hydraulic or waste loading

surges in cases of emergency overflow.

• Emulsion Breaking: Addition of deemulsifying agents such as heat, acid,

metal coagulants, polymers, and clays to

oily wastewaters to break down

emulsions and produce a mixture of

water and free oil and/or an oily floc.

• Equalization: Equalization through

proper retention and mixing in a tank

dampens variation in hydraulic and

pollutant loadings, thereby reducing

shock loads and increasing treatment

facility performance.

• Free and Fixed Ammonia Still:

Ammonia distillation is the transfer of

gas (ammonia) dissolved in a liquid

(coke plant excess flushing liquor) into

a gas stream (steam). In the coke

industry, flushing liquor is pumped to

the top of a tray-type distillation tower

while steam is injected into the base. As

the rising steam passes through the

boiling flushing liquor moving down the

tray tower, ammonia is transferred from

the liquid to the gas phase, eventually

passing out the top of the tower. A

‘‘free’’ still operates with steam only,

with no alkali addition, to remove

ammonia and acid gases (hydrogen

cyanide, hydrogen sulfide). A ‘‘fixed’’

still is similar to a ‘‘free’’ still except

lime or sodium hydroxide is added to

the liquor to convert the water soluble

ammonium ion to ammonia which can

be removed as a gas.

• Granular Activated Carbon : The

use of granular activated carbon to

remove dissolved organic compounds

from wastewater. When the attractive

forces at the carbon surface overcome

the attractive forces of the liquid,

organic pollutants adsorb to the carbon

particle surface. Pollutants in the water

phase will continue to bond to the

activated carbon until all surface

bonding sites are occupied. When all

bonding sites are occupied, the carbon

is considered to be ‘‘spent’’ and is either

disposed or regenerated.

81984 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

• Heat Exchanger: Device which

allows indirect cooling through the use

of noncontact cooling water to lower the

temperature of wastewater prior to

biological treatment.

• Hexavalent Chromium Reduction:

The use of a reducing agent to convert

hexavalent chromium to trivalent

chromium.

• High-Rate Recycle: A system of

pumps and piping which return treated

and temperature adjusted process water

back to a steel manufacturing process or

air pollution control unit. For purposes

of this proposed rule, high-rate recycle

means recycle of the circulating flow at

95 percent or higher.

• Metals Precipitation: The removal

of metal contaminants from aqueous

solutions by converting soluble, metal

ions to insoluble metal hydroxides. The

precipitated solids are then removed

from solution by coagulation/

flocculation (see definition above)

followed by clarification and/or

filtration. Precipitation is caused by the

addition of chemical reagents such as

sodium hydroxide, lime or magnesium

hydroxide to adjust the pH of the water

to the minimum solubility of the metal.

• Mixed-media Filtration: Mixedmedia filtration involves a fixed (gravity

or pressure) or moving bed of porous

media that traps and removes

suspended solids from water passing

through the media.

• Oil/water Separation: Oil/water

separators are usually long rectangular

tanks in which free oil floats to the

surface, where it can be skimmed off.

Often inclined parallel plates are added

to serve as collecting surfaces for oil

globules. Oil/water separation is

typically preceded by emulsion

breaking (see definition above).

• pH Control: The use of chemical

addition and mixing to adjust the pH of

wastewater to a desired pH level,

usually in the range of 8.5 to 9.0 for

effective metals precipitation.

• Roughing Clarifiers: High surface

loading clarifiers designed to remove

settleable solids from wastewater prior

to filtration or other treatment.

• Scale Pit: An in-ground basin

constructed of concrete for recovery of

scale from process wastewaters used in

hot forming and continuous casting

operations.

• Sludge Dewatering: Gravity

thickening is first accomplished in a

tank equipped with a slowly rotating

rake mechanism which breaks the

bridge between sludge particles, thereby

increasing settling and compaction. A

sludge dewatering device such as a belt

pressure filter, plate-and-frame pressure

filter, or vacuum filter is then used to

mechanically remove excess water from

the sludge.

• Tar/oil Removal: Tar and oils are

recovered from coke plant flushing

liquor by gravity separation in a

flushing liquor decanter and subsequent

tar separation devices including storage

tanks or filtration systems.

B. Methodology for Estimating Costs and

Pollutant Reductions Achieved by

Model Treatment Technologies

EPA estimated industry-wide

compliance costs and pollutant

reductions associated with today’s

proposed rule from data collected

through survey responses, site visits,

sampling episodes, data collected from

state agencies, comments submitted

during the stakeholder process, and

computerized cost and pollutant

loadings models developed for each of

the technology options considered. EPA

calculated facility specific compliance

costs and pollutant reductions for

facilities in the Cokemaking,

Ironmaking, Steelmaking, and Integrated

and Stand Alone Hot Forming

Subcategories. For all other

subcategories, EPA used statistically

calculated survey weights to develop

national estimates of these results.

EPA evaluated wastewater treatment

technology performance for each survey

respondent using effluent data provided

in the Detailed and Short Form Surveys,

effluent data collected from state

agencies for sites that have made

significant wastewater treatment

modifications since 1997, and effluent

data collected during Agency site visits

and sampling episodes conducted from

1996 to 1999. EPA assumed that

facilities whose current pollutant

loadings exceeded the pollutant

loadings associated with each

technology option would incur costs as

a result of compliance with that option.

To determine the wastewater treatment

upgrades or modifications necessary for

each facility to achieve compliance, the

Agency performed an analysis of

wastewater treatment technology in

place using data provided in the

Detailed and Short Form Surveys and

information collected during Agency

site visits and sampling episodes

conducted from 1996 through 1999.

Based on this evaluation, EPA

developed a computerized design and

cost model to estimate the following

capital costs and one-time consulting

fees for each technology option under

consideration.

• Major equipment: purchased

equipment costs, including freight.

• Installation: mechanical equipment

installation, piping installation, civil/

structural (site preparation/grading,

foundations, etc.), and electrical and

process control.

• Indirect costs: costs for temporary

facilities, spare parts, engineering

procurement and contract management

and other costs.

• Contingency: additional costs

included in estimate to account for

unforeseen items in vendor and/or

contractor estimates.

• Consultant costs: single-occurrence

costs associated with hiring an outside

consultant to upgrade wastewater

treatment system performance (e.g.,

improve operating and maintenance to

optimize biological treatment system

performance).

EPA developed major equipment

costs using data from the Cost Survey

and vendor quotes. An engineering and

design firm that has performed

wastewater treatment installations for

the iron and steel industry estimated

indirect costs, installation, and

contingency. Based on Cost Survey data

and the estimates provided by the

engineering and design firm, the Agency

estimated installation costs separately

for each technology option; indirect

costs were assumed to be 28% of total

direct costs; contingency costs were

assumed to be 20% of total direct and

indirect costs. EPA used engineering

judgment to estimate consultant costs,

based on its review of consultant costs.

The Agency also designed the cost

model to estimate incremental operating

and maintenance costs associated with

the following cost items:

• Labor (operating and maintenance)

• Maintenance (materials and

vendors)

• Chemical costs

• Energy costs

• Steam costs

• Sludge/residuals (hazardous/

nonhazardous) disposal costs

• Oil disposal costs

• Sampling/monitoring costs

EPA developed incremental operating

and maintenance costs using data

provided in the Detailed and Short

Form Surveys, Perry’s Chemical

Engineers Handbook—Sixth Edition,

U.S. Department of Energy—Average

Industrial Electrical Costs in 1998, the

1998 Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the

1997 Chemical Market Reporter.

EPA evaluated the hydraulic capacity

of the process water treatment and

recycle systems. Where the system was

found to be capable of recirculating the

incremental flow necessary to achieve

the model BAT discharge flow, EPA

assigned no investment cost for new

equipment in the main treatment and

recycle circuit. In most instances, the

increase in recycle rate was only a few

percent of the total recirculating flow

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 81985

rate. For these cases, EPA assigned a

one-time cost of $50,000 for consultant

and mill services to conduct an

evaluation of the treatment and recycle

system and to modify water

management practices and operations to

achieve the model BAT discharge flow

rate.

For those mills described above where

one-time costs were assigned to achieve

the model BAT discharge flow rate for

the main process water treatment and

recirculation circuit, incremental

operation and maintenance costs were

not assigned. The Agency assumed the

increased costs associated with

modifying the recycle rate (power costs)

would be minimal and offset by likely

savings in recirculating process water

chemical treatment.

EPA requests that interested

stakeholders comment on this costing

approach and offer suggestions for

improvements.

To determine the pollutant loading

reduction associated with process and

treatment upgrades, EPA estimated the

baseline load and the post-compliance

load expected from sites after treatment

improvements and process changes

associated with each technology option.

The post-compliance reduction in

pollutant mass is attributable to both

improved treatment and process

changes, most notably high-rate recycle

for several subcategories. Improved

treatment resulted in lower

concentrations for some pollutants. EPA

estimated that sites with high-rate

recycle have a lower discharge flow and

a subsequent lower pollutant mass

discharged. EPA calculated the

pollutant loading reduction as the

difference between the estimated

baseline load and the post-compliance

load for each technology option. All

pounds reported below are annual

estimates.

EPA compared production

normalized flows, as described in

Section IV.F, with the facilities’ actual

process wastewater flow rates to

determine what level of additional

treatment facilities would have to add to

achieve the level of pollution control

described in the technology options

(e.g., through reducing flow rates). This

was especially important when a

component of the technology option

was high rate recycle. In this way a

facility’s flow rate had a direct impact

on both the expected cost to the facility

and on the pollutant removal EPA

estimated for the facility.

Information on EPA’s compliance cost

and pollutant loading estimates and

methodologies, including the cost

curves for all treatment technologies

considered as the basis for today’s

proposed rule, is located in the public

record. Some of the information EPA

used to estimate compliance costs and

pollutant loadings was claimed by

survey recipients as CBI. This

information is not in the public record.

However, EPA provides in the public

record a number of publicly available

documents that set forth its

methodology, assumptions and rationale

for developing its cost estimates and

that also present as much data as

possible through the use of aggregations,

summaries and other techniques to

mask CBI. EPA encourages all interested

parties to refer to the record and to

provide comment on any aspect of the

methodology or the data used to

estimate compliance costs associated

with today’s proposal.

C. Technology Options, Regulatory

Costs, and Pollutant Reductions

The Agency estimated the costs and

pollutant loading reductions associated

with iron and steel facilities to achieve

compliance for each proposed

technology option under consideration.

This section summarizes the proposed

technology options under consideration

and the estimated costs and pollutant

reductions associated with each option,

by subcategory. For each option the

capital cost, operating and maintenance

costs, and other one-time costs are

presented. See Section VI for a listing of

total annualized costs by subcategory.

All cost estimates in this section are

expressed in terms of pre-tax 1997

dollars. Note that BPT technology

options are discussed where applicable.

1. Cokemaking

a. By-product cokemaking. For the byproduct cokemaking segment of this

subcategory, EPA considered several

different BAT, PSES, NSPS, and PSNS

technologies.

EPA estimates that by-product

cokemaking sites currently discharge

approximately 2.3 million pounds of

conventional pollutants (BOD, TSS, and

O&G) directly. By-product cokemaking

operations discharge approximately 2.7

million pounds of total priority and

non-conventional pollutants directly

and approximately 550,000 pounds

indirectly.

Table V.C.1–1 presents the various

options considered for by-product

cokemaking, Table V.C.1–2 presents the

associated costs, and Table V.C.1–3

presents the associated pollutant

reduction estimates.

TABLE V.C.1.–1.—PROPOSED BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING BAT/PSES TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS

Technology units

Treatment options

BAT–1 BAT–2 BAT–3 BAT–4 PSES–1 PSES–2 PSES–3 PSES–4

Tar/oil removal ................................................................. XXXXXXXX

Equalization/still feed tank ............................................... XXXXXXXX

Free and fixed ammonia still ............................................ XXXXXXXX

Heat exchanger ................................................................ XXXX .............. .............. X X

Cyanide precipitation ....................................................... .............. X .............. .............. .............. X .............. ..............

Equalization tank .............................................................. XXXX .............. .............. X X

Biological treatment with secondary clarification ............. XXXX .............. .............. X X

Sludge dewatering ........................................................... XXXX .............. X X X

Alkaline chlorination ......................................................... .............. .............. X X .............. .............. .............. X

Mixed-media filtration ....................................................... .............. .............. .............. X .............. X .............. ..............

Granular activated carbon ............................................... .............. .............. .............. X .............. .............. .............. ..............

81986 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

TABLE V.C.1–2.—COST OF IMPLEMENTATION FOR COKEMAKING

[In millions of pre-tax 1997 dollars]

Treatment options

BAT–1 BAT–2 BAT–3 BAT–4 PSES–1 PSES–2 PSES–3 PSES–4

Number of mills ................................................................ 14 .............. .............. .............. 8 .............. .............. ..............

Capital costs .................................................................... 8.0 12.4 42.3 66.5 0 6.0 18.6 32.1

Annual O&M costs ........................................................... 0.1 3.0 7.2 14.9 0.3 1.8 3.3 5.8

One-time costs ................................................................. 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

TABLE V.C.1–3.—ESTIMATED POLLUTANT LOADING REDUCTION FOR COKEMAKING

[In million pounds/year]

Treatment options

BAT–1 BAT–2 BAT–3 BAT–4 PSES–1 PSES–2 PSES–3 PSES–4

Incidental Removal of Conventional Pollutants (BOD,

TSS, and O&G) ............................................................ 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.68 .............. .............. .............. ..............

Removal of Priority and Non-conventional Pollutants ..... 0.39 0.39 0.43 0.43 0.18 0.18 0.54 0.54

i. BAT

The technology option identified as

BAT–1 consists of the same

technologies and processes comprising

the current BAT for by-product

cokemaking, but with significant

improvements in design and operation.

Each of the other BAT options builds on

this foundation. Under the first BAT

option, water usage can be reduced by

1.6 million gallons per year from current

levels and the rate of removing nonconventional pollutants can increase by

14% over those levels. The second BAT

option results in no further reduction in

flow beyond BAT–1 levels, but does

result in the additional removal of 24%

of the total cyanide from direct

discharging cokemaking wastestreams

through the use of cyanide

precipitation. The third BAT option also

results in no further reduction in flow

beyond BAT–1 levels, but does result in

the additional removal of 29% of the

total cyanide (as well as additional

removal of other pollutants) from direct

discharging cokemaking wastestreams

beyond BAT–1 levels through the use of

alkaline chlorination. The fourth BAT

option, which was included in the

analysis as a potential means to achieve

significant pollutant reduction, results

in no further reduction in flow beyond

that to be achieved by any of the BAT

options, and does not lead to significant

additional pollutant removal beyond

that to be achieved by BAT–3.

EPA performed a preliminary

assessment of including non-recovery

cokemaking as a technology option for

this segment. While this technology

would result in a zero discharge of

process wastewater and would reduce

air emissions, the Agency did not

consider it as an option for this segment

for the following reasons:

—Non-recovery cokemaking has not

reliably demonstrated the ability to

produce foundry coke. Therefore, it is

not an available technology for the

segment as a whole.

—Non-recovery cokemaking processes

preclude the production of coal byproducts. Therefore, it is not an

available technology for facilities in

this segment that produce these byproducts.

—Choosing non-recovery cokemaking

processes as BAT to the exclusion of

by-product processes would have

significant adverse secondary

economic effects on coal by-products

markets and consuming industries.

For example, the domestic coal tar

refining industry, which consists of 5

companies with 13 facilities in 10

states as of 1997, is dependent upon

the coke by-product production of

crude coal tar as a feedstock.

—The estimated capital cost of

replacing current cokemaking

capacity with non-recovery coke

plants is at least $3 billion. The

estimate does not include full scale

heat recovery for power generation

and flue gas scrubbing. The estimated

additional capital cost for heat

recovery co-generation is at least $2.5

billion.

—The estimated operating costs are

uncertain. The recently constructed

non-recovery coke plant with

associated heat recovery was the final

coke plant to qualify for a federal

alternative energy tax credit, which

expired in June 1998. The presence of

this tax credit clouds comparisons of

operating costs between traditional

by-product cokemaking and nonrecovery cokemaking. Further, it is

uncertain whether heat recovery cogeneration is a necessary component

of non-recovery cokemaking in the

comparison of relative operating costs

of by-product and non-recovery

cokemaking.

—The economic viability of nonrecovery cokemaking is impacted by

site-specific factors, including land

availability and local energy markets.

For example, the local cost of

electricity is a key determinant of the

economic viability of heat recovery

co-generation. Economic viability also

depends on the presence of a large

industrial energy user that would

purchase electrical power and/or

steam from co-generation. In cases

where steel production and coke

production are co-located, this

condition is met; however, a number

of existing coke plants are not colocated with steel production.

ii. PSES

Table V.C.1–1 shows the technical

bases for the PSES options EPA

examined. Except as noted, the

technology basis for PSES–1 consists of

the same technologies and processes

comprising the current PSES for

cokemaking with significant

improvements in design and operation.

This technology option would control

the pollutants EPA has determined pass

through. See Section IX. Unlike the

current PSES model technology,

however, PSES–1 does not include a

dephenolizer. EPA collected

information through its sampling

program and technical surveys that

shows that a dephenolizer is

unnecessary to control the pollutants

that EPA has determined pass through.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 81987

The technology basis for PSES–2

consists of PSES–1 plus cyanide

precipitation, sludge dewatering, and

mixed-media filtration. The technology

basis for PSES–3 is identical to BAT–1.

The technology basis for PSES–4 is

identical to BAT–3.

The technology options for BAT and

PSES are different because they are

designed to control different parameters,

based on EPA’s pass-through analysis

(see Section IX.A.2). For a discussion of

the different technologies, refer to

Section V.A.3.

Under PSES–1, water use can be

reduced by 30% over the current levels,

and the rate of removal of ammonia can

increase by 62% over current levels.

Under PSES–2, water use can be

decreased by an additional 3.5% over

that expected under PSES–1, and

removal of cyanide can increase by 45%

over that expected under PSES–1.

Under PSES–3, the removal of ammonia

can increase by 95% over that expected

under PSES–2. Under PSES–4, there are

virtually no additional removals.

iii. NSPS/PSNS

The technology options EPA

considered for new sources are identical

to those it considered for existing

dischargers because no other treatment

technologies are demonstrated. The

Agency, however, did perform a

preliminary assessment of non-recovery

cokemaking as a technology option for

NSPS for the by-product cokemaking

segment but did not consider it as an

option for the reasons discussed in the

BAT section (Section V.C.1.a.i).

Therefore, all technology options

presented as BAT or PSES options also

describe NSPS and PSNS options.

b. Non-recovery cokemaking. For the

non-recovery cokemaking segment of

this subcategory, EPA considered only

one BPT, BAT, PSES, NSPS and PSNS

technology option, i.e., the technology

in place at the two sites currently using

the non-recovery method for

cokemaking. For a discussion of this

technology, see Section 4 of the

technical development document. The

non-recovery cokemaking process

results in zero discharge because the

non-recovery cokemaking process does

not generate process wastewater.

2. Ironmaking

This proposed subcategory

encompasses two segments: sintering

and blast furnace operations. The

subcategory is segmented to take into

account differences in the model

treatment system flow rates used to

develop the proposed effluent

limitations guidelines and standards.

However, EPA considered the same

technologies for both segments (with the

exception of cooling towers, which are

not used for sinter operations). EPA did

so because, where co-located, the

wastewaters from both these processes

are generally co-treated. BAT and PSES

technologies would apply to either

separate or combined treatment of

wastewater from sintering and blast

furnace operations. Technology options,

costs, and pollutant loading reduction

estimates for these two segments are

presented on a combined basis below

because of co-treatability of the

wastewaters.

EPA estimated that Ironmaking

operations discharge approximately 2.4

million pounds of conventional

pollutants (TSS and O&G) directly.

Ironmaking operations directly

discharge approximately 5 million

pounds of total priority and nonconventional pollutants. The Agency

does not present results for indirect

dischargers, because there is only one

indirect discharger in this proposed

subcategory and data aggregation or

other masking techniques are

insufficient to avoid disclosure of

information claimed as confidential

business information.

Table V.C.2–1 presents the options

considered, Table V.C.2–2 presents the

associated costs, and Table V.C.2–3

presents the associated pollutant

reduction estimates.

a. Blast Furnaces. Some blast furnace

operations achieve zero discharge by

evaporating wastewater on slag. EPA

does not advocate the practice of slag

quenching with blast furnace

wastewater because runoff from the

process can lead to documented ground

water contamination; therefore, the

various treatment options do not

include slag quenching. The Agency

considered sites performing slag

quenching to be zero discharge sites in

the cost and pollutant reduction

estimates because that practice, however

undesirable, would allow them to

achieve compliance with today’s

proposed effluent limitations guidelines

and standards for the blast furnace

segment.

b. Sintering. The source of pollutants

in sinter wastewater is from the sinter

plant’s air pollution control system. Of

the eight sinter plants operating in 1997,

three have achieved zero discharge by

using baghouses in place of wet air

pollution control. The other five sinter

plants generate wastewater as a result of

wet air pollution control and therefore

have installed treatment systems for that

wastewater. The various components of

typical treatment systems are identified

in Table V.C.2–1. EPA considered

whether to explore baghouses as a

technology option, in place of wet air

pollution controls, in an effort to

achieve zero discharge. EPA concluded

that the use of baghouses would not be

a viable option because of significant

retrofit costs and the potential for

adverse non-water quality

environmental impacts, which are

discussed in detail in the iron and steel

technical development document.

i. BAT

The technology option identified as

BAT–1 consists of the same

technologies and processes comprising

the current BAT for ironmaking, but

with significant improvements in design

and operation. EPA intended to evaluate

a second BAT option, building on this

foundation by including granular

activated carbon to the blowdown

treatment. However, EPA did not pursue

the option because all significant POCs

in the effluent after application of BAT–

1 system are projected to exist at levels

too low to be further treated by this or

any other add-on technology.

TABLE V.C.2–1.—IRONMAKING TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS

Treatment units

Technology options

BAT–1 PSES–1

Solids removal ................................................................................................................................................................. X X

Sludge dewatering ........................................................................................................................................................... X X

Cooling tower1 ................................................................................................................................................................. X X

High-rate recycle .............................................................................................................................................................. X X

Blowdown treatment

Metals precipitation .......................................................................................................................................................... X X

Alkaline chlorination ......................................................................................................................................................... X

81988 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

TABLE V.C.2–1.—IRONMAKING TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS—Continued

Treatment units

Technology options

BAT–1 PSES–1

Mixed-media filtration ....................................................................................................................................................... X

1Applies to blast furnace process wastewater only

TABLE V.C.2–2.—COST OF

IMPLEMENTING FOR IRONMAKING

[In millions of pre-tax 1997 dollars]

Technology

options

(BAT–1 and

PSES–1)

Number of mills ........................ 15

Capital costs ............................. 25.8

Annual O&M costs .................... 2.7

One-time costs ......................... 0.7

Data aggregated to protect confidential business information.

TABLE V.C.2–3.—ESTIMATED POLLUTANT LOADING REDUCTION FOR

IRONMAKING

[In million pounds/year]

Technology

options

(BAT–1 and

PSES–1)

Incidental Removal of Conventional Pollutants (TSS and

O&G) ..................................... 2.3

Removal of Priority and NonConventional Pollutants ........ 3.5

Data aggregated to protect confidential business information.

Under BAT–1, water usage can be

reduced by 5% from current levels, and

total loadings of toxic and nonconventional pollutants can be reduced

by 68%.

ii. PSES

The technology option identified as

PSES–1 consists of the same

technologies and processes comprising

the current PSES for ironmaking, but

with significant improvements in design

and operation. This technology option

would control the pollutants EPA has

determined pass through. See Section

IX. Unlike the current PSES model

technology or BAT–1, however, PSES–

1 does not include alkaline chlorination

or mixed-media filtration. Data from

EPA’s iron and steel sampling program

and survey responses indicated that

alkaline chlorination and mixed-media

filtration are unnecessary to control the

pollutants that EPA has determined pass

through.

iii. NSPS/PSNS

The technology options EPA

considered for new sources are identical

to those it considered for existing

dischargers because no other treatment

technologies are demonstrated.

Therefore, all technology options

presented in Table V.C.2–1 as BAT or

PSES options also describe NSPS and

PSNS options.

3. Integrated Steelmaking

EPA is not proposing to further

segment this subcategory. EPA

considered BAT and PSES technologies

for treatment of wastewater for this

subcategory. EPA estimates that

integrated steelmaking operations

directly discharge approximately 2.5

million pounds of conventional

pollutants (TSS and (O&G) and

approximately 6.2 million pounds of

total priority and non-conventional

pollutants. The Agency does not present

results for indirect dischargers, because

there is only one indirect discharger in

this proposed subcategory and data

aggregation or other masking techniques

are insufficient to avoid disclosure of

information claimed as confidential

business information.

Table V.C.3–1 presents the options

considered for integrated steelmaking,

Table V.C.3–2 presents the associated

costs, and Table V.C.3–3 presents the

associated pollutant reduction

estimates.

TABLE V.C.3–1.—INTEGRATED

STEELMAKING TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS

Treatment units

Technology options

BAT–1 PSES–1

Solids removal

with classifier

and clarifier ... X X

Sludge

dewatering ..... X X

Cooling tower1 .. X X

High-rate recycle X X

Blowdown treatment

Metals precipitation ................ X X

1 Cooling tower is part of the treatment system where necessary and was costed

accordingly.

TABLE V.C.3–2.—COST OF IMPLEMENTATION FOR INTEGRATED

STEELMAKING

[In millions of pre-tax 1997 dollars]

Technology

options

(BAT–1 and

PSES–1)

Number of mills ...................... 21

Capital costs ........................... 16.8

Annual O&M costs .................. 2.9

One-time costs ....................... 2.1

Data aggregated to protect confidential business information.

TABLE V.C.2–3.—ESTIMATED POLLUTANT LOADING REDUCTION FOR

STEELMAKING

[In million pounds/year]

Technology

options

(BAT-land

PSES–1)

Incidental Removal of Conventional Pollutants (TSS and

O&G) ..................................... 19

Removal of Priority and NonConventional Pollutants ........ 4.1

Data aggregated to protect confidential business information.

a. BAT. The technology option

identified as BAT–1 consists of the same

technologies and processes comprising

the current BAT for steelmaking, but

with significant improvements in design

and operation. EPA intended to evaluate

a second BAT option, building on this

foundation by including mixed-media

filtration to the blowdown treatment.

However, EPA did not pursue the

option because all significant POCs in

the effluent after application of BAT–1

system are projected to exist at levels

too low to be further treated by this or

any other add-on technology.

Under the BAT–1, water usage can be

reduced by 83% over current levels, and

total loadings of toxic and nonconventional pollutants can be reduced

by 66%. b.

b. PSES. The technology option

identified as PSES–1 consists of the

same technologies and processes

comprising the current PSES for

steelmaking (which is also the same

technical basis as BAT–1), but with

improvements to design and

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 81989

performance. This technology option

would control the pollutants EPA

determined pass through. See Section

IX.

c. NSPS/PSES. The technology

options EPA considered for new sources

are identical to those it considered for

existing dischargers because no other

treatment technologies are

demonstrated. Therefore, all technology

options presented in Table V.C.3–1 as

BAT or PSES options also describe

NSPS and PSNS options.

4. Integrated and Stand Alone Hot

Forming

EPA proposes dividing this

subcategory into two segments: carbon

and alloy steels, and stainless steels. See

Section IV.E above. The treatment

options for the two segments are

identical. For this proposed

subcategory, EPA considered BAT and

PSES technologies for treatment of

wastewater from hot forming operations

located at integrated and stand-alone

facilities.

Table V.C.4.–1 presents the options

considered for integrated and standalone hot forming, Table V.C.4–2

presents the associated costs, and Table

V.C.4–3 presents the associated

pollutant reduction estimates.

TABLE V.C.4–1.—INTEGRATED AND STAND-ALONE HOT FORMING TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS

Treatment units

Technology options

BAT–1 PSES–1

Carbon and Alloy Steels

Scale pit with oil skimming .............................................................................................................................................. X X

Roughing clarifier with oil removal .................................................................................................................................. X X

Sludge dewatering ........................................................................................................................................................... X X

Mixed-media filtration 1 .................................................................................................................................................... X X

High-rate recycle .............................................................................................................................................................. X X

Blowdown treatment ........................................................................................................................................................ .................... ....................

Mixed-media filtration 1 .................................................................................................................................................... X X

Stainless Steels

Scale pit with oil skimming .............................................................................................................................................. X X

Roughing clarifier with oil removal .................................................................................................................................. X X

Sludge dewatering ........................................................................................................................................................... X X

Mixed-media filtration 1 .................................................................................................................................................... X X

High-rate recycle .............................................................................................................................................................. X X

Blowdown treatment

Mixed-media filtration 1 .................................................................................................................................................... X X

1 Mixed-media filtration of recycled flow or low-volume blowdown flow.

TABLE V.C.4–2.—COST OF IMPLEMENTATION FOR INTEGRATED AND STAND-ALONE HOT FORMING

[In millions of pre-tax 1997 dollars]

Technology options

BAT–1 PSES–1

Carbon and Alloy Steels

Number of mills ............................................................................................................................................................ 44 7

Capital costs ................................................................................................................................................................ 115.3 0.3

Annual O&M costs 16.1 0.1

Stainless Steels

Number of mills ............................................................................................................................................................ 0 3

Capital costs ................................................................................................................................................................ 0 1.1

Annual O&M costs ....................................................................................................................................................... 0 0.2

One-time costs ............................................................................................................................................................. 0 0.1

TABLE V.C.4–3.—ESTIMATED POLLUTANT LOADING REDUCTION FOR INTEGRATED AND STAND-ALONE HOT FORMING

[In million pounds/year]

Technology options

BAT–1 PSES–1

Carbon and Alloy Steels

Incidental Removal of Conventional Pollutants (TSS and 22— O&G) ....................................................................... 22 -

Removal of Priority and Non-Conventional Pollutants ................................................................................................ 5.2 0.02

81990 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

TABLE V.C.4–3.—ESTIMATED POLLUTANT LOADING REDUCTION FOR INTEGRATED AND STAND-ALONE HOT FORMING—

Continued

[In million pounds/year]

Technology options

BAT–1 PSES–1

Stainless Steels

Incidental Removal of Conventional Pollutants (TSS and 01— O&G) ....................................................................... 1 0 -

Removal of Priority and Non-Conventional Pollutants ................................................................................................ 1 01 0.001

1 No direct discharging stainless facilities exist in this subcategory.

a. Carbon and Alloy Steels. EPA

estimates that carbon and alloy steel hot

forming operations sites directly

discharge approximately 26 million

pounds of conventional pollutants (TSS

and O&G). These operations also

discharge directly approximately 12

million pounds of total priority and

non-conventional pollutants and

approximately 0.038 million pounds

indirectly.

i. BAT

Currently, effluent limitations

guidelines exists only at the BPT level.

The technical basis of BPT is comprised

of a scale pit with oil skimming, a

roughing clarifier, sludge dewatering,

and filtration. EPA analyzed BAT–1

using the current BPT as a base, but

adding on high rate recycle and mixedmedia filtration of blowdown. This BAT

option resembles the technical basis of

the current NSPS, but with improved

design and operation in terms of

reduced flows and pollutant

concentration. EPA estimates that

implementation of limitations based on

BAT–1 will result in a flow reduction of

84% over current conditions, and a

reduction of 43% of toxic and nonconventional pollutants.

ii. PSES

The technology option for PSES is

identical to that for BAT–1. The

technical basis of PSES–1 is comprised

of a scale pit with oil skimming, a

roughing clarifier, sludge dewatering,

filtration, and high rate recycle, with

mixed-media filtration of blowdown.

This technology option would control

the pollutants EPA determined pass

through. See Section IX. EPA estimates

that this would result in a flow

reduction of 74% over current

conditions, and a 53% reduction in

discharge of toxic and non-conventional

pollutants.

iii. NSPS/PSNS

The technology options EPA

considered for new sources are identical

to those it considered for existing

dischargers because no other treatment

technologies are demonstrated.

Therefore, all technology options

presented in Table V.C.4–1 as BAT or

PSES options also describe NSPS and

PSNS options.

b. Stainless Steels. Stainless steel

integrated and stand-alone hot forming

operations discharge indirectly

approximately 5,000 pounds of total

priority and non-conventional

pollutants. No stainless steel hot

forming sites discharge wastewater

directly.

i. BAT

As stated above, there are no direct

discharging stainless facilities in this

subcategory, and therefore there are no

anticipated pollutant reductions or costs

associated with proposing options for

BAT. However, EPA is proposing BAT

for this segment in the event that a new

stainless facility commences operation

or if an indirect discharger changes its

status to direct before EPA promulgates

this rule. Any such dischargers would

be subject to BAT (not NSPS) because

under 306(b) and EPA’s implementing

regulations a source is a ‘‘new source’’

subject to NSPS only if it commences

construction after the promulgation of

the final rule in April 2002.

As with the Carbon and Alloy

segment, the technology basis of BAT–

1 for the Stainless segment consists of

a scale pit with oil skimming, a

roughing clarifier, sludge dewatering,

filtration, and high rate recycle, with

mixed-media filtration of blowdown.

This BAT option resembles the

technology basis of the current NSPS for

integrated steelmaking and stand-alone

hot forming, but with improved design

and operation in terms of reduced flows

and pollutant concentration. In addition

to BAT–1, EPA intended to analyze a

second BAT option, BAT–1 plus metals

precipitation of the blowdown, for this

segment. However, EPA did not fully

develop the costing information for this

option because data indicated that

adding on metals precipitation for this

type of wastestream would not result in

additional pollutant loadings removals

in systems with well-operated BAT–1

technology in place.

ii. PSES

The PSES–1 option is the same as the

BAT–1 option described above. This

technology option would control the

pollutants EPA determined pass

through. See Section IX. EPA estimates

that PSES–1 would result in a reduction

of 90% of the flow from current levels,

and a 66% removal of toxic and nonconventional pollutants.

iii. NSPS/PSNS

The technology options EPA

considered for new sources are identical

to those it considered for existing

dischargers because no other treatment

technologies are demonstrated.

Therefore, all technology options

presented in Table V.C.4–1 as BAT or

PSES options also describe NSPS and

PSNS options.

5. Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot

Forming

For this proposed subcategory, EPA

considered BAT and PSES technologies

for two segments: Carbon and Alloy

Steels, and Stainless Steels. The

treatment options for the two segments

are identical except for the addition of

metals precipitation of blowdown for

the proposed Stainless Steels segment as

BAT–2. Table V.C.5–1 presents the

various options considered for nonintegrated steelmaking and hot forming,

Table V.C.5–2 presents the associated

costs, and Table V.C.5–3 presents the

associated pollutant reduction

estimates.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 81991

TABLE V.C.5–1 NON-INTEGRATED STEELMAKING TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS

Treatment unit

Technology

options

BAT–1 PSES–1

Carbon & Alloy Steels

Solids removal with clarifier ............................................................................................................................................. X X

Cooling tower 1 ................................................................................................................................................................. X X

Mixed-media filtration 2 .................................................................................................................................................... X X

Sludge dewatering ........................................................................................................................................................... X X

High-rate recycle .............................................................................................................................................................. X X

Blowdown treatment:

Mixed-media filtration 2 ............................................................................................................................................. X X

1 Cooling tower is part of the treatment system where necessary and was costed accordingly

2 Mixed-media filtration of recycled flow or low-volume blowdown flow of hot forming wastewater

Treatment unit

Technology

options

BAT–1 BAT–2 PSES–1

Stainless Steels

Solids removal with clarifier ..................................................................................................................... X X X

Cooling tower 1 ......................................................................................................................................... X X X

Mixed-media filtration 2 ............................................................................................................................ X X X

Sludge dewatering ................................................................................................................................... X X X

High-rate recycle ...................................................................................................................................... X X X

Blowdown treatment:

Metals precipitation ........................................................................................................................... .................... X ....................

Mixed-media filtration 2 ..................................................................................................................... X X X

1 Cooling tower is part of the treatment system where necessary and was costed accordingly

2 Mixed-media filtration of recycled flow or low-volume blowdown flow of hot forming wastewater

TABLE V.C.5–2 COST OF IMPLEMENTATION FOR NON-INTEGRATED STEELMAKING AND HOT FORMING

[In millions of pre-tax 1997 dollars]

Technology

options

BAT–1 PSES–1

Carbon & Alloy Steels

Number of mills ................................................................................................................................................................ 39 15

Capital costs .................................................................................................................................................................... 18.9 2.5

Annual O&M costs ........................................................................................................................................................... 2.0 0.4

One-time costs ................................................................................................................................................................. 3.9 0.8

Technology

options

BAT–1 BAT–2 PSES–1

Stainless Steels

Number of mills ........................................................................................................................................ 4 4 4

Capital costs ............................................................................................................................................ 0.4 3.7 0

Annual O&M costs ................................................................................................................................... 0.1 0.6 0

One-time costs ......................................................................................................................................... 0.2 0.2 0.4

81992 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

TABLE V.C.5–3 ESTIMATED POLLUTANT LOADING REDUCTION FOR NON-INTEGRATED STEELMAKING AND HOT FORMING

[In million pounds/year]

Technology

options

BAT–1 PSES–1

Carbon & Alloy Steels

Incidental Removal of Conventional Pollutants (TSS andO&G) ..................................................................................... 2.6 ....................

Priority and Non-Conventional Pollutants ........................................................................................................................ 0.34 0.001

Technology options

BAT–1 BAT–2 PSES–1

Stainless Steels

Incidental Removal of Conventional Pollutants (TSS and O&G) ...................................................... 0.10 0.10 —

Priority and Non-Conventional Pollutants .......................................................................................... 0.018 0.018 0.012

a. Carbon and Alloy Steels. EPA

estimated that carbon and alloy steel

operations directly discharge

approximately 0.18 million pounds of

conventional pollutants (TSS and O&G).

These operations also discharge

approximately 53,000 pounds of total

toxic and non-conventional pollutants

directly and approximately 14,000

pounds indirectly.

i. BAT

The technology option identified as

BAT–1 consists of the same

technologies and processes comprising

the current BAT for non-integrated

steelmaking, but with significant

improvements in design and operation

resulting in lower flow and reduced

discharge of pollutants of concern. EPA

also investigated zero discharge as the

basis for BAT because some facilities do

achieve zero discharge. However, EPA

believes it is not feasible for the segment

as a whole or any identifiable

subsegment to achieve zero discharge

because of site-specific circumstances,

most significantly the ability to manage

effectively process area storm water.

Accordingly, the investment cost to

retrofit zero discharge at such sites is

likely to be too high to be economically

achievable for the segment as a whole.

EPA estimates that the BAT–1

technology would result in a reduction

of 90% of flow and a 72% reduction in

the discharge of toxic and nonconventional pollutants.

ii. PSES

The technology basis for PSES–1 is

the same as described as BAT–1. The

technological basis for PSES–1 is solids

removal, a cooling tower, mixed-media

filtration, sludge dewatering, high-rate

recycle, and mixed-media filtration of

blowdown. This technology option

would control the pollutants EPA

determined pass through. See Section

IX. EPA concludes that all existing

indirect discharging facilities in this

segment have the equipment in place to

achieve this level of performance, and

would also not incur additional

operating and maintenance costs. See

Section V.B for discussion of why EPA

concludes that facilities can achieve

pollutant reduction without incurring

capital or O&M costs. EPA has included

in its estimate of costs a one-time fee for

facilities to ascertain the changes in

water management needed, and to

implement them.

EPA estimates that the PSES–1

technology would result in a reduction

of flow of 32%, and the reduction in the

discharge of toxic and non-conventional

pollutants by 33%.

iii. NSPS/PSNS

For NSPS/PSNS in the Carbon &

Alloy segment of the Non-Integrated

Steelmaking and Hot Forming

subcategory, EPA identifies process

water and water pollution control

technologies that would result in zero

discharge. The model NSPS/PSNS

technologies consist of treatment and

high-rate recycle systems, management

of process area storm water, and

disposal of low-volume blowdown

streams by evaporation through

controlled application on electric

furnace slag, direct cooling of electrodes

in electric furnaces, and other

evaporative uses. Operators of 24

existing non-integrated steel mills (in

the subcategory as a whole) have

reported zero discharge of process

wastewater. These facilities are located

in various states and produce various

products such as bars, beams, billets,

flats, plate, rail, rebar, rod, sheet, slabs,

small structurals, strip, and specialty

sections. EPA has determined that new

facilities can easily incorporate new

process water treatment and water

pollution control at the design stage,

thus providing avoiding costs associated

with retrofit situations. Consequently,

the Agency has identified zero discharge

as an appropriate NSPS/PSNS for nonintegrated steelmaking and hot forming

operations located in any area of the

United States and producing any

product.

b. Stainless Steels. Stainless steel

operations discharge directly

approximately 180,000 pounds of total

conventional pollutants (TSS and O&G).

Stainless steel operations discharge

approximately 53,000 pounds of total

priority and non-conventional

pollutants directly and approximately

14,000 pounds indirectly.

i. BAT

With one exception, the technology

option identified as BAT–1 consists of

the same technologies and processes

comprising the current BAT for

integrated steelmaking but with

significant improvements in design and

operation. Unlike the current BAT,

however, BAT–1 does not have metals

precipitation. In addition to BAT–1,

EPA analyzed a second BAT option,

BAT–2, which consists of the BAT–1

technology but with metals

precipitation. Although metals

precipitation of blowdown is part of

both the current BAT and BAT–2, EPA’s

data indicated no additional decrease in

pollutant loadings as a result of metals

precipitation. EPA also investigated zero

discharge as the basis for BAT because

some facilities do achieve zero

discharge. However, EPA believes it is

not feasible for the segment as a whole

or any identifiable subsegment to

achieve zero discharge because of siteVerDate 11<MAY>2000 23:48 Dec 26, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27DEP2.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 27DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 81993

specific circumstances, most

significantly the ability to manage

effectively process area storm water.

Accordingly, the investment cost to

retrofit zero discharge at such sites is

likely too high to be economically

achievable for the segment as a whole.

EPA estimates that selection of the

BAT–1 option as the technology basis

would result in the reduction of flow by

this segment of the non-integrated

steelmaking and hot forming

subcategory by 52%, and the reduction

in the discharge of toxic and nonconventional pollutants by 34%.

ii. PSES

The current technological basis for

PSES is solids removal, a cooling tower,

mixed-media filtration, sludge

dewatering, high-rate recycle, and

metals precipitation of blowdown. The

technical basis for PSES–1 is the same

as described as BAT–1. This technology

option would control the pollutants

EPA determined pass through. See

Section IX.

EPA estimates that the PSES–1

technology would result in a reduction

of flow of 89%, and the reduction in the

discharge of toxic and non-conventional

pollutants by 86%.

iii. NSPS/PSNS

Like the Carbon and Alloy segment,

EPA identifies technologies that result

in zero discharge as NSPS/PSNS for the

Stainless segment of the Non-Integrated

Steelmaking and Hot Forming

subcategory. See discussion under

Section V.C.5.a.iii above. The Agency

has identified zero discharge as an

appropriate NSPS for non-integrated

steelmaking and hot forming operations

located in any area of the United States

and producing any product.

6. Steel Finishing

For the proposed Steel Finishing

subcategory, EPA considered BAT and

PSES technologies for the Carbon and

Alloy segment, and Stainless segment.

The treatment options for the two

segments are identical except for the

addition of acid purification units for

the proposed stainless steels segment.

Table V.C.6–1 presents the options

considered for steel finishing, Table

V.C.6–2 presents the associated costs,

and Table V.C.6–3 presents the

associated pollutant reduction

estimates.

TABLE V.C.6–1 STEEL FINISHING TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS

Treatment units

Technology

options

BAT–1 PSES–1

Carbon and Alloy Steels

In-Process Controls:

Countercurrent rinses ...................................................................................................................................................... X X

Recycle of fume scrubber water ...................................................................................................................................... X X

Wastewater Treatment:

Diversion tank .................................................................................................................................................................. X X

Oil/water separation ......................................................................................................................................................... X X

Equalization ..................................................................................................................................................................... X X

Hexavalent chromium reduction 1 .................................................................................................................................... X X

Multiple-stage pH control for metals precipitation ........................................................................................................... X X

Clarification ...................................................................................................................................................................... X X

Sludge dewatering ........................................................................................................................................................... X X

1For sites with hexavalent chromium-bearing wastewater.

Treatment units

Technology

options

BAT–1 PSES–1

Stainless Steels

In-Process Controls:

Countercurrent rinsesX .................................................................................................................................................... X

Recycle of fume scrubber water ...................................................................................................................................... X X

Acid purification units 1 .................................................................................................................................................... X X

Wastewater Treatment:

Diversion tank .................................................................................................................................................................. X X

Oil/water separation ......................................................................................................................................................... X X

Equalization ..................................................................................................................................................................... X X

Hexavalent chromium reduction 2 .................................................................................................................................... X X

Multiple-stage pH control for metals precipitation ........................................................................................................... X X

Clarification ...................................................................................................................................................................... X X

Sludge dewatering ........................................................................................................................................................... X X

1Applies to sites with sulfuric and nitric/hydrofluoric acid baths for stainless products.

2For sites with hexavalent chromium-bearing wastewater.

81994 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

TABLE V.C.6–2 COST OF IMPLEMENTATION FOR STEEL FINISHING

[in millions of pre-tax 1997 dollars]

Technology options

BAT–1 PSES–1

Carbon and Alloy Steels

Number of mills ............................................................................................................................................ 51 31

Capital costs ................................................................................................................................................ 16.0 6.0

Annual O&M costs ....................................................................................................................................... 2.5 1.2

One-time costs ............................................................................................................................................. 1.6 0.8

Technology options

BAT–1 PSES–1

Stainless Steels

Number of mills ............................................................................................................................................ 18 14

Capital costs ................................................................................................................................................ 16.4 4.0

Annual O&M costs ....................................................................................................................................... (1.1) 0.2

One-time costs ............................................................................................................................................. 0.8 0.4

( ) denotes cost savings due to acid purification.

TABLE V.C.6–3 ESTIMATED POLLUTANT LOADING REDUCTION FOR STEEL FINISHING

[in million pounds/year]

Technology

options

BAT–1 PSES–1

Carbon Steels

Incidental Removal of Conventional Pollutants (TSS and O&G) .................................................................................... 2.8 ....................

Removal of Non-Conventionals ....................................................................................................................................... 0.24 0.0017

Technology

options

BAT–1 PSES–1

Stainless Steels

Incidental Removal of Conventional Pollutants (TSS and O&G) .................................................................................... 0.72 ....................

Removal of Non-Conventionals ....................................................................................................................................... 14 0.031

a. Carbon and Alloy Steels. EPA

estimated that carbon and alloy steel

operations directly discharge

approximately 4.6 million pounds of

conventional pollutants (TSS and O&G).

Carbon and alloy steel operations

discharge approximately 1.7 million

pounds of total priority and nonconventional pollutants directly and

approximately 0.017 million pounds

indirectly.

i. BAT

The technical basis of the current

BAT limitations consists of recycle of

fume scrubber water, a diversion tank,

oil/water separation, equalization,

hexavalent chrome reduction (where

applicable), metals precipitation,

clarification, and sludge dewatering.

The technical basis for BAT–1 is the

same as that for the existing BAT

limitations, but with the addition of

counter-current rinsing. BAT–1 also

reflects significant improvements in

design and operation that have occurred

in the industry, which result in lower

flow and reduced discharge of

pollutants of concerns. EPA intended to

evaluate a second BAT option, building

on this foundation by including mixedmedia filtration. However, EPA did not

pursue the option because all significant

POCs in the effluent after application of

BAT–1 system are projected to exist at

levels too low to be further treated by

this or any other add-on technology.

EPA considered zero discharge of

regulated pollutants as a third BAT

option, since certain facilities have

demonstrated the ability to achieve zero

discharge. These facilities generally

have low production rates and are

achieving zero discharge by off-site

disposal of a small quantity of

wastewater. EPA’s data indicates that

zero discharge would not be

economically achievable for low

production facilities as a whole, since

availability of affordable off-site hauling

and disposal may not be certain, and

therefore proposes not to further

subcategorize this segment. Zero

discharge through off-site disposal

would also be cost prohibitive for larger

facilities.

EPA estimates that, under BAT–1,

flow from the Carbon and Alloy segment

of the Steel Finishing subcategory

would decrease by 59%, and the

amount of toxic and non-conventional

pollutants discharged would decrease

by 14%.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 81995

ii. PSES

The technology basis for the current

PSES for steel finishing is the same as

that for the current BAT. The PSES–1

technology is the same as the BAT–1

technology. This technology option

would control the pollutants EPA

determined pass through. See Section

IX. EPA estimates that, under PSES–1,

flow from this segment of the Steel

Finishing subcategory would decrease

by 30%, and the amount of toxic and

non-conventional pollutants discharged

would decrease by 10%.

iii. NSPS/PSNS

The technology options EPA

considered for new sources are identical

to those it considered for existing

dischargers because no other treatment

technologies are demonstrated (since

availability of affordable off-site hauling

and disposal may not be certain.)

Therefore, all technology options

presented in Table V.C.6–1 as BAT or

PSES options also describe NSPS and

PSNS options.

b. Stainless Steels. Stainless steel

operations discharge directly

approximately 1.2 million pounds of

total conventional pollutants (TSS and

O&G). Stainless steel operations

discharge directly approximately 31

million pounds of total priority and

non-conventional pollutants and

approximately 0.31 million pounds

indirectly.

i. BAT

Like the Carbon & Alloy segment of

the Steel Finishing subcategory, the

technology basis of the BAT limitations

currently applicable to Stainless Steel

mills consists of recycle of fume

scrubber water, a diversion tank, oil/

water separation, equalization,

hexavalent chrome reduction (where

applicable), metals precipitation,

clarification, and sludge dewatering.

The technical basis for BAT–1 of the

Stainless segment is the same as that for

the current BAT limitations, but with

the addition of counter-current rinsing

and acid purification units. BAT–1 also

reflects significant improvements in

design and operation that have occurred

in the industry, which result in lower

flow and reduced discharge of

pollutants of concern. EPA intended to

evaluate a second BAT option, building

on this foundation by including mixedmedia filtration. However, EPA did not

pursue the option because all significant

POCs in the effluent after application of

BAT–1 system are projected to exist at

levels too low to be further treated by

this or any other add-on technology.

EPA considered zero discharge of

regulated pollutants as a third BAT

option, since certain facilities have

demonstrated the ability to achieve zero

discharge. EPA’s data indicates that zero

discharge would not be economically

achievable for low production facilities

as a whole, since availability of

affordable off-site hauling and disposal

may not be certain, and therefore

proposes not to further subcategorize

this segment. Zero discharge through

off-site disposal would be cost

prohibitive for larger facilities.

EPA estimates that, under BAT–1,

flow from this segment of the Steel

Finishing subcategory would decrease

by 47%, and the amount of toxic and

non-conventional pollutants discharged

would decrease by 45%. EPA did not

perform a detailed pollutant removal or

costing analysis for BAT–2 because data

indicated that mixed-media filtration

achieved no projected pollutant

reduction beyond that seen at welloperated facilities with BAT–1.

ii. PSES

The technology basis for the current

PSES for steel finishing is the same as

that for the current BAT. The PSES–1

technology is the same as the BAT–1

technology. This technology option

would control the pollutants EPA

determined pass through. See Section

IX. EPA estimates that, under PSES–1,

flow from the stainless segment of the

Steel Finishing subcategory would

decrease by 23%, and the amount of

toxic and non-conventional pollutants

discharged would decrease by 10%.

iii. NSPS/PSNS

The technology options EPA

considered for new sources are identical

to those it considered for existing

dischargers because no other treatment

technologies are demonstrated. EPA’s

data indicates that zero discharge would

not be economically achievable for low

production facilities as a whole, since

availability of affordable off-site hauling

and disposal may not be certain. Zero

discharge through off-site disposal

would be cost prohibitive for larger

facilities. Therefore, all technology

options presented in Table V.C.6–1 as

BAT or PSES options also describe

NSPS and PSNS options.

7. Other Operations

The Agency considered BPT and

PSES technologies for treatment of

wastewater from three segments of this

subcategory: Briquetting, Direct-reduced

ironmaking (DRI), and Forging

operations. There are no existing BPT

limitations for these operations.

a. Briquetting. Briquetting facilities do

not generate process wastewater;

therefore, BPT, PSES, PSNS, and NSPS

technology options for briquetting are

those that result in zero discharge.

b. DRI. EPA identified one option for

this segment, BPT/BCT–1, which

consists of solids removal, clarifier, and

high rate recycle with filtration for

blowdown wastewater. EPA did not

identify a separate BCT technology

because nothing more advanced that the

BPT technology was cost-reasonable as

required by statute. The Agency did not

identify BAT limits since the only POCs

for the DRI segment are conventionals.

Table V.C.7–1 presents the option

considered for DRI, Table V.C.7–2

presents the associated costs, and Table

V.C.7–3 presents the associated

pollutant reduction estimates. The

Agency does not present pollutant

removal or costing results for DRI

facilities, because there are only two

mills in this segment and data

aggregation or other masking techniques

are insufficient to avoid disclosure of

information claimed as confidential

business information.

TABLE V.C.7–1 DIRECT-REDUCED

IRONMAKING BPT/BCT TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS

Treatment units

Technology

options

BPT/BCT

Solids removal with classifier

and clarifier ........................... X

Cooling tower ............................ X

Sludge dewatering .................... X

High-rate recycle ...................... X

Blowdown treatment:

Mixed-media filtration ........ X

TABLE V.C.7–2 COST OF IMPLEMENTATION FOR DIRECT-REDUCED

IRONMAKING

Technology

option

BPT

Number of mills ........................ 2

Capital costs ............................. *

Annual O&M costs .................... *

One-time costs ......................... *

* Data aggregation or other masking techniques are insufficient to protect confidential

business information.

81996 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

TABLE V.C.7–3 ESTIMATED POLLUTANT LOADING REDUCTION FOR DIRECT-REDUCED IRONMAKING

[In pounds/year]

Technology

options

BPT

Total Conventionals (TSS and

O&G as HEM) ....................... *

Reduction of Priority and NonConventional Pollutants ........ *

* Data aggregation or other masking techniques are insufficient to protect confidential

business information.

c. Forging. For forging operations,

EPA estimated that sites discharge

approximately 1,100 pounds of O&G

directly. EPA identified one option for

this segment, BPT/BCT, which is an oil/

water separator. EPA did not identify a

separate BCT technology because

nothing more advanced that the BPT

technology was cost-reasonable as

required by statute. The Agency did not

identify BAT limits since the only POCs

for the forging segment are

conventionals. Table V.C.7–4 presents

the option considered for forging, Table

V.C.7–5 presents the associated costs,

and Table V.C.7–6 presents the

associated pollutant reduction

estimates.

i. BPT/BCT

EPA estimates that there will be a

reduction of O&G of 40% from direct

discharging forging operations as a

result of implementation of this BPT/

BCT option. See Section V.B for

discussion of why EPA concludes that

facilities can achieve pollutant

reduction without incurring capital or

O&M costs.

ii. PSES

EPA is not proposing PSES for the

forging segment because EPA

determined that pollutants present in

forging wastewaters do not pass

through.

iii. NSPS/PSNS

Since no other treatment technologies

have been demonstrated, EPA identifies

the same technology basis for NSPS as

would be used for BPT. EPA is not

identifying PSNS because EPA

determined that pollutants present in

forging wastewaters do not pass

through.

TABLE V.C.7–4 FORGING

TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS

Treatment units

Technology

options

BPT/BCT

High-rate recycle ...................... X

Blowdown treatment:

Oil/water separator ............ X

TABLE V.C.7–5 COST OF

IMPLEMENTATION FOR FORGING

Technology

options

BPT/BCT

Number of mills ........................ 8

Capital costs ............................. 0

Annual O&M costs .................... 0

One-time costs ......................... 0.1

TABLE V.C.7–6 ESTIMATED POLLUTANT LOADING REDUCTION FOR

FORGING

[in pounds/year]

Technology

options

BPT/BCT

Total Conventionals (O&G as

HEM) ..................................... 440

Reduction of Priority and NonConventional Pollutants ........ 0

VI. Economic Analysis

A. Introduction and Overview

This section describes the capital

investment and annualized costs of

compliance with the proposed effluent

limitations guidelines and standards for

the iron and steel industry and the

potential impacts of these compliance

costs on the industry. EPA’s economic

assessment is presented in detail in the

report titled ‘‘Economic Analysis of the

Proposed Effluent Limitations

Guidelines and Standards for Iron and

Steel Manufacturing’’ (hereafter ‘‘EA’’)

and in the rulemaking record. The EA

estimates the economic effect of

compliance costs on subcategory

operations at a site, the combined cost

for all subcategory operations at a site

for selected cost combinations, aggregate

costs for all sites owned by each

company, impacts on employment and

output, domestic and international

markets, and environmental justice

issues. EPA also conducted a small

business analysis, which estimates

effects on small entities, and a costeffectiveness analysis of all evaluated

options.

B. Economic Description of the Iron and

Steel Industry and Baseline Conditions

The United States is the third largest

steel producer in the world with 12

percent of the market, an annual output

of approximately 105 million tons per

year, and nearly 145,000 employees.

Major markets for steel are service

centers and the automotive and

construction industries. A service center

is an operation that buys finished steel,

processes it in some way, and then sells

it. Together these three markets account

for about 58 percent of steel shipments.

The remaining 42 percent is dispersed

over a wide range of products and

activities, such as agricultural,

industrial, and electrical machinery;

cans and barrels; and appliances. The

building of ships, aircraft, and railways

and other forms of transport is included

in this group as well.

The iron and steel rulemaking

includes sites within the North

American Industry Classification

System (NAICS) codes 324199 (coke

ovens, now part of ‘‘All other petroleum

and coal product manufacturing’’),

331111 (iron and steel mills), 331210

(steel pipes and tubes), and 331221

(cold finishing of steel shapes). The iron

and steel and metal products and

machinery effluent guideline

rulemakings both may have sites in the

last two NAICS codes. Section III.C

describes the dividing line between sites

with iron and steel operations and sites

with metal products and machinery

operations.

The iron and steel effluent guideline

would apply to approximately 254 iron

and steel sites. Of these 254 sites,

approximately 216 can be analyzed for

post-regulatory compliance impacts at

the site level. the remaining 38 sites, 13

did not report data at the site level, and

15 could not be analyzed due to being

jointly owned sites or foreign owned

sites or newly constructed sites, and 10

were in poor financial health prior to

the regulation and are treated as

closures under the prevailing baseline

conditions. Approximately 60 sites are

owned by small business entities.

The 254 sites are owned by 115

companies, as estimated by the EPA

survey. The global nature of the

industry is illustrated by the fact that 18

companies have foreign ownership.

Twelve other companies are joint

entities with at least one U.S. company

partner. Excluding joint entities and

foreign ownership, the data base

contains 85 U.S. companies, more than

half of which are privately owned.

Responses to the EPA survey are the

only sources of financial information for

these privately-held firms.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 81997

The EPA survey collected financial

data for the 1995–1997 time period (the

most recent data available at the time of

the survey). This three-year time frame

marks a period of high exports (six to

eight million tons per year). This high

point in the business cycle allowed

companies to replenish retained

earnings, retire debt, and take other

steps to reflect this prosperity in their

financial statements. Even so, an initial

analysis of the pre-regulatory condition

of 115 companies in the EPA survey

indicated that 27 of them would be

considered ‘‘financially distressed’’ for

reasons ranging from start-up companies

and joint ventures to established firms

that still showed losses.

The financial situation changed

dramatically between 1997 and 1998

due to the Asian financial crisis and

slow economic growth in Eastern

Europe. The following analysis of

economic conditions occurring after the

1995–1997 time frame is based upon

sources such as trade journal reports,

Securities and Exchange Commission

(SEC) filings, and trade case filings with

the U.S. Department of Commerce and

the U.S. International Trade

Commission (ITC).

When these countries’ currencies fell

in value, their steel products fell in

price relative to U.S. producers. While

the U.S. is and has been the world’s

largest steel importer (and a net

importer for the last two decades), the

U.S. was nearly the only viable steel

market to which other countries could

export during 1998. U.S. imports

jumped by 13.3 million tons from 41

million to 54.3 million tons—a 32

percent increase—from 1997 to 1998.

About one out of every four tons of steel

consumed in 1998 was imported. At

least partly due to increased

competition from foreign steel mills, the

financial health of the domestic iron

and steel industry also experienced a

steep decline after 1997. This decline is

not reflected in the survey responses to

the questionnaire, which covered the

years 1995 through 1997 and which

were the most recent data available at

the time the questionnaire was

administered in 1998. Based upon

publically available sources, EPA

learned that, after 1997, at least four

companies went into Chapter 11

bankruptcy while at least four

additional companies merged with

healthier ones.

The flood of imports affected the

industry disproportionately. Integrated

steelmakers manufacture semi-finished

and intermediate products, such as slabs

and hot rolled sheet, as well as finished

products, such as cold rolled sheet and

plate. Integrated steelmakers were hurt

most severely during 1998, as imports

increased dramatically across most of

their product line (for example, slabs,

hot rolled sheet and strip, plate, and

cold rolled sheet and strip). Mini-mills

suffered as well, albeit to a lesser extent

financially. The low-priced imports,

however, benefitted some companies

that purchase semi-finished and

intermediate products for further

processing.

The industry filed numerous

countervailing duty and antidumping

cases with the U.S. Department of

Commerce and the U.S. ITC charging

various countries (for example, Japan,

Russia, Brazil) with unfair trade

practices concerning carbon and

stainless steel products. The ITC found

for the U.S. industry in some cases (for

example, hot rolled carbon sheet, carbon

plate, stainless plate) meaning that it

determined that the domestic industry

was materially injured or threatened

with material injury by the imports. In

the case of Russia, the threat of trade

remedies was sufficient to have Russia

agree to voluntarily limit exports of a

variety of steel products to the U.S.

The Clinton administration launched

an initiative to address the economic

concerns of the steel industry in 1999.

The Steel Action Plan includes

initiatives focused on eliminating unfair

trade practices that support excess

capacity, enhanced trade monitoring

and assessment, and maintenance of

strong trade laws. Further in a separate

action on August 17, 1999, President

Clinton signed into law an act providing

authority for guarantees of loans to

qualified steel companies. The

Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Act of

1999 (Pub. L. 106–51) established the

Emergency Steel Guarantee Loan

Program (13 CFR part 400) for

guaranteeing loans made by private

sector lending institutions to qualified

steel companies. The Program will

provide guarantees for up to $1 billion

in loans to qualified steel companies.

These loans will be made by private

sector lenders, with the Federal

Government providing a guarantee for

up to 85 percent of the amount of the

principal of the loan. A qualified steel

company is defined in the Act to mean:

any company that is incorporated under

the laws of any state, is engaged in the

production and manufacture of a

product defined by the American Iron

and Steel Institute as a basic steel mill

product, and has experienced layoffs,

production losses, or financial losses

since January 1998 or that operates

substantial assets of a company that

meets these qualifications. Certain

determinations must be made in order

to guarantee a loan, including that credit

is not otherwise available to a qualified

steel company under reasonable terms

or conditions sufficient to meet its

financing needs, that the prospective

earning power of the qualified company

together with the character and value of

the security pledged must furnish

reasonable assurance of repayment of

the loan to be guaranteed, and that the

loan must bear interest at a reasonable

rate. All loans guaranteed under this

Program must be paid in full not later

than December 31, 2005 and the

aggregate amount of loans guaranteed

with respect to a single qualified steel

company may not exceed $250 million.

According to a March 1, 2000 press

release from U.S. Department of

Commerce, thirteen companies have

applied for loan guarantees totaling $

901 million.

C. Economic Impact Methodology

1. Introduction

This section (and, in more detail, the

EA and record for the proposed rule)

evaluates several measures of economic

impacts that result from the estimated

compliance costs. The analysis in the

EA consists of nine major components:

(1) An assessment of the number of

facilities that could be affected by this

rule; (2) an estimate of the annualized

aggregate cost for these facilities to

comply with the rule using site-level

capital, one-time non-capital, and

annual operating and maintenance

(O&M) costs; (3 and 4) two separate sitelevel closure analyses to evaluate the

impacts of compliance costs for

operations in individual subcategories

at the site and for the combined cost of

the options for all subcategories at the

site; (5) an evaluation of the corporate

financial distress incurred by the

companies in the industry as a result of

combined compliance costs for all sites

owned by the company; (6) an industrywide market analysis of the impacts of

the compliance costs; (7) an evaluation

of secondary impacts such as those on

employment and economic output; (8)

an analysis of the effects of compliance

costs on small entities; and (9) a costbenefit analysis pursuant to E.O. 12866.

All costs are reported in this section

of the preamble in 1999 dollars, with

the exception of cost-effectiveness

results, which, by convention, are

reported in 1981 dollars. The primary

source of data for the economic analysis

is the Collection of 1997 Iron and Steel

Industry Data (Section 308 Survey).

Other sources include government data

from the Bureau of the Census, industry

trade journals, and EPA’s Development

Document for this rulemaking.

81998 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

2. Methodology Overview

The starting point for the economic

analysis is the cost annualization model,

which uses site-specific cost data and

other inputs to determine the

annualized capital, one-time noncapital, and O&M costs of improved

wastewater treatment. This model uses

these costs along with the companyspecific real cost of capital (discount

rate) and corporate tax rate over a 16-

year analytic time frame to generate the

annual cost of compliance for each

option EPA considered. EPA based the

16-year time frame for analysis on the

depreciable life for equipment of this

type—15 years according to Internal

Revenue Service (IRS) rules—plus a

mid-year convention for putting the new

equipment in operation (i.e., six months

between purchase, installation and

operation). The model generates the

present value and annualized post-tax

cost for each option for each site in the

survey, which are then used in the

subcategory, site, and company

analyses, discussed below. In the base

case, the Agency adopts an assumption

of zero ‘‘cost pass-through’’ of

compliance costs. The Agency also

estimates a ‘‘cost pass-through’’ factor

from the market model discussed below

and uses the result to examine the

sensitivity of the impact analysis to the

‘‘cost pass-through’’ assumption.

In the subcategory analysis, EPA

models the economic impacts of

regulatory costs from individual

subcategories on a site. The site analysis

evaluates the combined costs on the

profitability of the site. In both, the

model compares the present value of

forecasted cash flow over 16 years with

the present value of the regulatory

option over the same 16-year period. If

the present value of the regulatory costs

exceeds that of the projected cash flow,

it does not make financial sense to

upgrade the site. That is, if the present

value of projected cash flow is positive

before, but negative after, the incurrence

of regulatory costs, the site is presumed

to close. the analysis, cash flow at the

site-level is defined as the sum of net

income and depreciation. The measure

is widely used within industry in

evaluating capital investment decisions

because both net income and

depreciation (which is an accounting

offset against income, but not an actual

cash expenditure) are potentially

available to finance future investment.

However, assuming that total cash flow

is available over an extended time

horizon (for example, 15 years) to

finance investments related to

environmental compliance could

overstate a site’s ability to comply. EPA

requests comment (see Section XIV for

an amplified discussion) on its use of

cash flow as a measure of resources

available to finance environmental

compliance and suggestions for

alternative methodologies.

EPA developed three forecasting

models for the iron and steel industry.

None of these methods assume any

growth in real terms and are calculated

in terms of constant 1997 dollars. This

conservative approach precludes any

site from ‘‘growing’’ its way out of

financial difficulties imposed by the

regulation. Site-specific data are only

available for 1995 to 1997. The period

form 1998 to 2001 is the rulemaking

period and the forecasting methods

begin. Promulgation is scheduled for

2002; this is taken as the first year of

implementation and the beginning of

the 16-year period over which to

consider the regulatory impact on

projected earnings. The first two models

explicitly address the sharp downturn

in the industry after 1997 but differ in

the strength and duration of recovery

and subsequent downturns. That is,

both address the cyclicality seen in the

iron and steel industry, but with

differing magnitudes and timing. The

third forecasting method is a three-year

average (1995 through 1997) to provide

an ‘‘upper bound’’ analysis.

EPA calculates the post-regulatory

status of a site as the present value of

forecasted earnings minus the after-tax

present value of regulatory costs. With

three forecasting methods, there are

three ways to evaluate each site. If a

site’s post-regulatory status is less than

zero, EPA assigned a score of ‘‘1’’ for

that forecasting method. A site, then,

may have a score ranging from zero to

three. Closure is the most severe and

irrecoverable impact for the site. Such a

decision is not made lightly. A business

would examine a site’s future in several

ways and would likely make a

determination to close a site only when

the weight of evidence so indicated.

EPA followed the same decision-making

logic; a score of 2 or 3 is interpreted to

identify the long-term non-viability of

the site.

EPA could not perform an economic

analysis of a number of sites at the

subcategory and site levels, even though

the annualized costs were calculated.

these sites, the analysis defaults to the

company level. A site may be in this

category for several reasons: It is a cost

center; it is a ‘‘captive’’ site that exists

primarily to produce products

transferred to other sites under the same

ownership; components for the analysis

are not recorded on the site’s books,

only those of the company; or the site’s

cash flow is negative for at least two

years (sufficient to project a negative

present value for earnings). Consistent

with OMB guidance, EPA estimated

postcompliance closures by counting

projected closures due solely to the

effect of the proposed rule. Direct

impacts, such as loss in employment,

revenues, production, and (possibly)

exports are calculated from projected

closures.

EPA evaluated many methods to

estimate corporate financial distress

reported in the economic literature of

the last ten years and chose the

‘‘Altman’s Z’’’ model. This well-known

and well-tested model was developed to

analyze the financial health of both

private and public manufacturing firms.

It is based on empirical data and creates

a weighted average of financial ratios,

thus avoiding the difficulty in

interpreting multiple ratios with

differing implications for financial

health. The single index, Z’, is

compared against the ranges developed

by Altman to indicate ‘‘good,’’

‘‘indeterminate,’’ and ‘‘distressed’’

financial conditions. EPA examines

1997 financial data (the most recent

collected in the survey) to estimate the

pre-regulatory company conditions.

EPA then aggregates costs for all sites

belonging to that company. EPA

recalculates Altman’s Z’ after

incorporating the effects of the pollution

control compliance costs into the

income statement and balance sheet for

the company. All companies whose

‘‘Altman’s Z’ ’’ score changes such that

the company goes from a ‘‘good’’ or

‘‘indeterminate’’ baseline category to a

‘‘distressed’’ postcompliance category

are classified as impacted. Such

companies may have significant

difficulties raising the capital needed to

comply with the proposed rule, which

can indicate the likelihood of

bankruptcy, loss of financial

independence, or shedding of assets.

EPA uses input-output analyses to

determine the effects of the regulation

using national-level employment and

output multipliers. Input-output

multipliers allow EPA to estimate the

effect of a loss in output in the iron and

steel industry on the U.S. economy as a

whole. Every projected closure has

direct impacts in lost employment and

output. These direct losses also have

repercussions throughout the rest of the

economy and the input-output

multipliers allow EPA to calculate the

national losses in output and

employment based on the direct

impacts.

EPA also determines the impacts on

regional-level employment. The

increase in metropolitan statistical area

(MSA) unemployment level, or county if

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 81999

non-metropolitan, is calculated for each

MSA or county in which there is at least

one projected closure.

EPA investigated the industry-wide

market effects of the regulation. EPA

performed a 3-stage non-linear leastsquares econometric estimation of a

single-product translog cost model

based on 20 years of U.S. Census and

industry data. The market supply

relationship is derived from the cost

function and accounts for the effect of

imperfect competition in the steel

market. The model also incorporates

international trade. The model estimates

the supply shift, and the resulting

changes in: domestic price, domestic

consumption, export demand, and

import supply. The model results may

be used to estimate a ‘‘cost passthrough’’ factor indicating the portion of

the increased cost that the iron and steel

industry can pass through to the

customers.

D. Economic Costs and Impacts of

Technology Options by Subcategory

In this section, EPA presents the

capital costs and post-tax total

annualized costs for each technology

option in each subcategory. As

discussed above in Section VI.C.2, the

cost annualization model derives total

post-tax annualized costs from sitespecific capital costs, one-time

noncapital costs, and operating and

maintenance costs, but only capital

costs are reported here. a detailed

presentation of all costing information,

see Section V. As noted in Section VI.B,

ten facilities are projected to close under

baseline conditions and are not

included further in the economic

analysis. this reason, the costs and

removals reported in Section VI. will

differ from the results reported in the

engineering analysis in Section V.

The Agency evaluates the first stage of

the impact analysis by projecting the

impacts associated with the regulatory

costs for a single subcategory (or

segment) at a site. example, a fully

integrated facility may have

cokemaking, ironmaking, integrated

steelmaking, hot forming and finishing

operations, but the postcompliance cash

flow analysis only reflects the regulatory

costs associated with a single

subcategory. This stage of the analysis

serves as a screening mechanism for

potentially significant impacts for

facilities which may be impacted by

options in multiple subcategories.

Alternatively, for any facility with

operations in a single subcategory such

as a stand-alone coke plant, this stage

represents the complete facility level

analysis.

1. Cokemaking

a. By-product Cokemaking.

i. BAT. The regulatory compliance

costs associated with BAT options 1 and

2 for by-product cokemaking are not

projected to result in any

postcompliance facility closures. The

regulatory compliance costs associated

with BAT Options 3 and 4 are projected

to result in one postcompliance closure,

with a potential job loss of less than 500

full time equivalent employees (FTEs).

TABLE VI.D.1 BAT OPTIONS, COSTS, AND IMPACTS FOR BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING

OPTION Pre-tax capital

cost (1999$ M)

Post-tax

total

annualized cost

(1999$ M)

Impacts

Closures/Job

losses

1 ................................................................................................... $8.3 $1.0 0/0

2 ................................................................................................... 12.9 4.1 0/0

3 ................................................................................................... 35.8 7.2 1/<500

4 ................................................................................................... 56.1 12.2 1/<500

ii. PSES. The regulatory compliance

costs associated with PSES options 1, 2,

3, and 4 are not projected to result in

any postcompliance closures.

TABLE VI.D.2 PSES OPTIONS, COSTS, AND IMPACTS FOR BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING

OPTION Pre-tax

capital cost (1999$ M)

Post-tax

total annualized cost

(1999$ M)

Impacts

Closures/Job losses

1 ................................................................................................... $0.0 $0.2 0/0

2 ................................................................................................... 6.2 1.8 0/0

3 ................................................................................................... 19.3 4.1 0/0

4 ................................................................................................... 33.4 6.7 0/0

iii. NSPS and PSNS. The technology

options EPA considered for new sources

are identical to those it considered for

existing dischargers. Engineering

analysis indicates that the cost of

installing pollution control systems

during new construction is less than the

cost of retrofitting existing facilities.

Because EPA projects the costs for new

sources to be less than those for existing

sources and because limited or no

impacts are projected for existing

sources, EPA does not expect significant

economic impacts for new sources.

b. Non-recovery Cokemaking. i. BAT

and PSES. The technology option for

both BAT and PSES is zero discharge.

No compliance costs are associated with

these options as all existing sources

currently meet the zero discharge

requirement. Since there are no

compliance costs, there are no impacts

resulting from the BAT and PSES

option.

ii. NSPS and PSNS. The technology

option EPA considered for new sources

are identical to those it considered for

existing dischargers. No compliance

costs are associated with the zero

discharge option, just as in the case of

existing sources. Likewise, no impacts

are projected to result from the new

source requirements, just as in the case

of existing sources.

82000 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

2. Ironmaking

a. BAT and PSES. The regulatory

compliance costs associated with the

BAT option and the PSES option are not

projected to result in any

postcompliance closures. The Agency

does not separately present costs for

direct and indirect dischargers, because

there are less than 3 indirect dischargers

and data aggregation or other masking

techniques are insufficient to avoid

disclosure of information claimed as

confidential business information.

TABLE VI.D.3 BAT AND PSES COSTS AND IMPACTS FOR IRONMAKING SUBCATEGORY

Pre-tax

Capital cost (1999 $ M)

Post-tax

Total Annualized Cost

(1999 $ M)

Impacts

Closures/Job

losses

BAT and PSES ............................................................................ $26.8 $4.5 0/0

b. NSPS and PSNS. The technology

options EPA considered for new sources

are identical to those it considered for

existing dischargers. Engineering

analysis indicates that the cost of

installing pollution control systems

during new construction is less than the

cost of retrofitting existing facilities.

Because EPA projects the costs for new

sources to be less than those for existing

sources and because limited or no

impacts are projected for existing

sources, EPA does not expect significant

economic impacts for new sources.

3. Integrated Steelmaking

a. BAT and PSES. The regulatory

compliance costs associated with the

BAT option and the PSES option are not

projected to result in any

postcompliance closures. The Agency

does not separately present costs for

direct and indirect dischargers, because

there are less than 3 indirect dischargers

and data aggregation or other masking

techniques are insufficient to avoid

disclosure of information claimed as

confidential business information.

TABLE VI.D.4 BAT AND PSES COSTS AND IMPACTS FOR INTEGRATED STEELMAKING

Pre-tax capital cost

(1999$ M)

Post-tax

Total annualized cost

(1999$ M)

Impacts

Closures/

Job losses

BAT and PSES ............................................................................ $17.5 $3.6 0/0

b. NSPS and PSNS. The technology

options EPA considered for new sources

are identical to those it considered for

existing dischargers. Engineering

analysis indicates that the cost of

installing pollution control systems

during new construction is less than the

cost of retrofitting existing facilities.

Because EPA projects the costs for new

sources to be less than those for existing

sources and because limited or no

impacts are projected for existing

sources, EPA does not expect significant

economic impacts for new sources.

4. Integrated and Stand-alone Hot ming

a. Carbon and Alloy. i. BAT and

PSES. The regulatory compliance costs

associated with the BAT option and the

PSES option are not projected to result

in any postcompliance closures.

TABLE VI.D.5 BAT AND PSES COSTS AND IMPACTS FOR INTEGRATED AND HOT MING, CARBON

Pre-tax

capital cost (1999$ M)

Post-tax

Total annualized cost

(1999$ M)

Impacts

Closures/Job losses

BAT .............................................................................................. $116.3 $21.2 0/0

PSES ........................................................................................... 0.3 0.1 0/0

ii. NSPS and PSNS. The technology

options EPA considered for new sources

are identical to those it considered for

existing dischargers. Engineering

analysis indicates that the cost of

installing pollution control systems

during new construction is less than the

cost of retrofitting existing facilities.

Because EPA projects the costs for new

sources to be less than those for existing

sources and because limited or no

impacts are projected for existing

sources, EPA does not expect significant

economic impacts for new sources.

b. Stainless. i. BAT and PSES. The

regulatory compliance costs associated

with the BAT option and the PSES

option are not projected to result in any

postcompliance closures.

TABLE VI.D.6 BAT AND PSES COSTS AND IMPACTS FOR INTEGRATED AND HOT MING, STAINLESS

Pre-tax

Capital cost (1999$ M)

Post-tax

total annualized cost

(1999$ M)

Impacts

Closures/Job losses

BAT:

PSES .................................................................................... $0.8 $0.1 0/0

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 82001

ii. NSPS and PSNS. The technology

options EPA considered for new sources

are identical to those it considered for

existing dischargers. Engineering

analysis indicates that the cost of

installing pollution control systems

during new construction is less than the

cost of retrofitting existing facilities.

Because EPA projects the costs for new

sources to be less than those for existing

sources and because limited or no

impacts are projected for existing

sources, EPA does not expect significant

economic impacts for new sources.

5. Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot

ming

a. Carbon and Alloy. i. BAT and

PSES. The regulatory compliance costs

associated with the BAT option and the

PSES option are not projected to result

in any postcompliance closures.

TABLE VI.D.7.—BAT AND PSES COSTS AND IMPACTS FOR NON-INTEGRATED STEELMAKING AND HOT MING, CARBON AND

ALLOY

Pre-tax

capital cost (1999$ M)

Post-tax

total annualized cost

(1999$ M)

Impacts

Closures/

Job losses

BAT .............................................................................................. $19.0 $2.8 0/0

PSES ........................................................................................... 2.6 0.4 0/0

ii. NSPS and PSNS. The technology

options EPA considered for new sources

are identical to those it considered for

existing dischargers, with the addition

of a zero discharge option. A substantial

number of recently constructed facilities

have been able to achieve zero

discharge. EPA believes the zero

discharge new source option would not

present a barrier to entry because as of

1997, a total of 24 nonintegrated

facilities of all types have been able to

achieve zero discharge.

b. Stainless. i. BAT and PSES. The

regulatory compliance costs associated

with either BAT option and the PSES

option are not projected to result in any

postcompliance closures.

TABLE VI.D.8.—BAT AND PSES COSTS AND IMPACTS FOR NON-INTEGRATED STEELMAKING AND HOT MING, STAINLESS

Pre-tax

capital cost (1999$ M)

Post-tax

total annualized cost

(1999$ M)

Impacts

Closures/

Job losses

BAT 1 ........................................................................................... $0.4 $0.1 0/0

BAT 2 ........................................................................................... 3.8 0.7 0/0

PSES ........................................................................................... 0.0 0.02 0/0

ii. NSPS and PSES. The technology

options EPA considered for new sources

are identical to those it considered for

existing dischargers, with the addition

of a zero discharge option. A substantial

number of recently constructed facilities

have been able to achieve zero

discharge. EPA believes the zero

discharge new source option would not

present a barrier to entry because as of

1997, a total of 24 nonintegrated

facilities of all types have been able to

achieve zero discharge.

6. Steel Finishing

a. Carbon and Alloy. i. BAT and

PSES. The regulatory compliance costs

associated with the BAT option and the

PSES option are not projected to result

in any postcompliance closures.

TABLE VI.D.9.—BAT AND PSES COSTS AND IMPACTS FOR STEEL FINISHING, CARBON AND ALLOY

Pre-tax

capital cost (1999$ M)

Post-tax

total annualized cost

(1999$ M)

Impacts

Closures/

Job losses

BAT .............................................................................................. $14.8 $2.9 0/0

PSES ........................................................................................... 6.2 1.7 0/0

ii. NSPS and PSNS. The technology

options EPA considered for new sources

are identical to those it considered for

existing dischargers. Engineering

analysis indicates that the cost of

installing pollution control systems

during new construction is less than the

cost of retrofitting existing facilities.

Because EPA projects the costs for new

sources to be less than those for existing

sources and because limited or no

impacts are projected for existing

sources, EPA does not expect significant

economic impacts for new sources.

b. Stainless i. BAT and PSES. The

regulatory compliance costs associated

with the BAT option and the PSES

option are not projected to result in any

postcompliance closures.

82002 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

TABLE VI.D.10.—BAT AND PSES COSTS AND IMPACTS FOR STEEL FINISHING, STAINLESS

Pre-tax

capital cost (1999$ M)

Post-tax

total annualized cost

(1999$ M)

Impacts

Closures/

Job losses

BAT .............................................................................................. $15.8 $0.2 0/0

PSES ........................................................................................... 4.2 0.4 0/0

ii. NSPS and PSNS. The technology

options EPA considered for new sources

are identical to those it considered for

existing dischargers. Engineering

analysis indicates that the cost of

installing pollution control systems

during new construction is less than the

cost of retrofitting existing facilities.

Because EPA projects the costs for new

sources to be less than those for existing

sources and because limited or no

impacts are projected for existing

sources, EPA does not expect significant

economic impacts for new sources.

7. Other Operations.

a. Direct Reduced Iron. i. BPT. The

regulatory compliance costs associated

with the BPT option are not projected to

result in any postcompliance closures.

The Agency does not present costs for

direct dischargers, because there are

only 2 direct dischargers in this segment

and data aggregation or other masking

techniques are insufficient to avoid

disclosure of information claimed as

confidential business information.

TABLE VI.D.11.—BPT COSTS AND IMPACTS DIRECTED REDUCED IRON

Pre-tax

capital cost (1999$ M)

Post-tax

total annualized cost

(1999$ M)

Impacts

Closures/

Job losses

BPT .............................................................................................. ........................................ ........................................ 0/0

b. ging. i. BPT. The regulatory

compliance costs associated with the

BPT option are not projected to result in

any postcompliance closures.

TABLE VI.D.12.—BPT COSTS AND IMPACTS GING

Pre-tax

capital cost (1999$ M)

Post-tax

total annualized cost

(1999$ M)

Impacts

Closures/

Job losses

BPT .............................................................................................. $0.0 $0.05 0/0

E. Facility Level Economic Impacts of

Regulatory Options

In this section, the Agency evaluates

the second stage of the impact analysis

by projecting the impacts associated

with the regulatory costs for all

subcategories affected at a facility or site

(the terms are used interchangeably).

example, a fully integrated facility may

have cokemaking, ironmaking,

integrated steelmaking, hot forming and

finishing operations, and the

postcompliance cash flow analysis

reflects the regulatory costs associated

with all affected operations at the site.

This stage of the analysis evaluates the

aggregate regulatory costs and impacts

upon each facility, which may be

subject to the proposed rule and incur

compliance costs in multiple

subcategories.

The incorporation of the aggregate

regulatory costs based upon the

proposed options across all

subcategories into the postcompliance

cash flow analysis does not generate any

additional projected facility closures

(one facility closure was projected in the

first stage of analysis—see Section

VI.D.1). The Agency conducted the

facility level analysis both with and

without allowing for potential cost

passthrough and the results are

unchanged. The Agency determines the

set of proposed options across all

subcategories to be economically

achievable.

F. Firm Level Impacts

In this section, the Agency evaluates

the economic impacts of the regulatory

options to the firms that own the

facilities potentially subject to this

proposed rule. EPA evaluates the third

stage of the impact analysis by

incorporating the regulatory costs borne

by each facility into the financial status

of the firm that owns the facility or

multiple facilities. example, if a

company owns an integrated facility, a

stand-alone coke facility, and a standalone finishing facility, the aggregate

regulatory costs for all three facilities

are added to the baseline or

precompliance financial conditions of

the firm as reflected by the firm income

statement and balance sheet. The

Agency then calculates the

postcompliance Altman Z-score and

checks for changes in financial status

from good or indeterminate to distressed

with any such changes to be considered

impacts.

In any combination of costs that

includes the adoption of the BAT option

for carbon and alloy steel segment of the

integrated and stand-alone hot forming

subcategory, the Agency projects the

financial health of at least one multiple

facility firm to deteriorate from

indeterminate to financially distressed.

A financially distressed company may

have significant difficulties raising the

capital needed to comply with the

proposed rule, which can lead to the

sale of assets, likelihood of bankruptcy,

or the loss of financial independence.

The one or more firms that are projected

to be impacted have a current work

force numbering in the several

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 82003

thousands. In contrast, any combination

of costs that does not include adoption

of the BAT option for the carbon and

alloy steel segment of the integrated and

stand-alone hot forming subcategory,

the Agency projects no firms to

experience an impact.

The Agency projected only one

postcompliance facility closure in the

facility-level analysis for the entire

proposed rule. This result indicates the

viability of virtually all facilities as

going concerns. The firm level analysis

projects at least one firm may be

financially distressed postcompliance.

Given the continued viability of

virtually all facilities including those in

the carbon and alloy steel segment of

the integrated and stand-alone hot

forming subcategory, EPA expects that a

financially distressed firm would

respond to the financial distress by

selling assets. The sale of assets (such as

a facility) may include the continued

operation by the purchasing firm,

resulting in limited job losses or

secondary impacts. The Agency

determines the set of proposed options

across all subcategories to be

economically achievable.

G. Community Impacts

The Agency evaluates community

impacts by examining the potential

increase in county or metropolitan

statistical area (MSA) unemployment.

The Agency assumes all employees of

the affected facilities reside in the

county (if the county is not part of a

larger metropolitan area) or

metropolitan area in which the facilities

are located. In the case of the single

facility closure/firm associated with the

by-product cokemaking BAT options 3

and 4, the impacts increase the county

unemployment rate by 0.6 percent.

In the case of the BAT option for the

carbon and alloy steel segment of the

integrated and stand-alone hot forming

subcategory, the Agency examines the

effects if the one or more firms that

become financially distressed lay off all

of its workers, which corresponds to a

worst case scenario. The one or more

distressed firms have multiple facilities

in various locations. The Agency

assumes all employees of each affected

facility reside in the county or

metropolitan area in which the facility

is located. The resulting impacts range

from increasing the metropolitan

unemployment rate by less than 0.1

percentage points to increasing the

metropolitan unemployment rate by 2.1

percentage points, depending on the

size of the affected community, the size

of the affected facility and the prevailing

unemployment rate. Although the

Agency recognizes that an increase in

community level unemployment of 2.1

percentage points would be significant,

the Agency believes the actual

community impacts associated with the

one or more distressed firms would be

much less than the worst case scenario

presented here, given the results of the

firm level analysis described above in

Section VI.F and the opportunity for

financially distressed firms to sell,

rather than close, a viable facility.

H. eign Trade Impacts

The Agency evaluates the potential

for foreign trade impacts by application

of the market model. The aggregate

regulatory compliance costs are

incorporated to estimate the

postcompliance impacts. If the proposed

set of options is adopted, the analysis

indicates 0.23 to 0.25 percent decrease

in exports (decreases of $9.2 million to

$9.9 million) and 0.11 to 0.12 percent

increase in imports (increases of $7.5

million to $8.1 million).

I. Small Business Analysis

Based upon information provided in

the Collection of 1997 Iron and Steel

Industry Data (Section 308 Survey), the

Agency was able to reasonably

determine the appropriate SIC

classification for each company. EPA

applied the relevant SBA size standard

for each SIC to determine whether each

company was to be considered a small

entity. SBA has recently finalized size

standards for each NAICS industry;

however, EPA determined that no

companies change classification under

the new NAICs standards. The SIC

classifications observed were

predominantly SICs 3312, 3316 and

3317, with a number of other industries

also reported. The relevant size

standards varied from 500 to 1500

employees, and included a few revenue

based standards. EPA identified an

estimated 34 small entities that may be

affected by the rule among the estimated

115 total companies potentially affected

by the rule. EPA has fully evaluated the

economic achievability of the proposed

rule to affected small entities. The

economic achievability analysis was

conducted using a discounted cash flow

approach for the facility analysis and

the Altman Z test for the firm analysis

(for a full discussion, see Section VI.C.).

EPA projects that one small entity (a

firm owning a single facility) may incur

an impact such as facility closure or

firm failure. Further, for small entities,

EPA examined the compliance cost to

revenue ratio to identify any other

potential impacts of the rule upon small

entities. Using the most stringent set of

co-proposed options, EPA has

determined that the range is between 0

and 1.91 percent with only three entities

experiencing an impact of greater than

1%.

J. Cost-Benefit Analysis

The Agency estimates the total

monetized social costs of the proposed

rule range between $56.5 million and

$61.4 million and the total monetized

social benefits range between $1.1

million and $2.7 million.

K. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

This section provides the costeffectiveness analysis of the BAT and

PSES regulatory options by subcategory.

The cost-effectiveness analysis

compares the total annualized cost

incurred for a regulatory option to the

corresponding effectiveness of that

option in reducing the discharge of

pollutants.

Cost-effectiveness calculations are

used during the development of effluent

limitations guidelines and standards to

compare the efficiency of one regulatory

option in removing pollutants to

another regulatory option. Costeffectiveness is defined as the

incremental annual cost of a pollution

control option in an industry

subcategory per incremental pollutant

removal. The increments are considered

relative to another option or to a

benchmark, such as existing treatment.

In cost-effectiveness analyses, pollutant

removals are measured in toxicity

normalized units called ‘‘poundequivalents.’’ The cost-effectiveness

value, therefore, represents the unit cost

of removing an additional poundequivalent (lb. eq.) of pollutants. In

general, the lower the cost-effectiveness

value, the more cost-efficient the

regulation will be in removing

pollutants, taking into account their

toxicity. While not required by the

Clean Water Act, cost-effectiveness

analysis is a useful tool for evaluating

regulatory options for the removal of

toxic pollutants. Cost-effectiveness

analysis does not take into account the

removal of conventional pollutants (e.g.,

oil and grease, biochemical oxygen

demand, and total suspended solids).

the cost-effectiveness analysis, the

estimated pound-equivalents of

pollutants removed were calculated by

multiplying the number of pounds of

each pollutant removed by the toxic

weighting factor for each pollutant. The

more toxic the pollutant, the higher will

be the pollutant’s toxic weighting factor;

accordingly, the use of poundequivalents gives correspondingly more

weight to pollutants with higher

toxicity. Thus, for a given expenditure

and pounds of pollutants removed, the

cost per pound-equivalent removed

82004 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

would be lower when more highly toxic

pollutants are removed than if

pollutants of lesser toxicity are

removed. Annual costs for all costeffectiveness analyzes are reported in

1981 dollars so that comparisons of

cost-effectiveness may be made with

regulations for other industries that

were issued at different times.

1. Cokemaking

a. By-product Cokemaking. i. BAT.

The first three BAT options for this

segment display significant incremental

pollutant reductions (as measured in lbequivalents). BAT option 4 results in

very limited additional pollutant

removals beyond BAT option 3 with

very substantial increases in capital and

total annualized costs.

TABLE VI.K.1 BAT REMOVALS AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS FOR BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING

OPTION

Pre-tax total

annualized

cost

(1999$ M)

Removals

(lb-eq)

Incremental

cost effectiveness

(1981$/lb-eq)

Average cost

effectiveness

(1981$/lb-eq);

1 ....................................................................................................................... $0.9 56,300 $10 $10

2 ....................................................................................................................... 4.4 71,200 134 36

3 ....................................................................................................................... 8.9 147,600 35 35

4 ....................................................................................................................... 15.8 147,700 38,300 63

ii. PSES. All PSES options result in

significant removals with PSES option 1

imposing very low incremental costs,

PSES option 2 imposing moderate

incremental costs, PSES option 3

providing very substantial removals

with relatively modest incremental

costs, and PSES option 4 providing

limited additional removals with higher

incremental costs.

TABLE VI.K.2 PSES REMOVALS AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS FOR BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING

OPTION

Pre-tax total

annualized

cost

(1999$ M)

Removals

(lb-eq)

Incremental

cost effectiveness (1981$/

lb-eq)

Average cost

effectiveness

(1981$/lb-eq);

1 ....................................................................................................................... $0.3 3,400 $52 $52

2 ....................................................................................................................... 2.3 5,600 527 240

3 ....................................................................................................................... 5.2 48,500 39 62

4 ....................................................................................................................... 8.8 51,400 729 100

b. Non-recovery Cokemaking. i. BAT

and PSES. The Agency is evaluating a

technology option for the Non-recovery

Cokemaking Segment which is based on

zero discharge for BAT and PSES and is

estimated to have no associated

regulatory compliance costs as all

existing non-recovery cokemaking

facilities achieve the zero discharge

limitation. As a result, a costeffectiveness analysis cannot be

constructed for this segment.

2. Ironmaking

a. BAT and PSES. The evaluated BAT

option yields substantial removals with

relatively low compliance costs. The

Agency does not separately present

results for direct and indirect

dischargers, because there are fewer

than 3 indirect dischargers and data

aggregation or other masking techniques

are insufficient to avoid disclosure of

information claimed as confidential

business information.

TABLE VI.K.3 BAT AND PSES REMOVALS AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS FOR IRONMAKING

Pre-tax total

annualized

cost

(1999$ M)

Removals

(lb-eq)

Incremental

cost effectiveness (1981$/

lb-eq)

BAT and PSES ............................................................................................................................ $5.6 63,200 $52

3. Integrated Steelmaking

a. BAT and PSES. The evaluated BAT

option yields substantial removals with

relatively low compliance costs. The

Agency does not separately present

results for direct and indirect

dischargers, because there are less than

3 indirect dischargers and data

aggregation or other masking techniques

are insufficient to avoid disclosure of

information claimed as confidential

business information.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 82005

TABLE VI.K.4—BAT AND PSES REMOVALS AND COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR INTEGRATED STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY

Pre-tax total

annualized

cost

(1999$ M)

Removals

(lb-eq)

Incremental

cost effectiveness

(1981 $/lbeq)

BAT and PSES ........................................................................................................................................ $5.0 102,600 $29

4. Integrated and Stand-Alone Hot ming

a. Carbon and Alloy. i. BAT and

PSES. The evaluated BAT option yields

substantial removals with moderate

compliance costs. The evaluated PSES

option yields very limited removals

with a relatively low costs.

TABLE VI.K.5—BAT AND PSES REMOVALS AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS, INTEGRATED AND STAND-ALONE HOT MING,

CARBON AND ALLOY

Pre-tax total

annualized

cost

(1999$ M)

Removals

(lb-eq)

Incremental

cost effectiveness

(1981$/lbeq)

BAT .......................................................................................................................................................... $28.6 87,200 $191

PSES ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.1 100 319

b. Stainless. i. BAT and PSES. There

were no directly discharging facilities

identified in the EPA survey. The

evaluated PSES option yields extremely

limited removals with a relatively low

costs.

5. Nonintegrated Steelmaking and Hot

ming

a. Carbon and Alloy. i. BAT and PSES

The evaluated BAT option yields

substantial removals with relatively low

compliance costs. The evaluated PSES

option yields very small removals with

modest compliance costs.

TABLE VI.K.6—BAT AND PSES REMOVALS AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS, INTEGRATED AND STAND-ALONE HOT MING,

STAINLESS

Pre-tax total

annualized

cost

(1999$ M)

Removals

(lb-eq)

Incremental

cost effectiveness

(1981$/lbeq)

BAT ..........................................................................................................................................................

PSES ....................................................................................................................................................... $0.2 10 $12,000

5. Nonintegrated Steelmaking and Hot

ming

a. Carbon and Alloy. i. BAT and

PSES. The evaluated BAT option yields

substantial removals with relatively low

compliance costs. The evaluated PSES

option yields very small removals with

modest compliance costs.

TABLE VI.K.7—BAT AND PSES REMOVALS AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS, NONINTEGRATED STEELMAKING AND HOT MING,

CARBON AND ALLOY

Pre-tax total

annualized

cost

(1999$ M)

Removals

(lb-eq)

Incremental

cost effectiveness

(1981 $/lbeq)

BAT .......................................................................................................................................................... $4.2 39,100 $62

PSES ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.6 40 9,200

b. Stainless.s i. BAT and PSES. The evaluated BAT 1 and PSES 1

options both yield substantial removals

with relatively low compliance costs,

while the BAT 2 options yields very

limited removals with substantial costs.

82006 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

TABLE VI.K.8—BAT AND PSES REMOVALS AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS NONINTEGRATED STEELMAKING AND HOT MING,

STAINLESS

Pre-tax total

annualized

cost

(1999$ M)

Removals

(lb-eq)

Cost effectiveness

(1981 $/lbeq) incremental

BAT 1 ....................................................................................................................................................... $0.1 1,873 $35

BAT 2 ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.9 1,874 440,000

PSES 1 .................................................................................................................................................... 0.03 1,501 11

6. Steel Finishing

a. Carbon and Alloy. i. BAT and

PSES.

The evaluated BAT option yields

substantial removals with relatively low

compliance costs. The evaluated PSES

option yields very small removals with

modest compliance costs.

TABLE VI.K.9—BAT AND PSES REMOVALS AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS, STEEL FINISHING, CARBON AND ALLOY

Pre-tax total

annualized

cost

(1999$ M)

Removals

(lb-eq)

Incremental

cost effectiveness

(1981 $/lbeq)

BAT .......................................................................................................................................................... $3.5 16,600 $126

PSES ....................................................................................................................................................... 1.9 400 2,900

b. Stainless. i. BAT and PSES

The evaluated BAT option yields

substantial removals with very low

compliance costs. The evaluated PSES

option yields limited removals with

modest compliance costs.

TABLE VI.K.10—BAT AND PSES REMOVALS AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS, STEEL FINISHING, STAINLESS

Pre-tax total

annualized

cost

(1999$ M)

Removals

(lb-eq)

Incremental

cost effectiveness

(1981 $/lbeq)

BAT .......................................................................................................................................................... $0.2 69,700 $2

PSES ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.6 650 525

7. Other Operations

The Agency is evaluating technology

options for Direct Reduced Ironmaking

and ging segments for the control of

only conventional parameters at BPT

(see Section VI.L). The Agency is

evaluating a technology option for the

Briquetting Segment which is based on

zero discharge and is estimated to have

no associated regulatory compliance

costs. As a result, a cost-effectiveness

analysis cannot be constructed for these

segments.

L. Cost-Reasonableness Analysis

As stated in Section VI.K, the Agency

is evaluating technology options for the

Direct Reduced Ironmaking and ging

segments of the Other Operations

Subcategory for the control of only

conventional parameters at BPT. CWA

Section 304(b)(1)(B) requires a costreasonableness assessment for BPT

limitations. In determining BPT

limitations, EPA must consider the total

cost of treatment technologies in

relation to the effluent reduction

benefits achieved by such technology.

This inquiry does not limit EPA’s broad

discretion to adopt BPT limitations that

are achievable with available technology

unless the required additional

reductions are wholly out of proportion

to the costs of achieving such marginal

reduction.

The cost-reasonableness ratio is

average cost per pound of pollutant

removed by a BPT regulatory option.

The cost component is measured as pretax total annualized costs (1999$). In

this case, the pollutants removed are

conventional pollutants although in

some cases, removals may include

priority and nonconventional

pollutants. the Direct Reduced

Ironmaking segment, the evaluated BPT

option 1 removes approximately 800

pounds of conventional pollutants with

a cost-reasonableness ratio of $6. the

ging segment, the evaluated BPT option

1 removes approximately 500 pounds of

conventional pollutants with a costreasonableness ratio of $15. EPA

considers the cost-reasonableness ratio

to be acceptable and the proposed

option to be cost-reasonable in both

segments.

VII. Water Quality Analysis and

Environmental Benefits

EPA evaluated the environmental

benefits of controlling the discharges of

60 priority and nonconventional

pollutants from iron and steel facilities

to surface waters and POTWs in

national analyses of direct and indirect

discharges. A total of 125 analytes were

found in iron and steel effluents.

Ambient water quality criteria (AWQC)

or toxicity profiles are established for 60

of those analytes. Discharges of these

pollutants into freshwater and estuarine

ecosystems may alter aquatic habitats,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 82007

adversely affect aquatic biota, and

adversely impact human health through

the consumption of 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 methods of disposal

for sewage sludge and the POTW’s costs

(though, as noted below, there is no

evidence of this for this sector). Most of

these pollutants have at least one known

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.

The Agency did not evaluate the

effects of conventional pollutants

discharged from iron and steel mills on

aquatic life and human health because

of a lack of quantitative AWQC. EPA did

not evaluate the effects of conventional

pollutants on POTWs because POTWs

are designed to treat these pollutants.

However, the discharge of a

conventional pollutant such as total

suspended solids (TSS) or oil & grease

can have adverse effects on aquatic life

and the environment. example, habitat

degradation can result from increased

suspended particulate matter that

reduces light penetration, and thus

primary productivity, or from

accumulation of suspended particles

that alter benthic spawning grounds and

feeding habitats.

Oil and grease produce toxic effects

on aquatic organisms (i.e., fish,

crustacea, larvae and eggs, gastropods,

bivalves, invertebrates, and flora). The

marine larvae and benthic invertebrates,

appear to be the most intolerant of

petroleum products, particularly the

water-soluble compounds, at

concentrations ranging from 0.1 ppm to

25 ppm and 1 ppm to 6,100 ppm,

respectively. However, since oil and

grease is not a definitive chemical

category, but instead includes many

organic compounds with varying

physical, chemical, and toxicological

properties, it is difficult for EPA to

establish a numerical criterion which

would be applicable to all types of oil

and grease. this reason, EPA does not

model the effects of oil and grease on

the environment.

Of a total of 254 iron and steel

facilities, EPA evaluated 150 facilities,

of which 103 are direct wastewater

dischargers that discharge up to 60

pollutants to 77 receiving streams and

47 are indirect wastewater dischargers

discharging up to 60 pollutants to 43

receiving streams. EPA did not evaluate

56 facilities with zero discharge or 48

facilities for which EPA had insufficient

data to conduct the water quality

analysis. To estimate some of the

benefits from the improvements in

water quality expected to result from

this rule, instream concentration

estimates are modeled and then

compared to aquatic life and human

health ambient water quality criteria

(AWQC) guidance documents published

by EPA or to toxic effect levels. States

often consult these water quality criteria

guidance documents when adopting

water quality criteria as part of their

water quality standards. However,

because those State-adopted criteria

may vary, for this analysis EPA used the

nationwide criteria guidance as the

representative values for the particular

pollutants. EPA also modeled the effects

of iron and steel discharges on POTWs.

Results of the of the 150 facilities were

extrapolated to the national level of 198

direct and indirect dischargers, using

the statistical methodology for

estimating costs, loads, and economic

impacts.

Since at least 20% of the iron and

steel facilities discharge in multiple

waste subcategories, and many

waterbody reaches receive discharges

from more than one iron and steel

facility, EPA chose to perform the

environmental assessment analyses on a

reach-by-reach basis. The reach-byreach basis has the advantage over a

subcategory-specific basis in that it

more accurately predicts the overall

effects of the rule on the environment.

In addition, EPA reviewed the CWA

section 303(d) lists of impaired

waterbodies developed by States in

1998 and noted that at least 17

waterbodies, identified with industrial

point sources as a potential source of

impairment, receive direct discharges

from iron and steel facilities (and other

sources). EPA also identified 12

waterbodies with fishing advisories for

iron and steel pollutants of concern

(mercury) that receive direct discharges

from iron and steel facilities (and other

sources).

EPA expects a variety of human

health, environmental, and economic

benefits to result from reductions in

effluent loadings (see Environmental

Assessment of the Proposed Effluent

Guidelines for the Iron and Steel

Industry, (Environmental Assessment)).

In particular, the benefits assessment

addresses the following benefit

categories: (a) Human health benefits

due to reductions in excess cancer

cases; (b) human health benefits due to

reductions in lead exposure; (c) human

health benefits due to reductions in

noncarcinogenic 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

proposed rule would reduce excess

cancer cases by approximately 0.01 per

year with estimated monetized benefits

of $24,000 to $126,000 ($1997). 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 $2.4 million to

$12.6 million ($1997). EPA’s SAB

recently recommended that VSL’s be

adjusted downward using a discount

factor to account for latency in cases

(such as cancer) where there is a lag

between exposure and mortality. This

was not done in the current analysis

because EPA requires more information

to estimate latency periods associated

with cancers caused by Iron and Steel

pollutants. example, the risk

assessments for several pollutants are

based on data from animal bioassays;

these data are not sufficiently reliable to

estimate a latency period for humans.

Extrapolating the results to the national

level results in a 0.02 cancer case

reduction and a monetized benefit of

$48,000 to $252,000.

B. Reduced Lead Health Risk

the proposed rule, EPA expects that

reduced loadings to surface waters from

iron and steel discharges will reduce

lead levels in those waters. Under the

proposed treatment levels, the ingestion

of lead-contaminated fish tissues by

recreational and subsistence anglers

would be reduced at 79 waterbodies.

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 from

reduced adult and neonatal mortality

are also estimated. 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

82008 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

estimates that this proposed regulation

would reduce cases of these adverse

health effects; the total benefit for these

reductions would be approximately

$0.62 to $0.98 million ($1997).

Extrapolating the results to the national

level results in monetized benefits of

$0.64 to $1.01 million ($1997) due to

reduced ingestion of lead-contaminated

fish tissues at 104 waterbodies.

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 proposed

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

noncarcinogenic effects, due to

consumption of contaminated fish

tissue, by approximately 900 people for

both the sample set and the national

extrapolation of iron and steel facilities.

Presently EPA does not have a

methodology for monetizing these

benefits.

D. Improved Ecological Conditions and

Recreational Activity

EPA expects this proposed rule to

generate environmental benefits by

improving water quality. There is 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 (intrinsic)

values. 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 affected streams. EPA

considers the value of the recreational

fishing benefits and intrinsic benefits

resulting from this proposed rule, but

does not evaluate the other types of

ecological and environmental benefits

(e.g., increased assimilative capacity of

the receiving stream, protection of

terrestrial wildlife and birds that

consume aquatic organisms, and

improvements to other recreational

activities, such as swimming, boating,

water skiing, and wildlife observation)

due to data limitations.

Modeled end-of-pipe pollutant

loadings are estimated to decline by

about 22 percent, from 227 million

pounds per year under current

conditions to 177 million pounds per

year under this proposed rule (from 253

million pounds per year down to 198

million pounds per year on a national

level). The analysis comparing modeled

instream pollutant concentration to

AWQC estimates that current discharge

loadings result in excursions at 44

streams receiving the discharge from

iron and steel facilities. The proposed

rule would reduce excursions to 41

receiving streams. The number of

receiving streams with excursions

would be reduced from 55 to 51 streams

at the national level.

EPA estimates that the annual

monetized recreational benefits to

anglers associated with the expected

changes in water quality range from

$188,000 to $671,000 ($1997).

Monetized benefits extrapolated to the

national level are $252,000 to $900,000

($1997). EPA evaluates these

recreational benefits by 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 3

of the 44 receiving streams (4 of the 55

receiving streams on a national level).

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.

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 $94,000 to $336,000

($1997) for the sample set and from at

least $126,000 to $450,000 ($1997) at

the extrapolated national level. These

intrinsic benefits are estimated as half of

the recreational benefits and may be

under or overestimated.

E. Effect on POTW Operations

EPA considers two potential sources

of benefits to POTWs from this

proposed 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.

EPA has concluded from its analysis

that under current conditions POTW

operation and biosolid quality are not

significantly affected by discharges from

iron and steel mills. EPA is presently

researching anecdotal evidence from

POTW operators to support or refute

this position.

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

considered. 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, at the national level,

resulting from this proposed rule range

from $1.07 million to $2.61 million

($1997). Table VII.F.1 summarizes these

benefits, by category. The range reflects

the uncertainty in evaluating the effects

of this proposed rule and in placing a

dollar value on these effects. As

indicated in Table VII.F.1, these

monetized benefits ranges do not reflect

some benefit categories, including

improved ecological conditions from

improvements in water quality due to

reductions in conventional pollutants.

Therefore, the reported benefit estimate

may understate the total benefits of this

proposed rule.

TABLE VII.F.1—POTENTIAL ECONOMIC

BENEFITS (NATIONAL LEVEL)

Benefit category Millions of 1997

dollars per year

Reduced Cancer Risk 0.05–0.25

Reduced Lead Health

Risk.

0.64–1.01

Reduced Noncarcinogenic Hazard.Unquantified

Improved Ecological

Conditions.

Unquantified

Improved Recreational Value.0.25–0.90

Improved Intrinsic

Value.

0.13–0.45

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 82009

TABLE VII.F.1—POTENTIAL ECONOMIC

BENEFITS (NATIONAL LEVEL)—Continued

Benefit category Millions of 1997

dollars per year

Reduced Biosolid

Contamination at

POTW.

Improved POTW Operation (inhibition).

Reduced Costs at

POTWs.

Total Monetized

Benefits.

1.07–2.61

VIII. Non-Water Quality Environmental

Impacts

Sections 304(b) and 306 of the Act

require EPA to consider non-water

quality environmental impacts

associated with effluent limitations

guidelines and standards. In accordance

with these requirements, EPA has

considered the potential impact of

today’s technical options on air

emissions, solid waste generation, and

energy consumption. While it is

difficult to balance environmental

impacts across all media and energy

use, the Agency has determined that the

impacts identified below are acceptable

in light of the benefits associated with

compliance with the proposed effluent

limitations guidelines and standards.

A. Air Pollution

Various subcategories within the Iron

and Steel Industry generate process

waters that contain significant

concentrations of organic and inorganic

compounds, some of which are listed as

Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) in

Title III of the Clean Air Act (CAA)

Amendments of 1990. The Agency has

developed National Emission Standards

for Hazardous Air Pollutants

(NESHAPs) under section 112 of the

Clean Air Act (CAA) that address air

emissions of HAPs for certain

manufacturing operations.

Subcategories within the Iron and Steel

industry where NESHAPs are applicable

include cokemaking (58 FR 57898,

October 1993) and steel finishing with

chromium electroplating and chromium

anodizing (60 FR 4948, January 1995).

the cokemaking subcategory,

maximum achievable control

technology (MACT) standards are

currently being developed by EPA for

pushing, quenching, and battery stacks.

Like effluent guidelines, MACT

standards are technology based. The

CAA sets maximum control

requirements on which MACT can be

based for new and existing sources. Byproducts recovery operations in the

cokemaking subcategory remove the

majority of HAPs through processes that

collect tar, heavy and light oils,

ammonium sulfate and elemental sulfur.

Ammonia removal by steam stripping

could generate a potential air quality

issue if uncontrolled; however ammonia

stripping operations at cokemaking

facilities capture vapors and convert

ammonia to either an inorganic salt or

anhydrous ammonia, or destroy the

ammonia.

Biological treatment of cokemaking

wastewater can potentially emit

hazardous air pollutants if significant

concentrations of volatile organic

compounds (VOCs) are present. To

estimate the maximum air emissions

from biological treatment, the

individual concentrations of all VOCs in

cokemaking wastewater entering the

biological treatment system were

multiplied by the maximum design flow

and the operational period reported in

the U.S. EPA Collection of 1997 Iron

and Steel Industry Data to determine

annual VOC loadings to the biological

treatment unit. The concentrations of

the individual VOCs entering the

biological treatment system was

determined from the sampling episode

data. Assuming all the VOCs entering

the biological treatment system are

emitted to the atmosphere (no biological

degradation), the maximum VOC

emission rate would be approximately

1,800 pounds per year. See Technical

Development Document, Section 13.

Treatment technology options

proposed for integrated and nonintegrated steelmaking operations focus

on removal of suspended solids,

dissolved metals and oils from process

wastewaters. Under ambient conditions,

the vapor pressure of these pollutants is

such that insignificant volatilization

occurs, even with extended atmospheric

contact in open-top treatment units and

induced draft cooling towers. EPA does

not project any net increase in air

emissions if facilities employ the

proposed model technologies. As such,

no adverse air impacts are expected to

occur as a result of the proposed

regulations.

B. Solid Waste

Solid waste, including hazardous and

nonhazardous sludges and waste oil,

will be generated from a number of the

model treatment technologies used to

develop the proposed effluent

limitations guidelines and standards.

Solid wastes include sludge from

biological treatment systems, chemical

precipitation and clarification systems,

and gravity separation and dissolved air

flotation systems. EPA accounted for the

associated costs related to on-site

recovery and off-site treatment and

disposal of the solid wastes generated

due to the implementation of the

various technology options. These costs

were included in the economic

evaluation for the proposed regulation.

Biological nitrification proposed as

the technology basis for ammonia

removal from cokemaking wastewaters

will produce a biological treatment

sludge that facilities would need to

dispose. EPA estimates that

approximately 0.39 million pounds (dry

wt.) per year of additional biological

treatment sludge will be generated by

the cokemaking subcategory as a result

of lower effluent ammonia limits. The

non-hazardous biological treatment

sludges can be disposed in a Subtitle D

landfill, recycled to the coke ovens for

incineration, or land applied.

Additional solids captured by

roughing clarifiers and sand filters

proposed for recycle water systems

within the integrated and non-integrated

steelmaking facilities (blast furnace,

sinter plant, BOF, vacuum degasser,

continuous caster, hot forming mill) will

account for an additional 1.8 percent of

the solids currently being collected in

scale pits and classifiers. Data provided

in the industry surveys indicates the

total annual sludge and scale

production from all of these facilities,

including stand-alone hot formers, was

approximately 500,000 tons/year (dry

weight). Solids removal equipment

proposed for this rule is expected to

remove an additional 9,000 tons per

year of dry wastewater treatment sludge.

Sludges generated at steel finishing

operations may be classified as

hazardous under the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

as either a listed or characteristic waste

based on the following information:

• If the site performs electroplating

operations, sludge from treatment of

electroplating wastewater on site is

listed as hazardous waste F006 (40 CFR

260.31).

• If the site mixes electroplating

wastewaters or sludges with other

wastewaters or sludges generated on

site, the resulting mixture would be a

hazardous waste under the RCRA

‘‘mixture rule.’’ (40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv)).

• If the sludge from wastewater

treatment exceeds the standards for the

Toxicity Characteristic Leaching

Procedure (i.e. is hazardous), or exhibits

other RCRA-defined hazardous

characteristics (i.e., reactive, corrosive,

or flammable) it is considered a

characteristic hazardous waste (40 CFR

261.24).

Additional federal, state, and local

regulations may result in steel finishing

82010 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

sludges being classified as a hazardous

waste.

Based on information collected during

site visits and sampling episodes to Iron

and Steel operations, the Agency

believes that some of the solid waste

generated by steel finishing operations

would not be classified as hazardous.

However, for the purpose of compliance

cost estimation, the Agency assumed

that all solid waste generated as a result

of the technology options would be

hazardous. Date provided in the

industry surveys indicates the total

annual sludge production from all steel

finishing operations throughout the

industry was approximately 21,000

tons/year (dry weight). Additional

sludge generation from finishing

operations resulting from this proposed

rule is approximately 900 tons/year (dry

weight).

C. Energy Requirements

EPA estimates that compliance with

this proposed regulation would result in

a net increase in energy consumption at

Iron and Steel facilities. The maximum

estimated increased energy use by

subcategory are presented in Table VIII–

1. The costs associated with these

energy requirements are included in

EPA’s estimated operating costs for

compliance with the proposed rule. The

projected increase in energy

consumption is primarily due to the

incorporation of components such as

pumps, mixers, blowers, and fans. the

integrated and stand-alone hot forming

mills, the added energy requirements

are related to recycle systems. Electrical

equipment in the recycle system

includes sand filters, cooling towers,

and recycle pumps to return the treated

and cooled water to the process.

TABLE VIII–1.—ADDITIONAL ENERGY

REQUIREMENTS BY SUBCATEGORY

Subcategory

Energy required

(million kilowatt hours/

year)

Cokemaking Operations ........... 21.7

Ironmaking Operations ............. 10.6

Integrated Steelmaking Operations ..................................... 7.8

Integrated and Stand-Alone Hot

ming Operations .................... 170

Non-Integrated Steelmaking

and Hot ming Operations ...... 8.4

Steel Finishing Operations ....... 2.0

Other Operations ...................... 0.04

Total ................................... 220.54

Approximately 3,100,000 million

kilowatt hours of electric power were

generated in the United States in 1997

(Energy Information Administration,

Electric Power Annual 1998 Volume 1,

Table A1). Total additional energy

needs for all Iron and Steel facilities to

comply with this proposed rule

correspond to approximately 0.007% of

the national energy demand. The

increase in energy demand due to the

implementation of this proposed rule

will in turn cause an air emission

impact from the electric power

generation facilities. The increase in air

emissions is expected to be proportional

to the increase in energy requirements.

IX. Options Selected for Proposal

A. Introduction

1. Methodology for Proposed Selection

of Regulated Pollutants

EPA selects pollutants for regulation

based on the following factors:

Applicable Clean Water Act provisions

regarding the pollutants subject to each

statutory level; the pollutants of concern

identified for each subcategory; and cotreatment of compatible wastewaters

from different manufacturing

operations.

The current regulation requires

facilities to maintain the pH between 6.0

and 9.0 at all times. EPA intends to

retain this limitation and proposes to

codify identical pH limitations for

previously unregulated subcategories.

EPA also proposes to codify a specific

reference to the general exception

codified at 40 CFR 401.17, which

authorizes excursions from the pH range

codified in the applicable effluent

limitations guidelines under certain

enumerated circumstances. The pH

shall be monitored at the point of

discharge from the wastewater treatment

facility to which effluent limitations

derived from this part apply.

EPA selected a subset of pollutants for

which to establish numerical effluent

limitations from the list of Pollutants of

Concern (POC) for each regulated

subcategory. Section IV.F discusses

EPA’s methodology for selecting

Pollutants of Concern (POC) and

identifies on a subcategory basis the

POCs relevant to this proposal.

Generally, a chemical is considered as a

POC if it was detected in untreated

process wastewater at 10 times the

minimum level (ML) in more than 10%

of the samples.

Monitoring for all pollutants of

concern is not necessary to ensure that

Iron and Steel wastewater pollution is

adequately controlled, since many of the

pollutants originate from similar

sources, have similar treatabilities, are

removed by similar mechanisms, and

treated to similar levels. Therefore, it

may be sufficient to monitor for one

pollutant as a surrogate or indicator of

several others.

Regulated pollutants are pollutants for

which the EPA would establish

numerical effluent limitations and

standards. EPA selected a POC for

regulation in a subcategory if it meets all

the following criteria:

• With the exception of TRC,

chemical is not used as a treatment

chemical in the selected treatment

technology option.

• Chemical is not considered a nonconventional bulk parameter.

• Chemical is not considered as a

volatile compound, e.g., generally with

Henry’s Constant greater than or equal

to 1x10-4.

• Chemical is effectively treated by

the selected treatment technology

option.

• Chemical is detected in the

untreated wastewater at treatable levels

in a significant number of samples, e.g.,

generally 10 times the minimum level at

more than 10% of the raw wastewater

samples.

• Chemicals whose control through

treatment processes would lead to

control of a wide range of pollutants

with similar properties; these chemicals

are generally good indicators of overall

wastewater treatment performance.

Based on the methodology described

above, EPA proposes to regulate

pollutants in each subcategory that will

ensure adequate control of a range of

pollutants.

a. Clean Water Act. The CWA

provides for the limitation of

conventional, non-conventional and

toxic pollutants at the following

regulatory levels:

BPT: conventional, non-conventional,

toxic

BAT: non-conventional, toxic

NSPS: conventional, non-conventional,

toxic

PSES: pass through/interfere or

otherwise incompatible with POTW

PSNS: pass through/interfere or

otherwise incompatible with POTW

BCT: conventional

b. Pollutants of Concern. Depending

on the manufacturing processes, the

wastewater characteristics vary from

operation to operation. The pollutants to

be regulated are proposed on a

subcategory basis.

c. Co-Treatment of Compatible

Wastewaters. Wastewaters from certain

manufacturing operations are

compatible for treatment in a single

treatment system. EPA’s proposed

selection of regulated parameters is

designed to foster co-treatment of

compatible wastewaters and to

discourage co-treatment of wastewaters

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 82011

which the Agency believes to be

incompatible.

Untreated by-product cokemaking

process wastewaters contain relatively

high concentrations of ammonia,

cyanide, phenolic compounds, and

several toxic organic compounds

including benzene, toluene, xylene and

polynuclear aromatic compounds. The

chemical composition of those

wastewaters is unique within the iron

and steel industry, as are the physical/

chemical and biological processes

typically used to treat them.

Consequently, EPA regards cokemaking

wastewaters to be incompatible with

wastewaters from other subcategories.

Therefore, the model technologies EPA

proposes and the corresponding

limitations are designed to discourage

co-treatment with wastewaters from

operations in other subcategories.

Process wastewaters from the

sintering and blast furnace operations

segments of the proposed ironmaking

subcategory contain many of the same

pollutants (ammonia, cyanide, phenolic

compounds, toxic metals and high

loadings of suspended solids from wet

air pollution control and gas cleaning

operations). They are universally cotreated where sinter plants with wet air

pollution controls are co-located with

blast furnaces. Accordingly, the

proposed regulation is structured to

facilitate co-treatment and permitting of

those wastewaters independent of

wastewaters from other subcategories.

Likewise, the regulation is structured to

allow for co-treatment and cascading of

wastewaters from the integrated

steelmaking operations (basic oxygen

furnaces, vacuum degassing, continuous

casting). These wastewaters contain

typically the same toxic metals.

Like the current regulation, the

proposed regulation is based on the

assumption that recycle system

blowdowns from hot forming operations

are compatible with wastewaters from

steelmaking and steel finishing

operations. When recycled to a high

degree, the remaining volume of hot

forming wastewaters can be effectively

co-treated for TSS, O&G, lead and zinc

with steelmaking and steel finishing

wastewaters. Today’s proposed

regulation would limit the same toxic

metals, such as lead and zinc, for carbon

and alloy steel hot forming operations,

carbon and alloy steelmaking, and steel

finishing operations. This approach is

intended to facilitate co-treatment and

NPDES permitting across subcategories

where feasible. EPA has taken the same

approach with chromium and nickel for

stainless steel hot forming, nonintegrated steelmaking, and steel

finishing operations. Notwithstanding

EPA’s consideration of this factor, EPA

does not propose to exclude any

pollutants from regulation on the theory

that they are not amenable to cotreatment.

2. Pollutants Selected for Pretreatment

Standards

Unlike direct dischargers whose

wastewater will receive no further

treatment once it leaves the facility,

indirect dischargers send their

wastewater to POTWs for further

treatment. EPA establishes pretreatment

standards for those BAT pollutants that

pass through POTWs. Therefore, for

indirect dischargers, before proposing

pretreatment standards, EPA examines

whether the pollutants discharged by

the industry ‘‘pass through’’ POTWs to

waters of the U.S. or interfere with

POTW operations or sludge disposal

practices. 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. A pollutant is

determined to ‘‘pass through’’ POTWs

when the median percentage removed

by well-operated POTWs is less than the

median percentage removed by direct

dischargers complying with BAT

effluent limitations. In this manner, EPA

can ensure that the combined treatment

at indirect discharging facilities and

POTWs is at least equivalent to that

obtained through treatment by direct

dischargers.

This approach to the definition of

pass-through satisfies two competing

objectives set by Congress: (1) That

standards for indirect dischargers be

equivalent to standards for direct

dischargers, and (2) that the treatment

capability and performance of POTWs

be recognized and taken into account in

regulating the discharge of pollutants

from indirect dischargers. Rather than

compare the mass or concentration of

pollutants discharged by POTWs with

the mass or concentration of pollutants

discharged by BAT facilities, EPA

compares the percentage of the

pollutants removed by BAT facilities to

the POTW removals. EPA takes this

approach because a comparison of the

mass or concentration of pollutants in

POTW effluents with pollutants in BAT

facility effluents would not take into

account the mass of pollutants

discharged to the POTW from other

industrial and non-industrial sources,

nor the dilution of the pollutants in the

POTW to lower concentrations from the

addition of large amounts of other

industrial and non-industrial water.

The primary source of the POTW

percent removal data is the ‘‘Fate of

Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned

Treatment Works’’ (EPA 440/1–82/303,

September 1982), commonly referred to

as the ‘‘50-POTW Study.’’ This study

presents data on the performance of 50

well-operated POTWs that employ

secondary biological treatment in

removing pollutants. Each sample was

analyzed for three conventional, 16 nonconventional, and 126 priority toxic

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

laboratory found a pollutant to be

present, the laboratory reported a result.

If the laboratory found the pollutant not

to be present, the laboratory reported

either that the pollutant was ‘‘not

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

sign (<) indicating that the pollutant

was below that value. The value

reported along with the ‘‘less than’’ sign

was the lowest level to which the

laboratory believed it could reliably

measure. EPA subsequently established

these lower levels as the minimum

levels of quantitation (MLs). In some

instances, different laboratories reported

different 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 effluent guidelines for

Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and

Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF)

Manufacturing, Centralized Waste

Treatment (CWT), and Commercial

Hazardous Waste Combustors. EPA

found that, for at least 12 parameters,

different analytical minimum levels

were reported for different rulemaking

studies (10 of the 21 metals, cyanide,

and one of the 41 organics).

82012 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

To provide consistency for data

analysis and establishment of removal

efficiencies, EPA reviewed the 50-

POTW Study, standardized the reported

MLs for use in the final rules for CWT

and Transportation Equipment Cleaning

Industries and for this proposed rule

and the Metal Products and Machinery

proposed rule. A more detailed

discussion of the methodology used and

the results of the ML evaluation are

contained in the record for today’s

proposal.

In using the 50-POTW Study data to

estimate percent removals, EPA has

established data editing criteria for

determining pollutant percent removals.

Some of the editing criteria are based on

differences between POTW and industry

BAT treatment system influent

concentrations. many toxic pollutants,

POTW influent concentrations were

much lower than those of BAT

treatment systems. many pollutants,

particularly organic pollutants, the

effluent concentrations from both

POTW and BAT treatment systems were

below the level that could be found or

measured. As noted in the 50-POTW

Study, analytical laboratories reported

pollutant concentrations below the

analytical threshold level, qualitatively,

as ‘‘not detected’’ or ‘‘trace,’’ and

reported a measured value above this

level. Subsequent rulemaking studies

such as the 1987 OCPSF study used the

analytical method nominal ‘‘minimum

level’’ (ML) established in 40 CFR Part

136 for laboratory data reported below

the analytical threshold level. Use of the

nominal minimum level (ML) may

overestimate the effluent concentration

and underestimate the percent removal.

Because the data collected for

evaluating POTW percent removals

included both effluent and influent

levels that were close to the analytical

detection levels, EPA devised hierarchal

data editing criteria to exclude data with

low influent concentration levels,

thereby minimizing the possibility that

low POTW removals might simply

reflect low influent concentrations

instead of being a true measure of

treatment effectiveness.

EPA has generally used hierarchic

data editing criteria for the pollutants in

the 50-POTW Study. today’s proposal,

EPA used the following editing criteria:

(1) Substitute the standardized

pollutant-specific analytical minimum

level for values reported as ‘‘not

detected,’’ ‘‘trace,’’ ‘‘less than [followed

by a number],’’ or a number less than

the standardized analytical minimum

level,

(2) Retain pollutant influent and

corresponding effluent values if the

average pollutant influent level is

greater than or equal to 10 times the

pollutant minimum level (10xML), and

(3) If none of the average pollutant

influent concentrations are at least 10

times the minimum level, then retain

average influent values greater than or

equal to two times the minimum level

(2xML) along with the corresponding

average effluent values. (In most cases,

2xML will be equal to or less than 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 rationale for retaining POTW data

using the ‘‘10xML’’ editing criterion is

based on the BAT organic pollutant

treatment performance editing criteria

initially developed for the 1987 OCPSF

regulation (52 FR 42522, 42545–48;

November 5, 1987). BAT treatment

system designs in the OCPSF industry

typically achieved at least 90 percent

removal of toxic pollutants. Since most

of the OCPSF effluent data from BAT

biological treatment systems had values

of ‘‘not detected,’’ the average influent

concentration for a compound had to be

at least 10 times the analytical

minimum level for the difference to be

meaningful (demonstration of at least 90

percent removal) and qualify effluent

concentrations for calculation of

effluent limits.

Additionally, due to the large number

of pollutants of concern for the Iron and

Steel industry, EPA also used data from

the National Risk Management Research

Laboratory (NRMRL) Treatability

Database (formerly called the Risk

Reduction Engineering Laboratory

(RREL) database) to augment the POTW

database for the pollutants which the

50-POTW Study did not cover. This

database provides information, by

pollutant, on removals obtained by

various treatment technologies. The

database provides the user with the

specific data source and the industry

from which the wastewater was

generated. each pollutant of concern

EPA considered for this proposed rule

that was not found in the 50-POTW

database, EPA used data from the

NRMRL database, using only treatment

technologies representative of typical

POTW secondary treatment operations

(activated sludge, activated sludge with

filtration, aerated lagoons). EPA further

edited these files to include information

pertaining only to domestic or industrial

wastewater. EPA used pilot-scale and

full-scale data only, and eliminated

bench-scale data and data from less

reliable references. These and other

aspects of the methodology used for this

proposal are described in Chapter 11 of

the Technical Development Document.

The results of the POTW pass-through

analysis for indirect dischargers are

discussed in Sections IX.B-H for each

subcategory.

3. Issues Related to the Methodology

Used to Determine POTW Performance

today’s proposal, EPA used its

traditional methodology to determine

POTW performance (percent removal)

for toxic and non-conventional

pollutants. POTW performance is a

component of the pass-through

methodology used to identify the

pollutants to be regulated for PSES and

PSNS. It is also a component of the

analysis to determine net pollutant

reductions (for both total pounds and

toxic pound-equivalents) for various

indirect discharge technology options.

However, as discussed in more detail

below, EPA is considering revisions to

its traditional methodology for

determining POTW performance and

solicits comments on a variety of

methodological changes.

a. Assessment of Acceptable POTWs.

EPA developed the principle passthrough analysis for today’s iron and

steel proposal by using data from all 50

POTWs that were part of the 50 POTW

Study data base. Some of these POTWs

were not operated to meet the secondary

treatment requirements at 40 CFR part

133 for all portions of their wastestream.

Most POTWs today have secondary

treatment or better in place. EPA

estimates that as of 1996, POTWs with

at least secondary treatment in place

service greater than 90 percent of the

indirect discharging population. If the

POTW removal calculations do not

reflect the upgrades and system

improvements that have occurred since

the time of the 50 POTW Study, they

would tend to under-estimate POTW

removals. This would result in

overestimating the pollutant reductions

that are achieved through the regulation

of indirect dischargers, thereby making

the regulation appear more costeffective for indirect dischargers than it

is.

One partial solution to this

methodological issue would be to

evaluate individual treatment trains in

the 50 POTW Study data base, and

include only those treatment trains that

achieved compliance with 40 CFR part

133 in the analysis of POTW pollutant

removal rates. There were 29 treatment

trains that achieved BOD5 and TSS

effluent concentrations between 15 mg/

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 82013

l and 45 mg/l during the sampling and

could potentially be considered

reflective of secondary treatment (based

on 40 CFR 133.102 limitations of 30 mg/

l monthly average and 45 mg/l weekly

max for secondary treatment), and an

additional 2 treatment trains were either

trickling filters or waste stabilization

ponds that achieved BOD5 and TSS

effluent concentrations between 40 mg/

l and 65 mg/l and could potentially be

considered equivalent to secondary

treatment pursuant to 40 CFR 133.101(g)

(based on 40 CFR 133.105 limitations of

45 mg/l monthly average and 65 mg/l

weekly maximum). In addition, 15

treatment trains achieved BOD5 and TSS

effluent concentrations below 15 mg/l

each, and could potentially be

considered greater than secondary

treatment.

Using data from these 46 treatment

trains only would omit the worst

performers in the 50 POTW Study that

are probably not reflective of current

performance. It might not fully correct,

however, for additional upgrades and

optimization that may have occurred

over the past two decades.

b. Assessment of Acceptable Data.

EPA developed the pass-through

analysis that is the basis for today’s

proposal using POTW data editing

criteria that are generally consistent

with those used for the industry data.

Specifically, EPA included only data

from POTWs for which influent

concentrations were 10 times the

analytical minimum (quantitation) level

(10xML) if available. If none of the

average pollutant influent

concentrations are at least 10 times the

ML, then EPA retained only data from

POTWs for which influent

concentrations were 2 times the

analytical minimum level. Because it is

difficult to achieve the same pollutant

reduction (in terms of percent) in a

dilute wastestream as in a more

concentrated wastestream, EPA believes

that a 10 X ML editing criteria may

overestimate the percent removals that

are calculated for both industry and

POTWs in the pass-through analysis.

As a general rule, more POTW data

than industry data is eliminated through

this editing criteria for the specific

pollutants that are being examined. This

is not surprising since the pass-through

analysis would not even be performed

on pollutants generally found at less

than 10 times the method minimum

level in industry since EPA would, in

many cases, not require pretreatment for

such low levels of a pollutant. As a

result of this imbalance (pollutant

influent levels at POTWs being less than

pollutant influent levels to industrial

pretreatment), EPA believes that it is

possible that this editing criteria may

bias the pass-through results by overestimating POTW removals where

influent concentrations are generally

lower. This would result in

underestimating the pollutant

reductions that are achieved through the

regulation of indirect dischargers

thereby making the rule appear less

cost-effective than it is. On the other

hand, there may be little difference in

percent removals across the range of

influent concentrations generally

experienced by POTWs.

One potential solution to this

methodological question would be to

include data (for both indirect

dischargers and POTWs) even if the

influent concentration is not 10 times

the analytical minimum level. This

solution needs to be considered in

context, however, with data handling

criteria for effluent measurements of

‘‘non-detect’’ discussed below.

c. Assessment of removals when

effluent is below the analytical method

minimum level. EPA developed the

pass-through analysis that is the basis

for today’s proposal using the analytical

method minimum level as the effluent

value when the pollutant was not

detected in the effluent. This is the

approach that is generally used when

developing pollutant reduction

estimates for the regulation, performing

cost-effectiveness calculations, and

developing effluent limitations. EPA

believes that this methodology may

underestimate the performance of the

selected technology option for both

directs and indirects. Once again, this

would result in underestimating the

removals estimated for direct

dischargers, and thereby making the

rule appear less cost-effective than it is.

indirect dischargers, EPA believes that

the overall effect of using the minimum

level for non-detect values for both

industry and POTW data creates a bias

for underestimating POTW removals in

comparison to industry removals. This

may result in an overestimation of

pollutant removals by indirect

dischargers, and may make the rule

appear more cost-effective than it is.

(Note that this problem is minimized by

only using data with influent levels

exceeding 10 X ML, because a nondetect assures that at least 90 percent of

the pollutant has been removed. It is

arguably less important that the true

removal may be greater than 90 percent,

rather than exactly 90 percent. Using a

less stringent editing criteria of 2 X ML

as discussed above would exacerbate

this problem. If the influent were only

2 X ML, then removals greater than 50

percent could never be measured.)

One potential alternative would be to

assume a value of one half of the

minimum level for effluent values of

non-detect. This approach would have

to be applied uniformly for the indirect

dischargers as well as the POTWs in

order for the percent removal

calculations to be reasonable.

a more detailed discussion of

alternative approaches to the POTW

pass-through analysis, see the Technical

Development Document, Section X. EPA

solicits comment on the significance of

each of these methodological issues and

the potential alternatives.

4. Determination of Long Term

Averages, Variability Factors, and

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and

Standards

This subsection describes the

statistical methodology used to develop

long-term averages, variability factors,

and limitations for BPT, BCT, BAT,

NSPS, PSES, and PSNS. The same basic

procedures apply to the calculation of

all effluent limitations guidelines and

standards for this industry, regardless of

whether the technology is BPT, BCT,

BAT, NSPS, PSES, or PSNS. simplicity,

the following discussion refers only to

effluent limitations guidelines; however,

the discussion also applies to new

source and pretreatment standards.

The proposed limitations for

pollutants for each option, as presented

in today’s notice, are provided as ‘‘daily

maximums’’ and ‘‘maximums for

monthly averages.’’ Definitions

provided in 40 CFR 122.2 state that the

daily maximum limitation is the

‘‘highest allowable ‘daily discharge ’’’

and the maximum for monthly average

limitation is the ‘‘highest allowable

average of ‘daily discharges’ over a

calendar month, calculated as the sum

of all ‘daily discharges’ measured during

a calendar month divided by the

number of ‘daily discharges’ measured

during that month.’’ Daily discharges

are defined to be the ‘‘ ‘discharge of a

pollutant’ measured during a calendar

day or any 24-hour period that

reasonably represents the calendar day

for purposes of sampling.’’

EPA calculates the limitations based

upon percentiles chosen with the

intention, on one hand, to accommodate

reasonably anticipated variability

within the control of the facility and, on

the other hand, to reflect a level of

performance consistent with the Clean

Water Act requirement that these

effluent limitations be based on the

‘‘best’’ technologies. The daily

maximum limitation is an estimate of

the 99th percentile of the distribution of

the daily measurements. The maximum

for monthly average limitation is an

82014 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

estimate of the 95th percentile of the

distribution of the monthly averages of

the daily measurements. The percentiles

for both types of limitations are

estimated using the products of longterm averages and variability factors.

In the first of two steps in estimating

both types of limitations, EPA

determines an average performance

level (the ‘‘long-term average’’) that a

facility with well-designed and operated

model technologies (which reflect the

appropriate level of control) is capable

of achieving. This long-term average is

calculated from the data from the

facilities using the model technologies

for the option. EPA expects that all

facilities subject to the limitations will

design and operate their treatment

systems to achieve the long-term

average performance level on a

consistent basis because facilities with

well-designed and operated model

technologies have demonstrated that

this can be done. In the second step of

developing a limitation, EPA determines

an allowance for the variation in

pollutant concentrations when

processed through well designed and

operated treatment systems. This

allowance for variance incorporates all

components of variability including

process and wastewater generation,

sample collection, shipping, storage,

and analytical variability. This

allowance is incorporated into the

limitations through the use of the

variability factors, which are calculated

from the data from the facilities using

the model technologies. If a facility

operates its treatment system to meet

the relevant long-term average, EPA

expects the facility to be able to meet

the limitations. 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 longterm average, EPA’s use of variability

factors results in limitations that are

generally well above the actual longterm averages. The data sources, the

selection of pollutants and data, and the

calculations of pollutant long-term

averages and variability factors are

briefly described below. More detailed

explanations are provided in the

technical development document.

EPA recognizes that, as a result of

modifications to 40 CFR part 420, some

dischargers that consistently meet

effluent limitations based on the current

regulation may need to improve

treatment systems, process controls,

and/or treatment system operations in

order to consistently meet effluent

limitations based on revised effluent

limitations guidelines and standards.

EPA believes that this consequence is

consistent with the Clean Water Act

statutory framework, which requires

that discharge limitations reflect the

best available technology, and that the

best available technology should be

redefined periodically.

The long-term averages, variability

factors, and limitations were based upon

pollutant concentrations collected from

three data sources: EPA sampling

episodes, the 1997 Analytical and

Production follow-up survey, and data

submitted by industry. When the data

from the EPA sampling episodes at a

facility met the data editing criteria,

EPA used the sampling data and any

monitoring data provided by the facility.

See Technical Development Document

Section 10 for more information.

5. BPT

In general, the BPT technology level

represents the average of the best

existing performances of plants of

various processes, ages, sizes or other

common characteristics. Where existing

performance is considered uniformly

inadequate, BPT may be transferred

from a different subcategory or industry.

Limitations based upon transfer of

technology must be supported by a

conclusion that the technology is indeed

transferable and a reasonable prediction

that it will be capable of meeting the

prescribed effluent limits. See Tanners’

Council of America v. Train, 540 F.2nd

1188 (4th Cir. 1976). BPT focuses on

end-of-pipe treatment rather than

process changes or internal controls,

except where the process changes or

internal controls are common industry

practice.

The cost-benefit inquiry for BPT is a

limited balancing, committed to EPA’s

discretion, which does not require the

Agency to quantify the benefits in

monetary terms. In balancing costs in

relation to effluent reduction benefits,

EPA considers the volume and nature of

existing discharges expected after the

application of BPT, the general

environmental effects of the pollutants,

and the cost and economic impact of the

required pollution controls. When

setting BPT limitations, EPA is required

under section 304(b) to perform a

limited cost-benefit balancing to ensure

the costs are not wholly out of

proportion to the benefits achieved. See

Weyerhaeuser Company v. Costle, 590

F.2d 1011 (D.C. Cir. 1978).

a. New Subcategories/Segments. EPA

proposes to promulgate BPT limitations

for conventional pollutants (TSS and/or

oil & grease) for the following

subcategories or segments that have not

previously been regulated under part

420: Non-recovery cokemaking;

sintering operations with dry air

pollution controls; electric arc furnace

operations within the Non-Integrated

Steelmaking and Hot ming Subcategory;

direct reduced iron; forging; and,

briquetting. There are no BPT

limitations in the current regulation

applicable to non-recovery cokemaking,

direct reduced iron, forging and

briquetting. The current Steelmaking

Subcategory BPT regulation requires

‘‘no discharge of pollutants’’ for semiwet electric arc furnace operations

(§ 420.43(a)) and allows discharges for

wet electric arc furnace operations

(§ 420.43(c)). Under the proposed

subcategorization scheme, there are no

wet electric arc furnace operations

within the Non-Integrated Steelmaking

and Hot ming Subcategory. The current

BPT regulation does not specifically

cover sintering operations with dry air

pollution controls.

b. Existing Subcategories/Segments.

manufacturing operations subject to

current BPT regulations (i.e., all iron

and steel operations regulated under the

current part 420 and electroplating

operations regulated currently under

part 433 but proposed for regulation

under the revised Part 420), the Agency

at this time is not proposing to revise

the BPT limitations for TSS and oil &

grease. Because EPA is proposing to

establish a revised subcategorization

schedule for part 420 by consolidating

several former subparts and creating

new ones, EPA has presented the

current part 420 BPT limitations for

each proposed subpart in the form of

segments corresponding to the

subcategorization schedule that EPA

proposes to replace. With respect to

continuous electroplating operations,

which are currently regulated under

part 433 (Metal Finishing), but which

EPA proposes to regulate under part 420

(Iron & Steel), EPA presents BPT

limitations for the conventional

parameters TSS and oil and grease in

proposed subpart F, §§ 420.62(a)(9) and

(b)(9) based on the limitations as

currently codified in part 433 for those

operations.

The Agency is also considering an

alternative approach that would

simplify the regulation and ease

implementation of BPT limitations in

the NPDES permit program. The Agency

solicits comment on this alternative

approach, which is discussed below.

The alternative is also presented in the

Technical Development Document for

this proposed regulation.

j. Alternative approach: Codify BPT

limitations as the TSS and O&G

Concentrations used to develop the

Current part 420 Regulation. The

Agency is aware that incorporating the

current BPT limitations into the new

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 82015

subcategorization structure of the

proposed regulation is complex and will

be difficult to implement because the

BPT limitations are unchanged and

reflect a different subcategorization

schedule. If the regulation were

promulgated as proposed, permit

writers and the industry would be

required to implement the existing part

433 BPT limitations, existing part 420

BPT limitations for 12 subcategories and

more than 50 segments, as well as the

proposed BAT limitations for seven

subcategories with far fewer segments.

As a result, permit writers would need

to identify process units using different

characteristics for BPT than they would

use for BAT and other technology

levels. Therefore, EPA is considering an

alternative approach that EPA believes

would ease implementation of BPT

limitations in the NPDES permit

program.

Under this alternative approach, EPA

would replace the current mass-based

BPT limitations for TSS and oil & grease

with corresponding concentration-based

limitations for TSS and oil & grease. The

concentration-based BPT limitations

would be the treated effluent

concentrations used to develop the

current regulation for all operations EPA

proposes to continue to regulate under

the revised part 420 regulations. (Thus,

this option would not apply to Cold

Worked Pipe & Tube operations

currently subject to part 420, but which

EPA proposes to regulate under Part

438. Those concentrations are shown as

the daily maximum and maximum

monthly average TSS and oil & grease

concentrations (mg/L) for the 12

subcategories of the existing regulation

(see Table I–1 (pages 13 to 17), Vol. I of

the ‘‘Development Document for

Effluent Limitations Guidelines for the

Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point

Source Category,’’ (EPA 440/1–82–024;

May 1982)). electroplating operations

regulated currently under part 433, the

corresponding BPT concentration

limitations would be either those listed

at part 433, or those for the steel

finishing operations listed in Table I–1

referenced above.

Under this option, the TSS and oil &

grease concentrations listed in the 1982

development document would be

codified as BPT limitations in the seven

subcategories proposed for this

regulation. Because the TSS and oil &

grease concentrations used to develop

the 1982 regulation are the same for

operations within each of the seven

subcategories for this proposed

regulation, the structure of the revised

regulation would be streamlined and

implementation would be much

simpler. example, permit writers and

the industry would not have to contend

with classifying hot forming and steel

finishing operations under both the

more complicated subcategory and

segment schedule from the current

regulation and the less complicated

subcategory and segment schedule from

this proposed regulation.

Under this option, the permit writers

would develop NPDES permit effluent

limitations by first applying the

corresponding BAT limitations for toxic

and non-conventional pollutants for

each internal or external outfall

discharging process wastewaters. Mass

effluent limitations for TSS and oil &

grease would be developed by applying

the respective concentration-based BPT

effluent limitations guidelines to a

reasonable measure of actual process

wastewater discharge flow, taking into

account process wastewaters regulated

directly by Part 420 and those process

wastewaters that may be unregulated by

part 420 (see proposed regulation at

§ 420.03(f)). As with the BAT

limitations, the Agency intends that

only the mass limitations derived for

TSS and oil & grease as described above

be included in NPDES permits.

Depending upon site-specific

circumstances, this option could result

in either more or less stringent

limitations for TSS and oil & grease than

would be derived from the current BPT

limitations. example, if a mill has

process wastewater discharge flows

lower than the model BPT production

normalized flows from the 1982

regulation and no unregulated process

wastewaters, the resulting TSS and oil

& grease permit limitations would be

more stringent in proportion to the

amount of the lower discharge flow. On

the other hand, if the mill had higher

process wastewater flows or a

substantial volume of unregulated

process wastewaters, the resultant

effluent limitations would be higher in

proportion to the higher discharge flow.

The Agency believes that in many

instances the volume of regulated

process wastewaters currently

discharged or that will be discharged to

attain compliance with the BAT

limitations will be somewhat less than

the model BPT flow rates.

Consequently, on balance, EPA expects

that the resulting NPDES permit effluent

limitations for TSS and oil & grease

would be somewhat more stringent but

in the range of those derived from the

current BPT limitations.

Under this approach, as a practical

matter, there would be no additional

costs of compliance to achieve the

resulting BPT TSS and oil & grease

effluent limitations. Incremental

investment costs and incremental

operation and maintenance costs were

considered, where appropriate, as costs

to achieve the BAT limitations. In

addition, EPA would not expect

facilities to incur additional monitoring

costs associated with concentrationbased BPT limitations because facilities

already monitor for these pollutants

under the current regulation, and EPA

does not propose to establish any new

monitoring requirements for the

conventional pollutants. Nonetheless,

for the purposes of calculating cost per

pound of conventional pollutants

removed, EPA has estimated both the

costs associated with implementing new

BPT technologies (in this case, identical

to the proposed BAT technologies, even

though as a practical matter, they are

already subsumed in the BAT costs ), as

well as the total pounds removed by

those technologies. (These totals reflect

only the subcategories and segments for

which EPA is considering revising BPT

limitations.) The total estimated costs

are $53.8 million (1997 pretax total

annualized costs) and the total

estimated removals are 30.3 million

pounds of conventional pollutants. EPA

believes these costs to be reasonable in

relation to the effluent reduction

benefits. If EPA were to adopt this

alternative approach, EPA would revise

BCT limitations to reflect the new BPT

levels because nothing more stringent

that those levels appears to pass the

BCT cost test.

EPA solicits comments on this

alternative approach, which EPA

believes would ease the implementation

of the BPT limitations and would reflect

current manufacturing, waste

management, and wastewater treatment

practices. EPA also solicits other

options for consideration.

6. BCT

The BCT methodology, promulgated

in 1986 (51 FR 24974), discusses the

Agency’s consideration of costs in

establishing BCT effluent limitations

guidelines. EPA evaluates the

reasonableness of BCT candidate

technologies (those that are

technologically feasible) by applying a

two-part cost test:

(1) The POTW test; and

(2) The industry cost-effectiveness

test.

In the POTW test, EPA calculates the

cost per pound of conventional

pollutant removed by industrial

dischargers in upgrading from BPT to a

BCT candidate technology and then

compares this cost to the cost per pound

of conventional pollutant removed in

upgrading POTWs from secondary

treatment. The upgrade cost to industry

82016 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

must be less than the POTW benchmark

of $0.25 per pound (in 1976 dollars).

In the industry cost-effectiveness test,

the ratio of the incremental BPT to BCT

cost divided by the BPT cost for the

industry must be less than 1.29 (i.e., the

cost increase must be less than 29

percent).

In developing BCT limits, EPA

considered whether there are

technologies that achieve greater

removals of conventional pollutants

than proposed for BPT, and whether

those technologies are cost-reasonable

according to the prescribed BCT tests.

EPA identified no technologies that can

achieve greater removals of

conventional pollutants than the BPT

standards that also pass the BCT costreasonableness tests. Accordingly, EPA

proposes to establish BCT effluent

limitations equal to the current BPT

limitations.

7. Consideration of Statutory Factors for

BAT, PSES, NSPS and PSNS

Technology Options Selection

Based on the record before it, EPA has

determined that each proposed model

technology is technically available. EPA

is also proposing that each is

economically achievable for the segment

to which it applies. Further, EPA has

determined, for the reasons set forth in

Section VIII, that none of the proposed

technology options has unacceptable

adverse non-water quality

environmental impacts. Finally, EPA

has determined that each proposed

technology option achieves greater

pollutant removals than any other

economically achievable technology

considered by EPA and, for that reason,

also represents the best technology

among those considered for the

particular segment. EPA also considered

the age, size, processes, and other

engineering factors pertinent to facilities

in the proposed segments for the

purpose of evaluating the technology

options. None of these factors provides

a basis for selecting different

technologies than those EPA proposes to

select as its model BAT and PSES

technologies for the segments within

each subcategory, or if EPA does not

propose segmentation, for the

subcategory itself.

In selecting its proposed NSPS

technology for these segments and

subcategories, EPA considered all of the

factors specified in CWA section 306,

including the cost of achieving effluent

reductions. (These findings also apply

to the proposed PSNS for these

segments.) The proposed NSPS

technologies for these segments are

presently being employed at facilities in

each segment of these subcategories.

Therefore, EPA has concluded that such

costs do not present a barrier to entry.

The Agency also considered energy

requirements and other non-water

quality environmental impacts for the

proposed NSPS options and concluded

that these impacts were no greater than

for the proposed BAT technology

options for the particular segment and

are acceptable. EPA therefore concluded

that the NSPS technology bases

proposed for these segments constitute

the best available demonstrated control

technology for those segments.

B. Cokemaking

After considering all of the technology

options described in the Section V.C in

light of the factors specified in section

304(b)(2)(B) and 306 of the Clean Water

Act, as appropriate, EPA proposes to

select the technology options identified

below as BAT, PSES, NSPS, and PSNS

for the by-product and non-recovery

cokemaking segments of the proposed

Cokemaking Subcategory.

1. By-Product Cokemaking

a. Regulated Pollutants. i. BAT. the

By-Product segment of this subcategory,

EPA proposes establishing BAT

limitations for ammonia-N, total

cyanide, phenol, benzo(a)pyrene,

thiocyanate, naphthalene, mercury,

selenium, and Total Residual Chlorine

(TRC). Except for TRC, these pollutants

are characteristic of cokemaking

wastewaters. TRC is an indicator of

post-alkaline chlorination residual

concentration of chlorine. Facilities

would not need to meet the TRC limit

if they certify to the permitting authority

that they do not employ alkaline

chlorination in their wastewater

treatment. These proposed regulated

pollutants are key indicators of the

performance of the ammonia

distillation, biological treatment, and

alkaline chlorination processes, which

are the key components of the complex

model BAT and NSPS treatment

systems for by-product coke plants.

ii. PSES. EPA proposes to regulate the

following parameters under PSES:

ammonia-N, total cyanide, thiocyanate,

selenium, phenol, and naphthalene.

Using the methodology described in

Section IX.A.2, EPA has determined that

each of these pollutants passes through.

EPA notes that ammonia-N is a key

indicator of the performance of the

PSES and PSNS treatment systems

because it reflects the performance of

the ammonia stills, which not only

control ammonia-N, but also acid gasses

(HCN, H2S) and volatile toxic organic

pollutants (benzene, toluene, xylenes),

some portions of which would

otherwise be lost in coke plant and

municipal sewer systems and in

biological processes at POTWs. EPA has

determined that the other pollutants

EPA proposes to regulate at BAT

(benzo(a)pyrene and mercury) do not

pass through.

iii. NSPS. NSPS limitations, EPA

proposes to regulate the same pollutants

as those for BAT, with the addition of

TSS and oil and grease (measured as

HEM).

iv. PSNS. EPA proposes to regulate

the same parameters as under PSES for

this segment.

b. Technology Selected. i. BAT. The

Agency is proposing to establish BAT–

3 for the by-products recovery segment

of the cokemaking subcategory. The

treatment technologies that serve as the

basis for the development of the

proposed BAT limits are: Tar removal,

equalization, ammonia stripping,

temperature control, equalization,

single-stage biological treatment with

nitrification, and alkaline chlorination.

EPA estimates that only one facility will

close as a result of BAT–3. EPA has

determined that this option is

economically achievable and cost

effective.

As presented in Section V.C.1, four

BAT options were under consideration.

Under BAT–1, water usage would be

reduced by 1.6 million gallons per year

from current levels and the removal

toxic and non-conventional pollutants

would increase by 14% over those

levels. BAT–2 results in no further

reduction in flow beyond that to be

achieved by BAT–1, but does result in

the additional removal of 17% of the

total cyanide from direct discharging

cokemaking wastestreams through the

use of cyanide precipitation. BAT–3

also results in no further reduction in

flow beyond that to be achieved by

BAT–1, but does result in the additional

removal of 50% of the total cyanide

from direct discharging cokemaking

wastestreams beyond BAT–1 levels

through the use of alkaline chlorination.

BAT–4 results in no further reduction in

flow beyond that to be achieved by any

of the BAT options, and does not lead

to significant additional pollutant

removal beyond that to be achieved by

BAT–3.

BAT–1 removes 56,300 toxic pound

equivalents over current discharge at an

annualized compliance cost of $0.9

million (1997$). BAT–2 removes an

additional 26% of toxic pound

equivalents over BAT–1, at an

additional annualized compliance cost

of $3.3 million (1997$). Neither of these

options results in any facility closures,

so both are considered economically

achievable. However, EPA is not

proposing either of these options,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 82017

because BAT–3 removes even more

pollutants of concern at a cost that is

also economically achievable.

EPA also evaluated BAT–4 as a basis

for establishing BAT more stringent

than the level of control being proposed

today. As was the case for BAT–3, EPA

estimates that only one facility would

close as a result of BAT–4, so EPA has

determined that this option is

economically achievable. However, EPA

is not proposing to establish BAT limits

based on BAT–4 because it determined

that BAT–3 achieves nearly equivalent

reductions in pound-equivalents for

much less cost. EPA has determined

that BAT–3 would remove 0.43 million

pounds of priority and nonconventional pollutants per year at a

total annualized cost of $8.6 million

(1997$). In contrast, BAT–4 would

remove the same quantity of pollutants

at a total annualized cost of $15.2

million (1997$). In view of the fact that

BAT–4 appears to achieve no additional

pollutant removals and yet would

prompt additional total annualized costs

of $6.6 million, EPA has determined

that BAT–3, not BAT–4, is the ‘‘best

available’’ technology economically

achievable for the by-products recovery

segment of the cokemaking subcategory.

ii. PSES. EPA is co-proposing two sets

of technologies to serve as the bases for

the development of the proposed PSES

limits: (1) Tar removal, equalization,

ammonia stripping, temperature control

and equalization, and (2) tar removal,

equalization, ammonia stripping,

temperature control, equalization, and

single-stage biological treatment with

nitrification. These are identified as

options PSES–1 and PSES–3 in Section

V.C., respectively, and provide controls

for each pollutant that EPA has

determined pass through. EPA estimates

that no facilities would close as a result

of compliance with either of these

options. EPA has concluded that these

options are economically achievable.

Under Option PSES–1, EPA estimates

an additional 3,400 toxic pound

equivalents would be removed per year

above the current amount, at an

additional annualized compliance cost

of $0.3 million (1997$). Under Option

PSES–2, EPA estimates an additional

2,200 toxic pound equivalents would be

removed per year above PSES–1, at an

additional annualized compliance cost

of $1.9 million (1997$). Under PSES–3,

EPA estimates an additional 42,900

toxic pound equivalents would be

removed per year above PSES–2, at an

additional annualized compliance cost

of $2.8 million (1997$). Under PSES–4,

EPA estimates an additional 2,900 toxic

pound equivalents would be removed

per year above PSES–3, at an additional

annualized compliance cost of $3.5

million (1997$). Based on consideration

of the additional pollutant removals

achieved by PSES–4 for indirect

dischargers in this subcategory and the

additional costs needed to achieve

them, EPA has determined that PSES–

3 is the best technology for the byproducts recovery segment of the

cokemaking subcategory.

Although EPA considers PSES–3 to be

the best among the PSES options EPA

considered, EPA is also co-proposing

PSES–1 because it may provide a lower

cost means of obtaining similar

pollutant reductions. EPA plans to

further evaluate setting PSES equal to

BAT–3 between proposal and

promulgation of this rule.

iii. NSPS. The treatment technologies

that serve as the basis for the

development of the proposed NSPS are

the same as Option BAT–3. the reasons

set forth above for BAT in its

comparison of BAT–3 and BAT–4, EPA

has determined that BAT–3 is the ‘‘best’’

demonstrated technology for new

sources in the by-products recovery

segment of the cokemaking subcategory.

iv. PSNS. The treatment technologies

that serve as the basis for the

development of the proposed PSNS are

the same as Option PSES–3. the reasons

discussed above, EPA proposes PSES–3

as the basis for its PSNS for this

segment. The Agency also solicits

comment on the second option

discussed under PSES for this segment,

identified as option PSES–1. EPA plans

to further evaluate setting PSNS equal to

BAT–3 between proposal and

promulgation of this rule.

2. Non-recovery Cokemaking

Since the non-recovery cokemaking

process does not generate any process

wastewater, EPA proposes no discharge

of process wastewater pollutants to

waters of the U.S. for BAT/PSES/NSPS/

PSNS for all categories for this segment.

C. Ironmaking

After considering all of the technology

options described in the Section V.C in

light of the factors specified in section

304(b)(2)(B) and 306 of the Clean Water

Act, as appropriate, EPA proposes to

select the technology options identified

below as BAT, PSES, NSPS, and PSNS

for the blast furnace and sintering

segments of the proposed Ironmaking

Subcategory.

1. Blast Furnace

a. Regulated Pollutants. i. BAT. EPA

proposes to regulate the following

parameters under BAT: Ammonia-N,

total cyanide, phenol, lead, zinc, and

total recoverable chlorine (TRC).

Ammonia-N and total cyanide are

regulated in the current part 420 and are

again proposed for regulation. These

pollutants are characteristic of blast

furnace ironmaking wastewaters and are

key indicators of the performance of the

alkaline chlorination process. Phenol is

proposed for regulation in place of total

phenols, because EPA judged phenol to

be a better indicator of treatment

performance of ironmaking wastewater

than total phenols. EPA proposes to

limit TRC to ensure residual

concentrations of chlorine are kept to a

minimum to avoid effluent toxicity.

Facilities would not need to meet the

TRC limit if they certify to the

permitting authority that they do not

employ alkaline chlorination in their

wastewater treatment. EPA proposes to

limit lead and zinc because they are the

principal metals present and will track

performance of the metals precipitation

model BAT system with respect to other

metals identified as pollutants of

concern.

ii. PSES. EPA proposes to regulate the

following parameters under PSES:

ammonia-N, lead, and zinc. Using the

methodology described in Section

IX.A.2, EPA has determined that each of

these pollutants passes through. EPA

has determined that the other pollutants

EPA proposes to regulate at BAT (total

cyanide and phenol) do not pass

through.

iii. NSPS. In addition to the

parameters listed under BAT for this

segment, EPA proposes to regulate TSS

and oil & grease (measured as HEM).

iv. PSNS. EPA proposes to regulate

the same parameters under PSNS for

this segment as it does for PSES.

b. Technology Selected. i. BAT. The

treatment technologies that serve as the

basis for the development of the

proposed BAT limits for the ironmaking

subcategory (Blast Furnace and

Sintering Segments) are: solids removal

with high-rate recycle and metals

precipitation, alkaline chlorination, and

mixed-media-filtration for the

blowdown wastewater. This is

identified as BAT–1 in Section V.C.

Under BAT–1, water usage would be

reduced by 5% over current levels, and

total loadings of toxic and nonconventional pollutants would be

reduced by 68%. EPA estimates that no

facilities would close as a result of

BAT–1. EPA has determined that this

option is economically achievable. EPA

did not pursue additional, more

stringent options because all significant

POCs in the effluent after application of

BAT–1 system are projected to exist at

levels too low to be further treated by

any other add-on technology. Therefore,

EPA proposes BAT–1 as the technology

82018 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

basis for BAT for the ironmaking

subcategory.

ii. PSES. The treatment technologies

that serve as the basis for the

development of the proposed PSES

limits are: solids removal with high-rate

recycle and metals precipitation for the

blowdown wastewater. This is

identified as Option PSES–1 in Section

V.C. This option provides controls for

each pollutant that EPA has determined

passes through for this segment. EPA

has determined that this option is

economically achievable. Although

BAT–1 achieves additional removal of

ammonia-N through alkaline

chlorination, EPA has found that all

POTWs currently receiving wastewater

from ironmaking operations are

achieving ammonia removal comparable

to that achieved by BAT–1. Therefore,

EPA proposes PSES–1 as the technology

basis for PSES for the ironmaking

subcategory.

EPA is proposing regulatory flexibility

that would allow indirectly discharging

ironmaking operations to not have to

meet the pretretment standards for

ammonia-N if the facility certifies to the

pretreatment control authority under 40

CFR 403.12 that they discharge to

POTWs with the capability, when

considered together with the indirect

discharger’s removals, to achieve

removals at least equivalent to those

expected under BAT for ammonia-N.

EPA plans to further evaluate setting

PSES equal to BAT–1 between proposal

and promulgation of this rule.

iii. NSPS. The treatment technologies

that serve as the basis for the

development of the proposed NSPS

limits are the same as Option BAT–1 for

this segment. As was the case for BAT,

EPA did not pursue additional, more

stringent options for NSPS because all

significant POCs in the effluent after

application of BAT–1 system are

projected to exist at levels too low to be

further treated by this or any other addon technology. Therefore, EPA proposes

BAT–1 as the technology basis for NSPS

for the ironmaking subcategory because

EPA believes it represents the best

demonstrated technology for this

subcategory.

iv. PSNS. The treatment technologies

that serve as the basis for the

development of the proposed PSNS

limits are the same as Option PSES–1

for this segment. the reasons set forth

above for NSPS, EPA proposes PSES–1

as the basis for PSNS for this

subcategory.

EPA is proposing regulatory flexibility

that would allow indirectly discharging

ironmaking operations to not have to

meet the pretreatment standards for

ammonia-N if the facility certifies to the

pretreatment control authority under 40

CFR 403.12 that they discharge to

POTWs with the capability, when

considered together with the indirect

discharger’s removals, to achieve

removals at least equivalent to those

expected under BAT for ammonia-N.

EPA plans to further evaluate setting

PSNS equal to BAT–1 between proposal

and promulgation of this rule.

2. Sintering

a. Regulated Pollutants. Because

several congeners of dioxins have been

shown to cause adverse health effects at

concentration levels far below those of

most pollutants, EPA proposes to

regulate 2,3,7,8-tetra-chloro-dibenzo

furan (TCDF). EPA selected this

congener because sampling data

indicates that it is present in posttreatment sinter plant wastewater, and

because removal of this pollutant is

expected to correlate strongly with

removal of other dioxin congeners, due

to their similar chemical structures.

EPA’s sampling program did not

indicate that there are measurable

quantities of 2,3,7,8-tetra-chlorodibenzo dioxin (TCDD) in posttreatment sinter plant wastewater. The

proposed limit would be expressed as

less than the minimum level (‘‘<ML’’) or

ten parts per quadrillion using current

analytical methods. The ‘‘ML’’ is an

abbreviation for the minimum level of

the analytical method for TCDF

specified in 40 CFR part 136. EPA

proposes to require compliance

monitoring at internal outfalls (after

treatment of sinter plant wastewaters

separately or in combination with blast

furnace wastewaters), i.e., before any

additional process or non-process flows

are combined with the sinter plant

wastewater. This regulatory approach is

similar to that used in the regulation of

the bleached paper grade plant effluents

at bleached kraft pulp and paper mills

(see 40 CFR 430.24(e)). EPA expects to

gather additional information on dioxin

and furan concentrations in sinter plant

effluent and on this proposed regulatory

approach through the public comment

process. EPA also is willing to speak

with interested parties during the

comment period to ensure that EPA

considers the views of all stakeholders

and uses the best possible data upon

which to base a decision for the final

regulation.

i. BAT

EPA proposes to regulate the

following parameters under BAT:

ammonia-N, total cyanide, phenol, lead,

zinc, TRC and 2,3,7,8 TCDF. EPA

proposes to regulate ammonia-N, total

cyanide and phenol in order to track

performance of the BAT model

treatment technology, which includes

alkaline chlorination. EPA proposes to

regulate TRC in order to ensure residual

concentrations of chlorine are kept to a

minimum to avoid effluent toxicity.

Facilities would not need to meet the

TRC limit if they certify to the

permitting authority that they do not

employ alkaline chlorination in their

wastewater treatment. EPA proposes to

regulate lead and zinc because they are

the principal metals present and will

track performance of the metals

precipitation model BAT system with

respect to other metals identified as

pollutants of concern.

ii. PSES

EPA proposes to regulate the

following parameters under PSES:

ammonia-N, lead, zinc, and 2,3,7,8

TCDF. Using the methodology described

in Section IX.A.2, EPA has determined

that each of these pollutants passes

through. EPA has determined that the

other pollutants EPA proposes to

regulate at BAT (cyanide and phenol) do

not pass through.

iii. NSPS

In addition to the parameters listed

under BAT for this segment, EPA

proposes to regulate TSS and oil &

grease (measured as HEM).

iv. PSNS

EPA proposes to regulate the same

parameters under PSNS for this segment

as it does for PSES.

b. Technologies Selected.

i. BAT/PSES/NSPS/PSNS

See discussions under ‘‘Blast

Furnace’’ above.

D. Integrated Steelmaking

After considering all of the technology

options described in the Section V.C in

light of the factors specified in section

304(b)(2)(B) and 306 of the Clean Water

Act, as appropriate, EPA proposes to

select the technology options identified

below as BAT, PSES, NSPS, and PSNS

for the proposed Integrated Steelmaking

Subcategory.

1. Regulated Pollutants

a. BAT/PSES/NSPS/PSNS. EPA

proposes to regulate lead and zinc under

BAT/PSES/NSPS/PSNS because they

are the principal metals present and

because they are good indicators of the

performance of the metals precipitation

component of the proposed model

technology. Using the methodology

described in Section IX.A.2, EPA has

determined that both lead and zinc pass

through.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 82019

2. Technology Selected

a. BAT/NSPS/PSES/PSNS. The

treatment technologies that serve as the

basis for the development of the

proposed BAT/NSPS/PSES/PSNS limits

are: solids removal and high rate

recycle, with metals precipitation for

blowdown wastewater. Cooling towers

are also part of the model technology for

process wastewater associated with

vacuum degassing or continuous

casting. This option is identified as

BAT–1 in Section V.C.

Under BAT–1, water usage can be

reduced by 83% over current levels, and

total loadings of toxic and nonconventional pollutants can be reduced

by 66%. EPA estimates that no facilities

would close as a result of BAT–1. EPA

has determined that this option is

economically achievable. EPA did not

pursue other options because all

significant POCs in the effluent after

application of BAT–1 system are

projected to exist at levels too low to be

further treated by any other add-on

technologies. Therefore, EPA proposes

BAT–1 as the technology basis for BAT

for the proposed Integrated Steelmaking

subcategory.

the same reason, EPA proposes BAT–

1 as the basis for PSES for this

subcategory. This option provides

controls for each pollutant that EPA has

determined passes through for this

subcategory.

As was the case for BAT and PSES,

EPA did not pursue additional, more

stringent options for NSPS and PSNS

because all significant POCs in the

effluent after application of BAT–1

system are projected to exist at levels

too low to be further treated by any

other add-on technology. Therefore,

EPA proposes BAT–1 as the technology

basis for NSPS and PSNS for the

integrated steelmaking subcategory

because EPA believes it represents the

best demonstrated technology for this

subcategory.

E. Integrated and Stand Alone Hot ming

After considering all of the technology

options described in the Section V.C in

light of the factors specified in section

304(b)(2)(B) and 306 of the Clean Water

Act, as appropriate, EPA proposes to

select the technology options identified

below as BAT, PSES, NSPS, and PSNS

for the carbon and allow segment and

the stainless steel segment of the

proposed Integrated and Stand Alone

Hot ming Subcategory.

1. Carbon and Alloy

a. Regulated Pollutants. i. BAT. EPA

is proposing to regulate the following

pollutants: lead and zinc.

ii. PSES/PSNS. See discussion under

‘‘Technology Selected—PSES/PSNS’’

below.

iii. NSPS. EPA is proposing regulating

the same pollutants as for BAT, with the

addition of TSS and oil & grease

(measured as HEM).

b. Technology Selected. i. BAT. EPA

is proposing two different BAT

approaches today because of the

uncertainty regarding the economic

achievability of the preferred option in

April 2002 when EPA is scheduled to

take final action on this proposal.

BAT Option A: The treatment

technologies that serve as the basis for

the development of BAT Option A are:

scale pit with oil skimming, roughing

clarifier, cooling tower with high rate

recycle and mixed-media filtration of

blowdown. As required by CWA section

301(b)(2), each existing direct discharger

subject to this proposed BAT would be

subject to the corresponding limitations

as soon they are incorporated into the

facility’s NPDES permit. EPA believes

the BAT Option A is economically

achievable because the facility level

analysis projects no facility closures.

The firm level analysis does, however,

project that one or more firms may

experience financial ‘‘distress’’ as a

result of the aggregate compliance costs

of the rule, including the hot forming

segment compliance costs. Financial

‘‘distress’’ may indicate the loss of

financial independence, sale of assets or

the likelihood of bankruptcy. In this

case, the facility level analysis indicates

the facilities would be expected to

remain viable postcompliance and

would possess value as continuing

concerns. Therefore, EPA expects that

the firm(s) would respond to financial

‘‘distress’’ through the sale of assets,

rather than through declaration of

bankruptcy, which would be far more

disruptive in terms of economic impacts

for the subcategory as a whole. example,

job losses would be more limited in the

event of the sale of a facility owned by

a distressed firm rather than a

bankruptcy induced closure and any

community impacts associated with job

losses would likewise be less severe.

The Agency believes that this projected

level of financial distress is not

significant and therefore believes that

Option A is economically achievable for

the segment as a whole.

BAT Option B: As discussed in more

detail above in Section V.C.4.b, Section

VI.D.4, and Section VI.F, EPA has

estimated that it could cost affected

facilities $ 21.2 million in total

annualized costs to comply with BAT

limitations based on the proposed BAT

model technology, which includes high

rate recycle. When those costs are

considered together with other costs

that EPA estimates firms will incur if

this rule is promulgated as proposed,

EPA has predicted that the cumulative

costs of this rule could jeopardize the

corporate financial health of one or

more firms. See Section VI.F. While

EPA considers those possible impacts to

be acceptable for the purposes of today’s

proposal, EPA is also aware that new

information received after this proposal,

including information regarding

changes in the financial health of the

industry due to changes in the national

economy and foreign trade, might lead

EPA to reach a different conclusion

when EPA takes final action on this

proposal in April 2002. Therefore, in

addition to proposed BAT Option A for

the carbon and alloy segment of the

Integrated and Stand Alone Hot ming

subcategory, EPA is proposing a second

BAT approach for this segment. EPA is

considering BAT limitations for this

segment based on BAT Option B in the

event it determines that BAT Option A

is not economically achievable for the

segment as a whole at the time it takes

final action on today’s proposal. The

proposed alternative described below is

designed to minimize possible adverse

economic impacts of the primary

proposed BAT option for this segment.

Like the BAT option A, BAT Option

B includes high rate recycle. (Indeed,

the technology basis for BAT Option A

and the proposed alternative is

identical.) The difference between BAT

Option A and BAT Option B involves

the amount of time that facilities in the

segment would have to achieve the BAT

limitations based on that technology.

Under BAT option A, all direct

discharging facilities covered by the

carbon and alloy segment of the

Integrated and Stand Alone Hot ming

subcategory would be subject to the

BAT limitations as soon as they are

placed in the facilities’ NPDES permit.

See sections 301(b)(2)(C), (D) and (F) of

the Clean Water Act. Although it is

common practice for permit writers to

issue administrative orders concurrent

with issuing permits based on a new or

revised effluent guideline, the decision

to do so is left to the permit writers’

enforcement discretion. Therefore, EPA

cannot assume the availability of such

relief when it estimates the costs and

impacts of this proposed rule. Under

BAT Option B, in contrast, all facilities

within the carbon and alloy segment of

the Integrated and Stand Alone Hot

ming subcategory could receive

additional time to achieve the

limitations based on the proposed BAT

technology for that segment. If EPA

ultimately determines in April 2002 that

82020 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

BAT Option A is not economically

achievable for the segment as a whole,

it may decide to take final action based

on BAT Option B.

Under BAT Option B, EPA would

codify BAT limitations that consisted of

three separate components. Together,

the three components would comprise

BAT for the carbon and alloy segment

of the Integrated and Stand Alone Hot

ming subcategory and, operating

incrementally, would become

progressively more stringent over time.

Although applied in stages, the

limitations would represent a

continuum of progress that all facilities

under BAT Option B would be required

to achieve by April 30, 2007. Under the

first component, consisting of ‘‘stage 1’’

BAT limitations, each facility subject to

this segment would be immediately

subject to limitations based on the mill’s

existing effluent quality for the

regulated pollutants, or its current

technology-based permit limits for those

pollutants, whichever are more

stringent. The second component would

consist of enforceable interim

milestones developed on a best

professional judgment basis by the

permitting authority to reflect

reasonable interim milestones toward

achievement of the ultimate BAT

limitations. Under the third component,

consisting of the ultimate, or ‘‘stage 2’’,

BAT limitations, each facility by April

30, 2007 would be subject to limitations

that are based on the BAT technology

proposed for this segment (i.e., scale pit

with oil skimming, roughing clarifier,

filtration, high rate recycle and mixedmedia filtration of blowdown).

With respect to the ‘‘stage 1’’

limitations, EPA intends that the

permitting authority would express that

limitation in numeric form for each

facility on a case-by-case basis. The

‘‘stage 1’’ limitations thus will be

numeric values on the regulated

pollutants, that, for each pollutant, are

equivalent to the more stringent of

either the technology-based limit on that

pollutant in the facility’s last permit or

the facility’s current effluent quality

with respect to that pollutant. Existing

effluent quality for the regulated

pollutants would be determined at the

internal monitoring point where the

wastewater containing those pollutants

leaves the hot forming wastewater

treatment plant. These ‘‘stage 1’’ BAT

limits would represent the first step in

the BAT continuum for BAT Option B

and would be enforceable against the

facility as soon as they are placed in the

facility’s NPDES permit. The purpose of

the ‘‘stage 1’’ BAT limits would be to

ensure that, at a minimum, existing

effluent quality is maintained while the

facility moves toward achieving the

‘‘stage 2’’ BAT limitations that are based

on the model BAT technologies for this

segment. Allowing a facility to degrade

its effluent quality during development

and installation of the model BAT

technologies would be inconsistent with

the statute’s direction that BAT

limitations achieve reasonable further

progress toward the Clean Water Act’s

national goals. EPA’s ‘‘stage 1’’

limitations, thus, would be intended to

capture continuously improving effluent

quality.

Because the ‘‘stage 1’’ limitations

would reflect a level of technology that

the facility is already employing or that

was previously determined to be BAT

for that facility, EPA would be able to

conclude at the time of promulgation

that the technology bases for the ‘‘stage

1’’ limits are both technically available

and economically achievable. If EPA

were to promulgate such limitations,

EPA would also consider whether they

would result in any adverse non-water

quality environmental impacts, and

would also consider all of the other

statutory factors specified in CWA

section 304(b)(2)(B) and 306. EPA

believes that ‘‘stage 1’’ limitations could

be the ‘‘best’’ available technology

economically achievable for facilities in

the segment if the record shows that

they allow those facilities to focus their

resources on the research, development,

testing, and installation of the

technologies ultimately needed to

achieve the ‘‘stage 2’’ limitations, which

are based on model BAT technology for

the subpart. ‘‘Stage 1’’ limitations thus

would reflect ‘‘reasonable further

progress toward the national goal of

eliminating the discharge of all

pollutants,’’ as called for by CWA

section 301(b)(2)(A), and could

reasonably represent the appropriate

first rung of the segment BAT ladder, if

EPA were to determine that the model

technology is not economically

achievable at the time of promulgation.

The second component would consist

of interim milestone limitations. Under

this component, facilities would be

required to meet enforceable

requirements determined by the

permitting authority based on best

professional judgment; these milestones

would be expressed as narrative or

numeric conditions in the facility’s

NPDES permit and would reflect each

step in a facility’s progress toward

achievement of the ultimate, ‘‘stage 2,’’

performance requirements.

With respect to ‘‘stage 2,’’ EPA would

promulgate limitations that represent

the performance that can be achieved

using the model BAT technology for the

segment. Because the model technology

for BAT Option B’s ‘‘stage 2’’ limitations

would be the same as those proposed for

BAT Option A, the calculated

limitations would be identical as well.

The difference between the BAT Option

A and BAT Option B is that the facilities

in this segment would not be required

to be subject to those limitations upon

promulgation. Rather, the facilities

would be subject to the ‘‘stage 2’’

limitations at some later date specified

in the regulation by EPA, e.g., April 30,

2007. That date would represent the

date by which EPA determines—based

on the administrative record at the time

of promulgation—that the model

technology would be economically

achievable for the segment as a whole.

Thus, under BAT Option B , if EPA

concludes at the time of promulgation

that five years would be sufficient time

to allow the subcategory as a whole to

raise the capital necessary to implement

the model BAT technology for the

segment in a way to assure its economic

achievability, then EPA would specify

that date as the date by which the

segment as a whole is subject to the

‘‘stage 2’’ BAT limitations.

EPA acknowledges that the

uncertainties of the iron and steel

market and the financial circumstances

of individual firms may make it difficult

to project the economic achievability of

particular technologies in future years,

even in the comparative near-term. EPA

expects it would take into account a

variety of factors, including the costs of

the BAT model technology over a

specified number of years, the expected

industry price and revenue cycle, the

economic impact on the segment of

other EPA regulations that might affect

them within the time frame, and

resulting aggregate costs, closures, and

firm failures.

In the effluent limitations guidelines

and standards for the pulp, paper and

paperboard industry, EPA adopted an

approach similar to BAT Option B as

part of its Voluntary Advanced

Technology Incentives Program. See 40

CFR 430.24(b). Facilities choosing to

participate in the Voluntary Advanced

Technology Incentives Program could

enroll at one of three levels, or tiers,

each with its own set of limits and time

frames for compliance and each based

on a different model BAT technology

(with technologies becoming more

advanced as the time periods for

compliance were extended). each tier,

EPA promulgated voluntary advanced

technology BAT limitations that

consisted of three separate components.

Together, the three components

comprised BAT for any bleached

papergrade kraft and soda mill that

elected to participate in the voluntary

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 82021

incentives program. See 40 CFR

430.24(b). The first component

consisted of ‘‘stage 1’’ existing effluent

quality limitations that were similar in

principle to the ‘‘stage 1’’ limitations

described above for BAT Option B. See

40 CFR 430.24(b)(1). The second

component consisted of enforceable

interim milestones developed on a best

professional judgment basis by the

permitting authority to reflect

reasonable interim milestones toward

achievement of the ultimate BAT

limitations. See 40 CFR 430.24(b)(2).

(The program also included numeric

six-year milestone limitations that

would apply to facilities that enrolled in

Incentives Tiers with deadlines of 2009

and 2014. See 40 CFR 430.24(b)(3).) The

third component consisted of numeric

‘‘stage 2’’ effluent limitations that

reflected the limitations achievable by

the model BAT technology for the

particular tier. Taken together, these

three components constitute reasonable

further progress toward the national

goal of eliminating the discharge of all

pollutants and for this reason

represented BAT.

EPA recognizes that some facilities in

this segment are already achieving or

are capable of achieving limitations

approaching the ultimate ‘‘stage 2’’

limitations. In this situation, the ‘‘stage

1’’ or interim milestone BAT limitations

for these mills would correspond to that

level of achievement, as judged by the

permitting authority based on

monitoring data supplied by the facility.

In this way, EPA would ensure that, for

the segment as a whole, limitations

would be derived from the ‘‘best’’

available technology economically

achievable, even though that technology

might vary on a mill-by-mill basis

during the interim period before the

‘‘stage 2’’ limitations apply. This

incremental approach is authorized by

CWA section 301(b)(2)(A), which

expressly requires BAT to result in

reasonable further progress toward the

national goal of eliminating pollutant

discharges. EPA believes that the twostep approach set forth in BAT Option

B would move facilities toward that

national goal. Each facility in the

segment would be required immediately

to begin to implement a BAT package

consisting of successively more

stringent permit limits and conditions.

Although environmental improvements

are realized only incrementally, the

facility is subject to BAT limits as soon

as its permit is written based on the first

increment of that BAT package. Thus,

the facility is continuously subject to

and must comply immediately with the

BAT limits as they progressively unfold,

including each interim BAT limitation

or permit condition representing that

progress.

EPA’s promulgation of BAT as a

package of progressively more stringent

limitations and conditions is also

consistent with the use of BAT as a

‘‘beacon to show what is possible.’’

Kennecott v. EPA, 780 F.2d 445, 448

(4th Cir. 1985). By using BAT Option B,

EPA thus would be able to promulgate

forward-looking effluent limitations

guidelines and standards for the

segment as a whole. If EPA were to

adopt BAT Option B, EPA would be

promoting a form of technological

progress that is consistent with

Congressional intent that BAT should

aspire to ‘‘increasingly higher levels of

control.’’ See, e.g., Statement of Sen.

Muskie (Oct. 4, 1972), reprinted in A

Legislative History of the Water

Pollution Control Act Amendments of

1972 (‘‘1972 Leg. Hist.’’), at 170. It

would also be consistent with the

overall goals of the Act. See CWA

section 101(a). Agencies have

considerable discretion to interpret their

statutes to promote Congressional

objectives. ‘‘ ‘[T]he breadth of agency

discretion is, if anything, at zenith when

the action * * * relates primarily to

* * * the fashioning of policies,

remedies and sanctions, including

enforcement and voluntary compliance

programs[,] in order to arrive at

maximum effectuation of Congressional

objectives.’’ ’ U.S. Steelworkers of

America v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189,

1230–31 n.64 (D.C. Cir. 1980)

(upholding OSHA rule staggering lead

requirements over 10 years) (quoting

Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. FPC,

379 F.2d 153, 159 (D.C. Cir. 1967)), cert.

denied, 453 U.S. 9113 (1981). In this

case, the codification of progressively

more stringent BAT limitations

advances not only the general goal of

the Clean Water Act, but also the

explicit goal of the BAT program. See

Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S.

837, 843–44 (1984).

Moving toward the elimination of

pollutant discharges in stages is also

consistent with the overarching

structure of the effluent limitations

guidelines program. Congress originally

envisioned that the sequence of

attaining BPT limits in 1977 and BAT

limits in 1983 would result in ‘‘levels of

control which approach and achieve the

elimination of the discharge of

pollutants.’’ Statement of Sen. Muskie

(Oct. 4, 1972), reprinted in 1972

Legislative History, at 170. This twostep approach produced dramatic

improvements in water quality, but did

not achieve the elimination of pollutant

discharges. Therefore, EPA periodically

revisits and revises its effluent

limitations guidelines with the intention

each time of making further progress

toward the national goal. This is the

third effluent limitations guideline

promulgated for the iron and steel

industry. Achieving these incremental

improvements through successive

rulemakings carries a substantial cost,

however. The effluent guideline

rulemaking process can be highly

complex, in large part because of the

massive record compiled to inform the

Agency’s decisions and because of the

substantial costs associated with

achieving each additional increment of

environmental improvement. If EPA

were to adopt BAT Option B, EPA

would hope to achieve the goals that

Congress envisioned for the BAT

program at considerably less cost: one

rulemaking that looks both at the

present and into the future.

Finally, like other agencies, EPA has

inherent authority to phase in regulatory

requirements in appropriate cases. EPA

has employed this authority in other

contexts. example, EPA recently phased

in, over two years, TSCA rules

pertaining to lead-based paint activities.

See 40 CFR 746.239 and 61 FR 45788,

45803 (Aug. 29, 1996). Similarly, the

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration phased in, over 10

years, a series of progressively more

stringent lead-related controls. See 29

CFR 1910.1025 (1979 ed.). Indeed, in

upholding that rule, the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the D.C. Circuit noted that

‘‘the extremely remote deadline at

which the [sources] are to meet the final

[permissible exposure limits] is perhaps

the single most important factor

supporting the feasibility of the

standard.’’ United Steelworkers of

America v. Marshall, 647 F.2d at 1278.

EPA is aware that CWA sections

301(b)(2)(C) & (D) require BAT limits to

be achieved ‘‘in no case later than three

years after the date such limits are

promulgated under section 304(b), and

in no case later than March 31, 1989.’’

(Section 301(b)(2)(F), which refers to

BAT limitations for nonconventional

pollutants, also contains the March 31,

1989 date, but uses as its starting point

the date the limitations are

‘‘established.’’) This language does not

speak to the precise question EPA

confronts here: whether EPA can

promulgate BAT limitations that are

phased in over time, so that a direct

discharger at all times is subject to and

must comply immediately with the

particular BAT limitations applicable to

them at any given point in time. Section

301(b)(2) provides no clear direction.

EPA therefore is charged with making a

reasonable interpretation of the statute

82022 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

to fill the gap. See Chevron, U.S.A., Inc.

v. NRDC, 467 U.S. at 843–44. EPA

believes that subjecting facilities to

progressively more stringent BAT

limitations over time could be the best

way of achieving reasonable further

progress toward eliminating all

pollutant discharges, as intended by

Congress. EPA could use BAT Option B

to push facilities to achieve

environmental reductions beyond those

achievable if EPA proposes a BAT based

on what is immediately attainable. BAT

Option B would also make it possible

for facilities to achieve these

performance requirements at a pace that

makes technical and economic sense. In

fact, the Agency estimates the total

annualized compliance costs for the

alternative to be $13.3 million, which

represents a savings of $7.9 million.

EPA specifically solicits comment on

both of these options, including options

for less expensive technology. Even

though the Agency believes that Option

A is economically achievable, there may

be non-trivial impacts for a few firms.

The Agency could not identify lessexpensive treatment technology that

would meet the objectives of the CWA.

Therefore EPA also solicits comment on

whether there is any rational basis to

distinguish among mills in this segment,

so as to apply BAT Option B only to a

specific subsegment of mills for which

the model technology is not

economically achievable at the time of

promulgation.

ii. PSES/PSNS. EPA estimates that

PSES–1, whose technical basis consists

of a scale pit with oil skimming, a

roughing clarifier, sludge dewatering,

filtration, and high rate recycle, with

mixed-media filtration of blowdown,

would result in a flow reduction of 74%

over current conditions, and a 53%

reduction in discharge of toxic and nonconventional pollutants. However, EPA

does not propose to promulgate PSES

for the carbon and allow steel segment

of the proposed Integrated and Stand

Alone Hot ming subcategory. EPA

believes that nationally applicable PSES

regulations are unnecessary at this time,

because there are only seven facilities in

this segment and because PSES–1

would result in an average removal of

only 21 toxic pound-equivalents per

facility per year for these facilities.

These reductions are much lower than

other categorical standards promulgated

by EPA. example, Organic Chemical,

Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF),

Electroplating, Battery Manufacturing,

and Porcelain Enameling toxic pound

equivalents removed per facility per

year range from 6,747 to 14,960. In

addition, EPA recently decided not to

promulgate pretreatment standards for

two industrial categories, Industrial

Laundries, see 64 FR 45072 (August 18,

1999) and Landfills, see 65 FR 3008

(January 19, 2000), based on low

removals of toxic pound equivalents by

facilities in those categories. In the case

of industrial laundries, EPA decided not

to promulgate pretreatment standards

based on 32 toxic pound equivalents per

facility per year, and in the landfills

effluent guidelines, EPA decided not to

promulgate pretreatment standards for

non-hazardous landfills based on the

removal of only 14 toxic pound

equivalents per facility per year.

The Agency believes that

pretreatment local limits implemented

on a case-by-case basis can more

appropriately address any individual

toxic parameters present at these

facilities.

iii. NSPS. EPA proposes BAT Option

A as the basis for NSPS for this segment

because EPA believes it represents the

best demonstrated technology for this

segment.

iv. PSNS. EPA is proposing not to

revise PSNS for this segment because

EPA does not foresee the construction of

any new indirect discharging facilities

that would be subject to this segment.

EPA also does not believe that it is

practicable for a direct discharging

facility covered by this segment to

become an indirect discharging facility

because their flows would be too large

for a POTW to handle.

2. Stainless

a. Regulated Pollutants. i. BAT EPA is

proposing regulating the following

pollutants: chromium and nickel.

ii. PSES/PSNS. See discussion under

‘‘Technology Selected—PSES/PSNS’’

below.

iii. NSPS. EPA is proposing to

regulate the same pollutants as for BAT,

with the addition of TSS and oil &

grease.

b. Technology Selected. i. BAT. The

treatment technologies that serve as the

basis for the development of the

proposed BAT limits for the stainless

segment of the integrated and stand

alone hot forming subcategory are: Scale

pit with oil skimming, roughing

clarifier, with high rate recycle and

mixed-media filtration of blowdown.

This option is referred to as BAT–1 in

Section V.C. EPA estimates that no

facilities would close as a result of

BAT–1. EPA has determined that this

option is economically achievable. EPA

did not pursue additional, more

stringent options because all significant

POCs in the effluent after application of

BAT–1 system are projected to exist at

levels too low to be further treated by

any add-on technology. Therefore, EPA

proposes BAT–1 as the technology basis

for BAT for the stainless steels segment

of the proposed Integrated and Stand

Alone Hot ming subcategory.

ii. PSES/PSNS. EPA estimates that

PSES–1 for the stainless segment of the

integrated and stand alone hot forming

subcategory would result in a reduction

of 90% of the flow from current levels,

and a 66% removal of toxic and nonconventional pollutants. However, EPA

does not propose to promulgate PSES

for the stainless steel segment of the

proposed Integrated and Stand Alone

Hot ming subcategory. EPA believes that

nationally applicable PSES regulations

are unnecessary at this time, because

there are only three facilities in this

segment and because PSES–1 would

result in an average removal of only 4

toxic pound-equivalents per facility per

year for these facilities. These

reductions are much lower than other

categorical standards promulgated by

EPA. example, Organic Chemical,

Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF),

Electroplating, Battery Manufacturing,

and Porcelain Enameling toxic pound

equivalents removed per facility per

year range from 6,747 to 14,960. And,

EPA recently decided not to promulgate

pretreatment standards for two

industrial categories, Industrial

Laundries, see 64 FR 45072 (August 18,

1999) and Landfills, see 65 FR 3008

(January 19, 2000), based on low

removals of toxic pound equivalents by

facilities in those categories. In the

industrial laundries rule, EPA decided

not to promulgate pretreatment

standards based on 32 toxic pound

equivalents per facility per year, and in

the landfills effluent guidelines, EPA

decided not to promulgate pretreatment

standards for non-hazardous landfills

based on the removal of only 14 toxic

pound equivalents per facility per year.

The Agency believes that

pretreatment local limits implemented

on a case-by-case basis can more

appropriately address any individual

toxic parameters present at these

facilities.

iii. NSPS. EPA’s proposed technology

is the same as the proposed BAT

technology for this segment because no

other treatment technologies are

demonstrated to control the pollutants

EPA proposes to regulate.

F. Non-integrated Steelmaking and Hot

ming

After considering all of the technology

options described in the Section V.C in

light of the factors specified in section

304(b)(2)(B) and 306 of the Clean Water

Act, as appropriate, EPA proposes to

select the technology options identified

below as BAT, PSES, NSPS, and PSNS

for the carbon and alloy segment and

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 82023

the stainless steel segment of the

proposed Non-integrated and Stand

Alone Hot ming Subcategory.

1. Carbon and Alloy

a. Regulated Pollutants. i. BAT. EPA

is proposing regulating the following

pollutants: lead and zinc.

ii. PSES. See discussion under

‘‘Technology Selected—PSES’’ below.

iii. NSPS/PSNS. EPA proposes no

discharge of process wastewater

pollutants to waters of the US for NSPS

and PSNS.

b. Technology Selected.

i. BAT. The treatment technologies

that serve as the basis for the

development of the proposed BAT

limits for the carbon and alloy segment

of the proposed Non-integrated and

Stand Alone Hot ming Subcategory are:

solids removal, cooling tower, high rate

recycle, mixed-media filtration of

recycled flow or of low volume

blowdown flow, and sludge dewatering.

This is identified as BAT–1 in Section

V.C. EPA estimates that the BAT–1

technology would result in a reduction

of 90% of flow and a 72% reduction in

the discharge of toxic and nonconventional pollutants. EPA estimates

BAT–1 to remove 39,100 toxic poundequivalents beyond current conditions,

at an annualized compliance cost of

$3.1 million (1997$). EPA estimates that

no facilities would close as a result of

BAT–1. EPA has determined that this

option is economically achievable. EPA

did not pursue additional, more

stringent options because all significant

POCs in the effluent after application of

BAT–1 system are projected to exist at

levels too low to be further treated by

any add-on technology. Therefore, EPA

proposes BAT–1 as the technology basis

for BAT for the carbon and allow steel

segment of the proposed Non-Integrated

and Stand Alone Hot ming subcategory.

ii. PSES. EPA estimates that the

PSES–1 technology would result in a

reduction of flow of 7%, and the

reduction in the discharge of nonconventional pollutants by 4.3%.

However, EPA does not propose to

revise PSES for the carbon and alloy

steel segment of the proposed NonIntegrated and Stand Alone Hot ming

subcategory. EPA believes that

nationally applicable PSES regulations

are unnecessary at this time, because

there are only 15 facilities in this

segment and because PSES–1 would

result in an average removal of only 3

toxic pound-equivalents per facility per

year for these facilities. These

reductions are much lower than other

categorical standards promulgated by

EPA. example, Organic Chemical,

Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF),

Electroplating, Battery Manufacturing,

and Porcelain Enameling toxic pound

equivalents removed per facility per

year range from 6,747 to 14,960. And,

EPA recently decided not to promulgate

pretreatment standards for two

industrial categories, Industrial

Laundries, see 64 FR 45072 (August 18,

1999) and Landfills, see 65 FR 3008

(January 19, 2000), based on low

removals of toxic pound equivalents by

facilities in those categories. In the

industrial laundries rule, EPA decided

not to promulgate pretreatment

standards based on 32 toxic pound

equivalents per facility per year, and in

the landfills effluent guidelines, EPA

decided not to promulgate pretreatment

standards for non-hazardous landfills

based on the removal of only 14 toxic

pound equivalents per facility per year.

While EPA does not propose to revise

PSES for this segment, EPA intends to

re-codify the current PSES to fit the new

proposed subcategorization format.

iii. NSPS/PSNS. EPA proposes no

discharge of process wastewater

pollutants to waters of the US for NSPS

and PSNS. The model NSPS process

water and water pollution control

technologies include treatment and

high-rate recycle systems, management

of process area storm water, and

disposal of low-volume blowdown

streams by evaporation through

controlled application on electric

furnace slag, direct cooling of electrodes

in electric furnaces, and other

evaporative uses. Operators of 24

existing non-integrated steel facilities

have reported zero discharge of process

wastewater. These facilities are located

in the following states: Alabama,

Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana,

Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, North

Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South

Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and

Washington. In the Non-Integrated

Steelmaking and Hot ming subcategory,

the 24 facilities produce the following

products: Bars, beams, billets, flats,

plate, rail, rebar, rod, sheet, slabs, small

structurals, strip, and specialty sections.

Consequently, the Agency has

determined that zero discharge is an

appropriate NSPS for non-integrated

steelmaking and hot forming operations

located in any area of the United States

and producing any product. EPA judged

that there is no barrier to entry for new

sources to achieve this option.

2. Stainless

a. Regulated Pollutants. i. BAT. EPA

is proposing regulating the following

pollutants: chromium and nickel.

ii. PSES. EPA is proposing regulating

the following pollutants: chromium and

nickel. Using the methodology

described in Section IX.A.2, EPA has

determined that both pollutants pass

through.

iii. NSPS/PSNS. EPA proposes no

discharge of process wastewater

pollutants to waters of the US for NSPS/

PSNS.

b. Technology Selected. i. BAT.

The treatment technologies that serve

as the basis for the development of the

proposed BAT limits for the Stainless

segment are: solids removal, cooling

tower, high rate recycle, mixed-media

filtration of recycled flow or of low

volume blowdown flow, and sludge

dewatering. This is identified as BAT–

1 in Section V.C. Under BAT–1, water

usage would be reduced by 50% over

current levels, and total loadings of nonconventionals would be reduced by

29%. EPA estimates BAT–1 to remove

1,560 toxic pound-equivalents beyond

current conditions, at an annualized

compliance cost of $0.1 million (1997$).

EPA estimates that no facilities would

close as a result of BAT–1. EPA has

determined that this option is

economically achievable. EPA did not

pursue additional, more stringent

options because all significant POCs in

the effluent after application of BAT–1

system are projected to exist at levels

too low to be further treated by any addon technology. Therefore, EPA proposes

BAT–1 as the technology basis for BAT

for the stainless steel segment of the

Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot

ming subcategory.

ii. PSES. The treatment technologies

that serve as the basis for the

development of the proposed PSES

limits for the Stainless segment are the

same as for BAT–1. This option

provides controls for each pollutant that

EPA has determined passes through for

this segment. EPA estimates that the

PSES–1 technology would result in a

reduction of flow of 85%, and the

reduction in the discharge of nonconventional pollutants by 20%. EPA

estimates that no facilities would close

as a result of BAT–1. EPA has

determined that this option is

economically achievable. As was the

case for BAT, EPA did not pursue

additional, more stringent options for

PSES because all significant POCs in the

effluent after application of BAT–1

system are projected to exist at levels

too low to be further treated by this or

any other add-on technology. Therefore,

EPA proposes BAT–1 as the technology

basis for PSES for this segment.

iii. NSPS/PSNS. EPA proposes no

discharge of process wastewater

pollutants to waters of the US for NSPS

and PSNS. See discussion under NSPS/

PSNS for the Carbon and Alloy segment

of this subcategory, above.

82024 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

G. Finishing

After considering all of the technology

options described in the Section V.C in

light of the factors specified in section

304(b)(2)(B) and 306 of the Clean Water

Act, as appropriate, EPA proposes to

select the technology options identified

below as BAT, PSES, NSPS, and PSNS

for the carbon and allow segment and

the stainless steel segment of the

proposed Finishing Subcategory.

1. Carbon and Alloy

a. Regulated Pollutants. i. BAT. EPA

is proposing regulating the following

pollutants: hexavalent chromium,

chromium, lead, and zinc.

ii. PSES. See discussion under

‘‘Technology selected—PSES’’ below.

iii. NSPS. EPA is proposing regulating

the same pollutants as for BAT, with the

addition of TSS and oil & grease.

iv. PSNS. EPA is proposing regulating

the same pollutants as for BAT. Using

the methodology described in Section

IX.A.2, EPA has determined that

hexavalent chromium, chromium, lead,

and zinc pass through.

b. Technology Selected. i. BAT. The

treatment technologies that serve as the

basis for the development of the

proposed BAT limits for the Carbon and

Alloy segment for the proposed steel

finishing subcategory are: recycle of

fume scrubber water, diversion tank, oil

removal, hexavalent chrome reduction

(where applicable), equalization, metals

precipitation, sedimentation, sludge

dewatering, and counter-current rinses.

This is identified as BAT–1 in Section

V.C. EPA estimates that selection of the

BAT–1 option as the technology basis

would result in the reduction of flow by

this segment of the non-integrated

steelmaking and hot forming

subcategory by 65%, and the reduction

in the discharge of non-conventional

pollutants by 25%. EPA estimates BAT–

1 to remove 22,410 toxic poundequivalents beyond current conditions,

at an annualized compliance cost of

$4.0 million (1997$). EPA estimates that

no facilities would close as a result of

BAT–1. EPA has determined that this

option is economically achievable. EPA

did not pursue additional, more

stringent options because all significant

POCs in the effluent after application of

BAT–1 system are projected to exist at

levels too low to be further treated by

any other add-on technology. Therefore,

EPA proposes BAT–1 as the technology

basis for BAT for the carbon and alloy

segment of the proposed Steel Finishing

subcategory.

ii. PSES. The treatment technologies

that serve as the basis for PSES–1 are

the same as the BAT–1 technologies.

EPA estimates that, under PSES–1, flow

from this segment of the Finishing

subcategory would decrease by 30%,

and the amount of toxic and nonconventional pollutants discharged

would decrease by 10%. However, EPA

does not propose to revise PSES for the

carbon and allow steel segment of the

proposed Steel Finishing subcategory.

EPA believes that nationally applicable

PSES regulations are unnecessary at this

time, because PSES–1 would result in

an average removal of only 12 toxic

pound-equivalents per facility per year

for these facilities. These reductions are

much lower than other categorical

standards promulgated by EPA.

example, Organic Chemical, Plastics,

and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF),

Electroplating, Battery Manufacturing,

and Porcelain Enameling toxic pound

equivalents removed per facility per

year range from 6,747 to 14,960. And,

EPA recently decided not to promulgate

pretreatment standards for two

industrial categories, Industrial

Laundries, see 64 FR 45072 (August 18,

1999) and Landfills, see 65 FR 3008

(January 19, 2000), based on low

removals of toxic pound equivalents by

facilities in those categories. In the

industrial laundries rule, EPA decided

not to promulgate pretreatment

standards based on 32 toxic pound

equivalents per facility per year, and in

the landfills effluent guidelines, EPA

decided not to promulgate pretreatment

standards for non-hazardous landfills

based on the removal of only 14 toxic

pound equivalents per facility per year.

While EPA does not propose to revise

PSES for this segment, EPA intends to

re-codify the current PSES to fit the new

proposed subcategorization format.

iii. NSPS/PSNS. EPA proposes NSPS

and PSNS for this subcategory to be the

same as the proposed BAT technology

because no other treatment technologies

are demonstrated to control the

pollutants EPA proposes to regulate.

2. Stainless

a. Regulated Pollutants. i. BAT. EPA

is proposing regulating the following

pollutants: hexavalent chromium,

chromium, nickel, ammonia-N, and

fluoride.

EPA is aware of a potential problem

associated with nitrate discharge from

one stainless steel finishing operation

with combination (hydrofluoric and

nitric) acid pickling. It may be that

similar problems are associated with

discharges coming from similar

operations in other parts of the country.

Nitrates, when consumed in drinking

water, can be associated with health

problems in humans, particularly

infants.

Nitrates were identified as a pollutant

of concern for stainless steel acid

pickling operations where nitric acids

and combinations of nitric and

hydrofluoric acids are used for surface

treatments for various grades of stainless

steels. Nitrates originate from the nitric

acids used in the process and are

released from three sources: waste or

spent pickling acids, pickle rinse waters

and acid pickling fume scrubbers. Some

stainless steel finishing operations

dispose of their nitrate bearing

wastewater via off-site hauling. Many

other stainless steel finishing facilities

treat spent nitric acid and nitric/

hydrofluoric acid pickle liquors on site

with the pickling rinse waters and fume

scrubber waters from other stainless

steel finishing operations. Nitrates are

soluble in water and thus are not

removed to any appreciable degree in

the metals precipitation systems used to

treat chromium and nickel in stainless

steel finishing wastewaters.

EPA collected information from mills

with stainless steel finishing operations

with onsite chemical precipitation

treatment of spent nitric and nitric/

hydrofluoric acids in combination with

pickle rinse waters and acid pickling

fume scrubber blow-down. The treated

effluent nitrate concentrations from the

mills without acid purification units

ranged from about 500 to more than

1,000 mg/l.

Acid purification systems are used on

several stainless steel acid pickling lines

for recovery and reuse of nitric and

nitric/hydrofluoric acids. This

technology comprises removal of

dissolved metals (iron, chromium,

nickel) from a side stream of the strong

acid pickling solution and return of the

purified acid to the acid pickling bath.

This essentially extends the life of the

pickling acids, thereby reducing the

consumption of virgin nitric acid. A

reject stream containing dilute acid and

the dissolved metals is periodically sent

to wastewater treatment.

The model BAT technology for

stainless steel finishing operations

includes acid purification units for

recovery and reuse of spent nitric and

nitric/hydrofluoric acid pickling

solutions. EPA believes facilities using

acid purification technology can achieve

long-term average concentrations of

nitrates in the treated stainless steel acid

pickling wastewater effluent in the

range of 200 mg/l to 300 mg/l.

EPA is considering developing a limit

for nitrate (in the form of nitrate-nitriteN) for stainless steel finishing

operations with combination acid

pickling. EPA solicits comment and

information on this issue, particularly

(a) monitoring data from steel finishing

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 82025

operations that discharge nitrates, or

POTWs that receive wastewater from

these operations, and (b) performance

data and cost estimates from vendors of

pollution control equipment that is

capable of achieving substantial

reduction of nitrates from steel pickling

wastewaters.

ii. PSES. See discussion under

‘‘Technology Selected—PSES’’ below.

iii. NSPS/PSNS. EPA is proposing

regulating the same pollutants as for

BAT, with the addition of TSS and oil

& grease.

iv. PSNS. EPA is proposing regulating

the same pollutants as for BAT. Using

the methodology described in Section

IX.A.2, EPA has determined that

hexavalent chromium, chromium,

nickel, ammonia-N, and fluoride pass

through.

b. Technology Selected. i. BAT. The

treatment technologies that serve as the

basis for the development of the

proposed BAT for the Stainless segment

of the proposed steel finishing

subcategory are Recycle of fume

scrubber water, diversion tank, oil

removal, hexavalent chrome reduction

(where applicable), equalization, metals

precipitation, sedimentation, sludge

dewatering, counter-current rinses, and

acid purification. This is identified as

BAT–1 in Section V.C. EPA estimates

that, under BAT–1, flow from this

segment of the Finishing subcategory

would decrease by 47%, and the

amount of toxic and non-conventional

pollutants discharged would decrease

by 45%. EPA estimates BAT–1 to

remove 69,700 toxic pound-equivalents

beyond current conditions, at an

annualized compliance cost of $0.2

million (1997$). EPA estimates that no

facilities would close as a result of

BAT–1. EPA has determined that this

option is economically achievable. EPA

did not pursue additional, more

stringent options because all significant

POCs in the effluent after application of

BAT–1 system are projected to exist at

levels too low to be further treated by

any other add-on technology. Therefore,

EPA proposes BAT–1 as the technology

basis for BAT for the stainless steel

segment of the proposed Steel Finishing

subcategory.

ii. PSES. The treatment technologies

that serve as the basis for PSES–1 are

the same as the BAT–1 technologies.

EPA estimates that, under PSES–1, flow

from the stainless segment of the Steel

Finishing subcategory would decrease

by 23%, and the amount of toxic and

non-conventional pollutants discharged

would decrease by 10%. However, EPA

is not proposing to revise PSES for

facilities in this segment.

EPA discovered that the majority (548

of 653) of the toxic pound-equivalents

projected to be removed through

promulgation of PSES standards were

attributable to one parameter (fluoride)

from one facility. EPA believes that, in

a situation like this, it is more

appropriate for the POTW control

authority for that facility to control the

pollutant release through its

pretreatment control mechanism, rather

than to implement a national

pretreatment standard. When these toxic

pound-equivalents are removed from

the analysis, the number of toxic poundequivalents per facility drops to 7. EPA

recently decided not to promulgate

pretreatment standards for two

industrial categories, Industrial

Laundries, see 64 FR 45072 (August 18,

1999) and Landfills, see 65 FR 3008

(January 19, 2000), with projected

removals of toxic pound equivalents by

facilities in those categories comparable

to this. In the industrial laundries rule,

EPA decided not to promulgate

pretreatment standards based on 32

toxic pound equivalents per facility per

year; and in the landfills effluent

guidelines, EPA decided not to

promulgate pretreatment standards for

non-hazardous landfills based on the

removal of only 14 toxic pound

equivalents per facility per year.

While EPA does not propose to revise

PSES for this segment, EPA intends to

re-codify the current PSES to fit the new

proposed subcategorization format. The

PSES limits currently in 40 CFR part

420 for each manufacturing process

except electroplating would continue to

apply under this proposal. Limits for the

electroplating manufacturing process

are currently included in 40 CFR part

433. The PSES limits in 40 CFR part 433

are concentration-based, as opposed to

those in 40 CFR part 420, which are

mass-based. To ensure a consistent basis

for facilities operating other operations

in addition to electroplating, EPA is

proposing to convert the existing 40

CFR part 433 PSES concentration-based

limits to mass-based limits by

multiplying by the proposed BAT

production-normalized flow rate and

the appropriate conversion factor. Nine

pollutants are regulated under PSES at

40 CFR part 433, some of which do not

apply to electroplating operations as

performed in the Iron and Steel

industry. EPA proposes to specify PSES

limits for four of the pollutants:

Chromium, lead, nickel, and zinc. These

four metals were identified as POCs for

electroplating manufacturing operations

in section 7 of the technical

development document. EPA does not

believe this action will result in

incremental cost increases to the

industry. EPA seeks industry comment

on this matter.

iii. NSPS/PSNS. EPA proposes NSPS

and PSNS for this subcategory to be the

same as the proposed BAT technology

because no other treatment technologies

are demonstrated to control the

pollutants EPA proposes to regulate.

H. Other

After considering all of the technology

options described in the Section V.C in

light of the factors specified in section

304(b)(1)(B) and 306 of the Clean Water

Act, as appropriate, EPA proposes to

select the technology options identified

below as BPT, PSES, NSPS, and PSNS

for the following proposed segments in

this final subcategory: Direct-Reduced

Ironmaking, ging, and Briquetting.

1. Direct-reduced Ironmaking (DRI)

a. Regulated Pollutants. The Agency

proposes to regulate TSS for this

segment.

b. Technology Selected. i. BPT/BCT/

NSPS. EPA is proposing BPT and BCT

for the Direct-reduced Ironmaking (DRI)

segment because the Agency is setting

limits for the first time for the

conventional pollutants in this

subcategory. The treatment technologies

that serve as the basis for the

development of the proposed BPT/BCT/

NSPS limits for the DRI segment are:

solids removal, clarifier, and high rate

recycle, with filtration for blowdown

wastewater. This is identified as BPT–

1 in Section V.C. EPA estimates that no

facilities would close as a result of BPT–

1.EPA proposes this option because it is

the best practicable control technology

currently available. It is also the best

demonstrated technology for controlling

the discharge of conventional pollutants

from these operations. EPA is not

proposing BAT limitations for this

segment because it has identified no

toxic or non-conventional pollutants of

concern for the segment.

ii. PSES/PSNS. The Agency reserves

PSES/PSNS for the DRI segment it

found no pollutants that pass through.

2. ging

a. Regulated Pollutants and Limits. i.

Direct Dischargers (BPT/BCT/NSPS).

The Agency proposes to regulate TSS

and oil & grease for this segment.

ii. Indirect Dischargers (PSES/PSNS).

The Agency reserves PSES/PSNS for the

forging segment because it found no

pollutants that pass through.

b. Technology Selected. i. BPT/BCT/

NSPS. forging operations, EPA is

proposing BPT/BCT because the Agency

is setting limits for the first time for the

conventional pollutants in this

82026 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

subcategory. The treatment technology

that serves as the basis for the

development of the proposed BPT and

BCT limitations and NSPS for the ging

segment is oil/water separation. This is

identified as BPT–1 in Section V.C. EPA

estimates that there will be a reduction

of O&G of 72% from direct discharging

forging operations as a result of

implementation of this BPT/BCT option.

EPA estimates that no facilities would

close as a result of BPT–1. EPA proposes

this option because it is the best

practicable control technology currently

available. It is also the best

demonstrated technology for controlling

the discharge of conventional pollutants

from these operations.

EPA is not proposing BAT limitations

for this segment because it has

identified no toxic or non-conventional

pollutants of concern for the segment.

EPA is not proposing pretreatment

standards for this segment because it

found no pollutants that pass through.

3. Briquetting

a. Technology Selected. The proposed

BPT/BCT/NSPS/PSES/PSNS limits for

the Briquetting segment are: no

discharge of process wastewater

pollutants to waters of the U.S.

X. Regulatory Implementation

A. Implementation of Part 420 Through

the NPDES Permit Program and the

National Pretreatment Program

Under sections 301, 304, 306 and 307

of the CWA, EPA promulgates national

effluent limitations guidelines and

standards of performance for major

industrial categories for three classes of

pollutants: (1) Conventional pollutants

(i.e., total suspended solids, oil and

grease, biochemical oxygen demand,

fecal coliform, and pH); (2) toxic

pollutants (e.g., toxic metals such as

chromium, lead, nickel, and zinc; toxic

organic pollutants such as benzene,

benzo-a-pyrene, and naphthalene); and

(3) non-conventional pollutants (e.g.,

ammonia-N, fluoride, iron, total

phenols, and 2,3,7,8-

tetrachlorodibenzofuran).

As discussed in Section II, EPA must

promulgate six types of effluent

limitations guidelines and standards for

each major industrial category, as

appropriate:

Abbreviation Effluent limitation guideline

or standard

BPT ................ Best Practicable Control

Technology Currently

Available.

BAT ................ Best Available Technology

Economically Achievable.

BCT ................ Best Control Technology for

Conventional Pollutants.

Abbreviation Effluent limitation guideline

or standard

NSPS ............. New Source Performance

Standards.

PSES ............. Pretreatment Standards for

Existing Sources.

PSNS ............. Pretreatment Standards for

New Sources.

The pretreatment standards apply to

industrial facilities with wastewater

discharges to POTWs, which generally

are municipal wastewater treatment

plants. The effluent limitations

guidelines and new source performance

standards apply to industrial facilities

with direct discharges to navigable

waters.

1. NPDES Permit Program

Section 402 of the CWA establishes

the National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) permit

program. The NPDES permit program is

designed to limit the discharge of

pollutants into navigable waters of the

United States through a combination of

various requirements including

technology-based and water qualitybased effluent limitations. This

proposed regulation contains the

categorical technology-based effluent

limitations guidelines and standards

applicable to the iron and steel industry

to be used by permit writers to derive

NPDES permit technology-based

effluent limitations. Water quality-based

effluent limitations (WQBELs) are based

on receiving water characteristics and

ambient water quality standards,

including designated water uses. They

are derived independently from the

technology-based effluent limitations set

out in this proposed regulation. The

CWA requires that NPDES permits must

contain for a given discharge, the more

stringent of the applicable technologybased and water quality-based effluent

limitations.

Section 402(a)(1) of the CWA provides

that in the absence of promulgated

effluent limitations guidelines or

standards, the Administrator, or her

designee, may establish effluent

limitations for specific dischargers on a

case-by-case basis. Federal NPDES

permit regulations provide that these

limits may be established using ‘‘best

professional judgment’’ (BPJ) taking into

account any proposed effluent

limitations guidelines and standards

and other relevant scientific, technical

and economic information. Where EPA

has promulgated technology-based

effluent limitations guidelines and

standards for particular pollutants, any

more stringent effluent limitations must

be either WQBELs or effluent

limitations derived under other

regulations established by the permit

authority.

Section 301 of the CWA, as amended

by the Water Quality Act of 1987,

requires that BAT effluent limitations

for toxic pollutants are to have been

achieved as expeditiously as possible,

but not later than three years from date

of promulgation of such limitations and

in no case later than March 31, 1989.

See 301(b)(2). Because the proposed

revisions to 40 CFR part 420 will be

promulgated after March 31, 1989,

NPDES permit effluent limitations based

on the revised effluent limitations

guidelines must be included in the next

NPDES permit issued after

promulgation of the regulation and the

permit must require immediate

compliance.

2. New Source Performance Standards

purposes of applying the new source

performance standards (NSPS) being

proposed today, a source is a new

source if it commences construction

after the effective date of the

forthcoming final rule. (EPA expects to

take final action on this proposal in

April 2002, which is more than 120

days after the date of proposal.) See 40

CFR 122.2. Each source that meets this

definition would be required to achieve

any applicable newly promulgated

NSPS upon commencing discharge.

However, the currently codified NSPS

continue to have force and effect for a

limited universe of new sources; for this

reason, in today’s proposed rule, EPA is

retaining the NSPS promulgated in 1982

for part 420. Specifically, following

promulgation of any revised NSPS, the

1982 NSPS would continue to apply for

a limited period of time to new sources

that commenced discharge within the

time period beginning ten years before

the effective date of a final rule revising

part 420. Thus, if EPA promulgates

revised NSPS for Part 420 in April 2002,

and those regulations take effect in June

2002, any direct discharging new source

that commenced discharge after June

1992 but before June 2002 would be

subject to the currently codified NSPS

for ten years from the date it

commenced discharge or during the

period of depreciation or amortization

of such facility, whichever comes first.

See CWA section 306(d). After that ten

year period expires, any new or revised

BAT limitations would apply with

respect to toxics and nonconventional

pollutants. Limitations on conventional

pollutants would be based on the1982

NSPS for conventional pollutants unless

EPA promulgates revisions to BPT/BCT

for conventional pollutants that are

more stringent than the 1982 NSPS.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 82027

Rather than reproduce the 1982 NSPS

in the proposed rule (which is

substantially reorganized from the 1982

structure), EPA proposes to refer

permitting authorities to the NSPS

codified in the 2000 edition of the Code

of Federal Regulations for use during

the applicable ten-year period. (The

2000 edition of the Code of Federal

Regulations presents the 1982 NSPS

tables.) This approach would allow EPA

to avoid reproducing in the new

regulations numerous tables of NSPS

that would soon become outdated.

National Pretreatment Standards

40 CFR Part 403 sets out national

pretreatment standards which have

three principal objectives: (1) To

prevent the introduction of pollutants

into publicly owned treatment works

(POTWs) that will interfere with POTW

operations, including use or disposal of

municipal sludge; (2) to prevent the

introduction of pollutants into POTWs

which will pass through the treatment

works or will otherwise be incompatible

with the treatment works; and (3) to

improve opportunities to recycle and

reclaim municipal and industrial

wastewaters and sludges.

The national pretreatment standards

comprise a series of prohibited

discharges designed to prevent

interference with POTW operations and

federal categorical pretreatment

standards designed to prevent pass

through of pollutants introduced to

POTWs by industrial sources. Local

control authorities are required to

implement the national pretreatment

program including application of the

federal categorical pretreatment

standards to their industrial users that

are subject to such categorical

pretreatment standards, as well as any

pretreatment standards derived locally

(i.e., local limits) that are more

restrictive than the federal categorical

standards. This proposed regulation sets

out revisions to the federal categorical

pretreatment standards (PSES and

PSNS) applicable to iron and steel

facilities regulated by 40 CFR part 420.

The federal categorical pretreatment

standards for existing sources must be

achieved not later than three years after

promulgation of the standards. During

that three year period, existing indirect

discharges are subject to the 1982 PSES.

The 1982 PSES would no longer apply

after the expiration of that three-year

period. Rather than reproduce the 1982

PSES in the proposed rule (which is

substantially reorganized from the 1982

structure), EPA proposes to refer

pretreatment control authorities to the

PSES codified in the 2000 edition of the

Code of Federal Regulations for use

during that three-year period. (The 2000

edition of the Code of Federal

Regulations presents the 1982 PSES

tables.) This approach would allow EPA

to avoid reproducing in the new

regulations numerous tables of

pretreatment standards that would

become outdated within three years.

the purposes of this rule, EPA

proposes to treat new indirect

dischargers in the same way that it

treats new direct dischargers, in several

material respects.

First, as discussed elsewhere in this

preamble, EPA proposes PSNS

technologies to be identical to NSPS

technologies except where different

technologies are justified by EPA’s pass

through analysis.

Second, for indirect dischargers that

are subject to the current PSNS, EPA

proposes to maintain the current PSNS

for ten years beginning on the date the

new indirect discharger commenced

discharge or during the period of

depreciation or amortization of the

facility, whichever comes first.

Thereafter, the indirect discharger

would be subject to any newly

promulgated PSES. EPA sees no

principled basis to distinguish between

new direct and indirect dischargers

when deciding whether to apply more

stringent standards within the first ten

years of operation. Like new direct

dischargers, new indirect dischargers

were designed and constructed to meet

existing performance standards for new

sources. Concluding that it would be

unfair to require a new source to meet

a new set of limits within the first ten

years of operation, Congress passed

CWA section 306(d). EPA believes the

same concerns apply to new indirect

dischargers; therefore, in the interests of

equity, EPA proposes to apply the tenyear shield to new indirect dischargers

as well.

Third, EPA proposes to characterize a

source as a new source subject to the

new PSNS if it commences construction

after the effective date of the

forthcoming final rule. Each source that

meets this definition would be required

to achieve any applicable newly

promulgated PSNS upon commencing

discharge. EPA believes this definition

is appropriate in the context of part 420

because PSNS already exists to regulate

any indirect discharges that might

commence construction prior to

promulgation of revisions to part 420.

Therefore, this is not a situation where

new discharges might go unregulated

during the period between proposed

and final action. This definition is also

consistent with the most recent

interpretation of CWA section 306, upon

which EPA relies by analogy. In 1983,

the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Third

Circuit struck down the definition of

new source in EPA’s pretreatment

regulations based on its interpretation of

section 306, which applies to direct

discharging new sources. See National

Assoc. of Metal Finishers, et al. v. EPA,

719 F.2d 624 (3d Cir. 1983). In 1987, the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia disagreed with the Third

Circuit’s interpretation of section 306

and upheld a definition of new source

that was tied to the date of promulgation

rather than the date of proposal. See

NRDC v. EPA, 822 F.2d 104 (D.C. Cir.

1987). The court reasoned that a period

of uncertainty beyond 120 days (from

proposal to promulgation) was

unreasonable, and that Congress could

not have intended potential new sources

‘‘to languish in doubt as to when nonfinal regulations would eventually enjoy

the force of law.’’ This reasoning is

relevant to this rulemaking, where EPA

is scheduled to take final action on

today’s proposal in 18 months. Finally,

EPA’s approach in this proposed rule is

also distinguishable from the facts

contemplated by the Third Circuit,

which did not consider the retrofitting

costs a new source might incur when

planning and constructing its facility in

accordance with the current PSNS, only

to have to make potentially costly

adjustments soon thereafter to comply

with newly promulgated PSNS.

Rather than reproduce the 1982 PSNS

in the proposed rule (which is

substantially reorganized from the 1982

structure), EPA proposes to refer

pretreatment control authorities to the

PSNS codified in the 2000 edition of the

Code of Federal Regulations for use

during the applicable ten-year period.

(The 2000 edition of the Code of Federal

Regulations presents the 1982 PSNS

tables.) This approach would allow EPA

to avoid reproducing in the new

regulations numerous tables of PSNS

that have already been codified.

B. Upset and Bypass Provisions

A ‘‘bypass’’ is an intentional diversion

of waste streams from any portion of a

treatment facility. An ‘‘upset’’ is an

exceptional incident in which there is

unintentional and temporary

noncompliance with technology-based

permit effluent limitations because of

factors beyond the reasonable control of

the permittee. EPA’s regulations

concerning bypasses and upsets 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.

82028 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

C. Variances and Removal Credits

1. Variances

The NPDES permit regulations

provide for the following types of

modifications of permit effluent

limitations derived from the effluent

limitations guidelines:

a. Section 301(c) economic variance

from BAT for non-conventional

pollutants.

b. Section 301(g) water quality-related

variance from BAT for non-conventional

pollutants.

c. Section 316(a) thermal variance

from BPT, BCT and BAT.

d. Fundamentally different factors

variance (40 CFR part 125, subpart D).

Although final regulations that set out

criteria for applying for and evaluating

applications for section 301(c) and

301(g) variances have not been

promulgated, EPA has published

guidance materials for permit

authorities regarding such variances.

Variances under section 316(a) for

thermal discharges are not at issue in

the current 40 CFR part 420, or with

these proposed modifications, because

effluent limitations guidelines for

thermal discharges have not been

promulgated previously, nor is EPA

proposing them at this time. See the

published guidance materials and 40

CFR part 125 for further information

regarding the above-listed variances.

The pretreatment regulations

incorporate a similar requirement at 40

CFR 403.13(h)(9).

2. Removal Credits

Section 307(b)(1) of the CWA

establishes a discretionary program for

POTWs to grant ‘‘removal credits’’ to

their indirect dischargers. Removal

credits are a regulatory mechanism by

which industrial users may discharge a

pollutant in quantities that exceed what

would otherwise be allowed under an

applicable categorical pretreatment

standard because it has been determined

that the POTW to which the industrial

user discharges consistently treats the

pollutant. EPA has promulgated

removal credit regulations as part of its

pretreatment regulations. See 40 CFR

403.7. These regulations provide that a

POTW may give removal credits if

prescribed requirements are met. The

POTW must apply to and receive

authorization from the Approval

Authority. To obtain authorization, the

POTW must demonstrate consistent

removal of the pollutant for which

approval authority is sought. Further,

the POTW must have an approved

pretreatment program. Finally, the

POTW must demonstrate that granting

removal credits will not cause the

POTW to violate applicable Federal,

State and local sewage sludge

requirements. 40 CFR 403.7(a)(3).

The United States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit interpreted the

Clean Water Act as requiring EPA to

promulgate the comprehensive sewage

sludge regulations required by CWA

§ 405(d)(2)(A)(ii) before any removal

credits could be authorized. See NRDC

v. EPA, 790 F.2d 289, 292 (3rd Cir.,

1986); cert. denied. 479 U.S. 1084

(1987). Congress made this explicit in

the Water Quality Act of 1987, which

provided that EPA could not authorize

any removal credits until it issued the

sewage sludge use and disposal

regulations. On February 19, 1993, EPA

promulgated Standards for the Use or

Disposal of Sewage Sludge, which are

codified at 40 CFR part 503 (58 FR

9248). EPA interprets the Court’s

decision in NRDC v. EPA as only

allowing removal credits for a pollutant

if EPA has either regulated the pollutant

in part 503 or established a

concentration of the pollutant in sewage

sludge below which public health and

the environment are protected when

sewage sludge is used or disposed.

The part 503 sewage sludge

regulations allow four options for

sewage sludge disposal: (1) Land

application for beneficial use, (2)

placement on a surface disposal unit, (3)

firing in a sewage sludge incinerator,

and (4) disposal in a landfill which

complies with the municipal solid

waste landfill criteria in 40 CFR part

258. Because pollutants in sewage

sludge are regulated differently

depending upon the use or disposal

method selected, under EPA’s

pretreatment regulations the availability

of a removal credit for a particular

pollutant is linked to the POTW’s

method of using or disposing of its

sewage sludge. The regulations provide

that removal credits may be potentially

available for the following pollutants:

(1) If POTW applies its sewage sludge

to the land for beneficial uses, disposes

of it in a surface disposal unit, or

incinerates it in a sewage sludge

incinerator, removal credits may be

available for the pollutants for which

EPA has established limits in 40 CFR

part 503. EPA has set ceiling limitations

for nine metals in sludge that is land

applied, three metals in sludge that is

placed on a surface disposal unit, and

seven metals and 57 organic pollutants

in sludge that is incinerated in a sewage

sludge incinerator. (40 CFR

403.7(a)(3)(iv)(A)).

(2) Additional removal credits may be

available for sewage sludge that is landapplied, placed in a surface disposal

unit, or incinerated in a sewage sludge

incinerator, so long as the concentration

of these pollutants in sludge do not

exceed concentration levels established

in part 403, Appendix G, Table II.

sewage sludge that is land applied,

removal credits may be available for an

additional two metals and 14 organic

pollutants. sewage sludge that is placed

on a surface disposal unit, removal

credits may be available for an

additional seven metals and 13 organic

pollutants. sewage sludge that is

incinerated in a sewage sludge

incinerator, removal credits may be

available for three other metals (40 CFR

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

(3) When a POTW disposes of its

sewage sludge in a municipal solid

waste landfill that meets the criteria of

40 CFR part 258, removal credits may be

available for any pollutant in the

POTW’s sewage sludge (40 CFR

403.7(a)(3)(iv)(C)).

Several iron and steel companies

which are indirect dischargers to

POTWs have sought removal credits for

pollutants subject to categorical

pretreatment standards but for which no

sewage sludge standard (part 503, part

403, Appendix G-Table I) or maximum

concentration (part 403, Appendix G—

Table II) has been established.

Specifically, these companies claim that

phenols (4AAP) are consistently treated

by POTWs and do not cause the sewage

sludge to adversely affect human health

and the environment. (See, e.g., LTV

Steel v. EPA, No. 94–1516 (7th Cir.)).

Today’s proposal, if finalized, would

mean that removal credits for phenols

(4AAP) would no longer be necessary,

because there would no longer be a

categorical pretreatment standard for

that pollutant. However, for those

pollutants which would be included in

the categorical pretreatment standard,

only those included in either part 403,

Appendix G—Table I or Table II would

be eligible for removal credits.

D. Production Basis for Calculation of

Permit Limitations

1. Background

The effluent limitations guidelines

and standards for BPT, BAT, NSPS,

PSES, and PSNS proposed today are

expressed as mass limitations in

pounds/ton of product. The mass

limitation is derived by multiplying an

effluent concentration (determined from

the analysis of treatment system

performance) by a model flow

appropriate for each subcategory

expressed in gallons/ton of product, or

gallons/day. The production normalized

flows used to develop many of the

limits in the proposed rule are

considerably lower than those used to

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 82029

develop currently applicable limits.

Consequently, many of the proposed

limitations are more stringent than the

current limitations for the same

operations, even though other

components of the wastewater treatment

system remains the same. The proposed

limitations neither require the

installation of any specific control

technology nor the attainment of any

specific flow rate or effluent

concentration. A facility subject to

today’s proposed regulation can use

various treatment alternatives or water

conservation practices to achieve a

particular effluent limitation or

standard. The model treatment systems

described here illustrate at least one

means available to achieve the proposed

effluent limitations guidelines and

standards.

The NPDES permit regulations at

§ 122.45(f) require that NPDES permit

effluent limitations be specified as mass

effluent limitations (e.g., lbs/day or kg/

day), except under certain enumerated

circumstances that do not apply here. In

order to convert the proposed effluent

limitations expressed as pounds/ton to

a monthly average or daily maximum

permit limit, the permitting authority

would use a production rate with units

of tons/day. The current part 420 and

part 122.45(b)(2) NPDES permit

regulations require that NPDES permit

and pretreatment limits be based on a

‘‘reasonable measure of actual

production.’’ The production rates used

for NPDES permitting for the iron and

steel industry have commonly been the

highest annual average production from

the prior five year period prorated to a

daily basis, or the highest monthly

production over the prior five years

prorated to a daily basis. Industry

stakeholders have indicated that (1) EPA

should put the method used to

determine appropriate production rates

for calculating allowable mass loadings

into the regulation for consistency, so

that the permit writers can all use the

same basis; and (2) EPA should use a

high production basis, such as

maximum monthly production over the

previous five year period or maximum

design production, in order to ensure

that a facility will not be out of

compliance during periods of high

production.

The NPDES permit regulations at 40

CFR 122.45(b)(2)(i) require that for

existing sources mass effluent

limitations calculated from productionbased effluent limitations guidelines

and standards must be based not on

production capacity, but on a

‘‘reasonable measure of actual

production.’’ The current iron and steel

regulation at 40 CFR 420.04 sets out the

basis for calculating mass-based

pretreatment requirements and requires

that the pretreatment requirements also

be based on a reasonable measure of

actual production. That regulation

provides the following examples of

what may constitute a reasonable

measure of actual production: the

monthly average for the highest of the

previous five years, or the high month

of the previous year. Both values are

converted to a daily basis (i.e., tons/day)

for purposes of calculating monthly

average and daily maximum mass

permit effluent limitations. Similar

provisions exist in the national

pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR

403.6(c)(3) for deriving mass-based

pretreatment requirements.

Each of the above regulations requires

that effluent limitations and

pretreatment standards for new sources

must be based on projected production.

That approach is carried forward in this

proposed regulation.

EPA believes that some NPDES and

pretreatment permit production rates

have been derived in a manner that is

not consistent with the term ‘‘reasonable

measure of actual production’’ specified

at § 122.45(b)(2)(i), 403.6(c)(3), and

420.04. In some cases, maximum

production rates for similar process

units discharging to one treatment

system were determined from different

years or months, which may provide an

unrealistically high measure of actual

production. In EPA’s view, this would

occur if the different process units could

not reasonably produce at these high

rates simultaneously.

The ideal situation for the application

of production-based effluent limitations

and standards is where production is

relatively constant from day-to-day or

month-to-month. In this case, the

production rate used for purposes of

calculating the permit limitations would

then be the average rate. However, in

the case of the iron and steel industry,

production rates are not constant and

vary significantly based on factors such

as fluctuations in marked demand for

domestic products, maintenance,

product changes, equipment failures,

and facility modifications. As such, the

typical production rate for individual

mills vary significantly over time,

especially over the customary five-year

life of a permit.

The objective in determining a

production estimate for a mill is to

develop a reasonable measure of

production which can reasonably be

expected to prevail during the next term

of the permit. This is used in

combination with the production-based

limitations to establish a maximum

mass of pollutant that may be

discharged each day and month.

However, if the permit production rate

is based on the maximum month, then

the permit could allow excessive

discharges of pollutants during

significant portions of the life of the

permit. These excessive allowances may

discourage mills from ensuring optimal

waste management, water conservation,

and wastewater treatment practices

during lower production periods. On

the other hand, if the average permit

production rate is based on an average

derived from the highest year of

production over the past five years, then

mills may have trouble ensuring that

their waste management, water

conservation, and wastewater treatment

practices can accommodate shorter

periods of higher production. This

might require mills to target a more

stringent treatment level than that on

which the limits were based during

these periods of high production. To

accomplish this mills would likely have

to develop more efficient treatment

systems, greater hydraulic surge

capacity, and better water conservation

and waste management practices during

these periods.

2. Alternatives for Establishing Permit

Effluent Limitations

EPA is soliciting comment on several

alternative approaches that may result

in more stringent mass-based permits

for some mills with better protection of

the environment for the entire life of a

permit and may result in higher costs.

Each alternative requires that

production from unit operations that do

not generate or discharge process

wastewater shall not be included in the

calculation of operating rates.

Alternative A: This is the basis for

today’s proposed limits. It retains the

essential requirements of the current

rule as described above (see § 420.3).

However, today’s proposal provides

additional instructions for avoiding

approaches that result in unrealistically

high estimates of actual production by

only considering production from all

production units that could occur

simultaneously (see § 420.3(c)). This

may result in higher costs for those

mills with current permit conditions

based on production levels that are

higher than levels that could occur

simultaneously at multiple process

units. However, these costs were

included in the economic analysis for

the 1982 I&S regulation as well as

today’s proposal.

Alternative B: The Agency is

considering including in the rule a

requirement for the permit writer to

establish multi-tiered permit limits.

Permit writers and control authorities

82030 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

currently use their best professional

judgment for establishing multi-tiered

permits. The Agency has issued

guidance for use in considering multitiered permits (see Chapter 5 of the

‘‘U.S. EPA NPDES Permit Writers’

Manual,’’ (EPA–833–8–96–003,

December 1996) and Chapter 7 of the

‘‘Industrial User Permitting Guidance

Manual,’’ (EPA 833/R–89–001,

September 29, 1989).

In situations where a single set of

effluent limitations are not appropriate

for the permit’s entire period, a tiered

permit may be established. One set of

limits would apply for periods of

average production along with other sets

which take effect when there are

significant changes in the average

production rate. The guidance notes that

a 10 to 15 percent deviation above or

below the long-term average production

rate is within the range of normal

variability. Predictable changes in the

long-term production higher than this

range would warrant consideration of a

tiered or multi-tiered permit. The iron

and steel industry has a variable

historical production rate where the

permit modification process is not fast

enough to respond to the need for

higher or lower equivalent limits.

example, many iron and steel mills have

a characteristic historical average

monthly production rate that varies

between 60 to 95 percent of plant

capacity. (Note that for a mill operating

at 60 percent of capacity, a production

increase to 95 percent of capacity would

represent nearly a 60 percent jump in

production.) In these cases, alternate

effluent limitations might be established

for average production rates associated,

for example, with 75 and 95 percent of

capacity.

Alternative C: To provide a basis for

deriving NPDES and pretreatment

permit production rates that is

consistent with the term reasonable

measure of actual production and that

can be applied consistently for steel

mills subject to part 420, EPA is also

considering revising the definition of

production. The modified definition of

the NPDES and pretreatment permit

production basis would be the average

daily operating rate for the year with the

highest annual production over the past

five years, taking into account the

annual hours of operation of the

production unit and the typical

operating schedule of the production

unit, as illustrated by the following

example:

Highest annual production

from previous five years.

3,570,000

tons.

Operating hours .................... 8,400 hours.

Hourly operating rate ............ 425 tons/hour.

Average daily operating rate

(24 hour day).

10,200 tons/

day.

The above example is for a process

unit that is operated typically 24 hours

per day with short-term outages for

maintenance on a weekly or monthly

basis. steel processing facilities that are

operated typically less than 24 hours

per day, the average daily operating rate

must be determined based on the typical

operating schedule (e.g., 8 hours per day

for a facility operated one 8-hour turn

(or shift) per day; 16 hours per day for

a facility operated for two 8-hour turns

per day). example:

Highest annual production

from previous five years.

980,000 tons.

Operating hours .................... 4,160 hours.

Hourly operating rate ............ 235.6 tons/

hour.

Average daily operating rate

(16 hour day).

3,769 tons/

day.

In this example, EPA recognizes that

the approach could cause problems for

a facility that was operated 16 hours/

day at the time the permit was issued

and then wished to change to 24 hours/

day based on unforseen changes in

market conditions. To address this

issue, the approach could be combined

with the tiered permit approach

discussed above.

multiple similar process units

discharging to the same wastewater

treatment system with one NPDES or

pretreatment permit compliance point

(e.g., two blast furnaces operated with

one treatment and recycle system for

process waters), under this approach the

year with the highest annual production

over the previous five years would be

determined on the basis of the sum of

annual production for both furnaces.

Then, based on this year’s average daily

operating rate would be calculated as

above independently for each furnace

using total annual production and

annual operating hours for each furnace.

The daily production values would be

summed to calculate the average daily

operating rate for the combination of the

two furnaces. example, consider the

following production data:

Furnace A Furnace B Total

(tons)

1995 ............................................................................................................................................. 1,850,000 1,305,000 3,155,000

1996 ............................................................................................................................................. 1,675,000 1,425,000 3,100,000

1997 ............................................................................................................................................. 1,760,000 1,406,000 3,166,000

1998 ............................................................................................................................................. 1,580,000 1,328,000 2,908,000

1999 ............................................................................................................................................. 1,825,000 1,380,000 3,205,000

Annual maximum production rates

for each furnace and the combination of

the two furnaces are underlined. In this

example, 1999 was the maximum

production year for the combination of

the furnaces and the data from each

furnace that year would be used to

calculate the average daily operating

rates. Had the 1995 data from Furnace

A and the 1996 data from Furnace B

been used in combination (3,275,000

tons), an unrealistic measure of actual

production might have resulted if the

two furnaces could not produce at these

high levels concurrently. example, if the

downstream intermediate production

capacity effectively limits the combined

production of the two furnaces. On the

other hand, if the two furnaces could

produce at these high levels

concurrently, and might reasonablely be

expected to over the forthcoming fiveyear permit cycle if strong market

conditions prevailed, then the

production measure based on the 1995

Furnace A data and the 1996 Furnace B

data might not be an unrealistic measure

of actual production.

In contrast to the previous example,

for multiple process units that are not

similar, but have process wastewater cotreated in one centralized wastewater

treatment system with one NPDES or

pretreatment permit compliance point,

the year with the highest production

over the previous five years would be

determined separately for each

production unit or combination of

similar production units with the

highest annual production. example,

where process wastewater for BOF

steelmaking, vacuum degassing, and

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 82031

continuous casting operations are

discharged through one NPDES permit

or pretreatment permit compliance

point. Consider the following example:

BOF V. Degasser C. Caster

(tons)

1995 ............................................................................................................................................. 2,675,000 1,305,000 2,658,000

1996 ............................................................................................................................................. 2,900,000 1,600,000 2,885,000

1997 ............................................................................................................................................. 3,150,000 1,690,000 3,140,000

1998 ............................................................................................................................................. 3,280,000 1,668,000 3,270,000

1999 ............................................................................................................................................. 3,225,000 1,380,000 3,215,000

In this example, 1998 production data

for the BOF, 1997 data from the vacuum

degasser, and 1998 data for the

continuous caster would be used to

develop the NPDES permit effluent

limitations. An analogous situation

would be for a steel finishing plant with

acid pickling, cold rolling and

electroplating operations.

The permit applicant would, under

this alternative, need to provide the

following information with its permit

application or pretreatment report: for

each process operation regulated, the

average daily operating rate determined

in accordance with § 420.3, including

the underlying production data and

operating schedule information

necessary to calculate the average daily

operating rate; and, sufficient

information to identify each process

operation in terms of the definitions of

process operations set out in this part.

Alternative D: The Agency is

considering establishing productionbased maximum monthly average

effluent limitations and standards in

combination with daily-maximum

concentration-based effluent limitations

and standards. Under this alternative,

the maximum monthly average NPDES

permit and pretreatment mass basis

requirements would be determined

using the part 420 production-based

standards in combination with a

reasonable measure of actual

production, such as Alternative C above.

However, the daily-maximum

requirements would be in the form of

effluent concentrations that would be

included in part 420 in lieu of the dailymaximum production-based mass

effluent limitations guidelines and

standards. The daily maximum

concentrations set out as effluent

limitations guidelines and standards

would be those concentrations that were

used to develop the proposed

production-based mass effluent

limitations guidelines and standards.

The Agency believes this approach

would effectively address the potential

issue cited above regarding short-term

peaks in production under most

circumstances. There would be no

additional burden on the industry and

permit writers for applying for and

writing NPDES or pretreatment permits.

Permit authorities may need to revise

their automated compliance tracking

systems to account for both mass and

concentration limitations at the same

outfall, which is a common feature in

many NPDES and pretreatment permits

issued prior to this proposal.

This approach would also provide

some flexibility for the industry where,

because of historical conditions,

relatively high volumes of storm water

from intense rainfall events are

collected and treated with process

water. In some cases, the volume of

storm water collected and treated may

cause short-term peak discharge flows

that exceed the normal process water

discharge flow which may result in

violation of daily-maximum limitations.

On balance, the Agency believes that

treatment of such storm water flows is

beneficial. The combination of

maximum monthly average mass limits

and daily-maximum concentration

limits would provide such flexibility.

EPA solicits comments about these

alternatives to the proposed production

bases for calculating NPDES permit

effluent limitations and pretreatment

requirements including comments on

related costs and any technical

difficulties that mills might have in

meeting limits during short periods of

high production. EPA also solicits other

options for consideration.

E. Water Bubble

The ‘‘water bubble’’ is a regulatory

flexibility mechanism described in the

current regulation at 40 CFR 420.03 to

allow for trading of identical pollutants

at any single steel facility with multiple

compliance points. The bubble has been

used at some facilities to realize cost

savings and/or for compliance. It is

structured in a way to produce also a

benefit for the environment.

As currently structured the water

bubble has the following restrictions:

• Trades can be made only for like

pollutants (e.g. lead for lead, not lead for

zinc).

• Trades are subject to any applicable

water quality-based effluent limitations.

• Each outfall must have specific

fixed limitations

• Cokemaking and cold rolling are

excluded from consideration for water

bubble use.

• Each trade must result in a

minimum net reduction amount of the

amount traded (15% for TSS/Oil &

Grease, 10% for toxic pollutants).

• Bubble restricted to existing

sources.

While at present NPDES permits for

only nine facilities have alternative

effluent limitations derived from the

water bubble, there may be increased

interest in the water bubble with the

promulgation of a revised part 420. With

this in mind, EPA proposes making the

following changes to the water bubble

rule:

• Allow trades for cokemaking

operations but only if the cokemaking

alternative limitations are more

stringent than the limitations in Subpart

A. These more stringent limits would be

offset by less stringent limits for some

other operation. EPA is proposing to

limit trades involving cokemaking in

this way because it is concerned about

co-occurring contaminants in

cokemaking wastewaters for which

limits are not being established (e.g.,

benzo(b)fluoranthene,

benzo(a)anthracene, and chrysene).

Allowing a relaxation of the limits for

cokemaking wastewater could allow

undetected increases in discharges of

these co-occurring contaminants that

would not necessarily be offset by

tighter limits on the regulated pollutants

in another waste stream.

• Prohibit trades for sintering

operations because of the presence of

dioxins and furans in sinter wastewater

unless the alternative limitations are

more stringent than the sintering

process wastewater limitations in

subpart B. As with cokemaking, these

more stringent sintering limits would be

offset by less stringent limits on some

82032 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

other waste stream. The logic for this

restriction is the same as for

cokemaking.

• Prohibit trades of oil and grease

because of differences in the types of oil

and grease used among the I&S

operations (the finishing operations

tend to use and discharge synthetic and

animal fats and oils used to lubricate

metal materials, the hot-end operations

tend to discharge petroleum-based oil

and grease used to lubricate machinery,

and cokemaking operations tend to

discharge oil and grease containing

polynuclear aromatics generated by the

combustion of coal).

• Allow trades for cold rolling

operations.

• Allow trades for new, as well as

existing sources. Since the existing

source environmental gain is 10 percent

for all parameters except for TSS which

is 15 percent, EPA is considering

whether a higher net gain, e.g., 20

percent, is appropriate for new sources

given their flexibility in design.

EPA is proposing to change the

current regulations to prohibit trading

between outfalls of oil and grease. As

noted above, EPA is concerned that

different types of oil and grease may be

discharged by different process units,

and that trading might thus allow an

increase in a more environmentally

harmful type of oil and grease (e.g.,

petroleum based), with the offsetting

reduction being from a less harmful type

(e.g., animal fats). EPA recognizes that

facilities will generally identify trades

that save them money. EPA has no data

to suggest that the most economically

beneficial trading opportunities (i.e.,

those likely to be used by facilities)

would systematically either decrease or

increase the most harmful types of oil

and grease. Giving the existing

requirement for a 15 percent net

decrease of oil and grease across all

outfalls if trading is utilized, it may well

be the case that even with the

possibility that an individual trade

might allow for an increase in, say,

petroleum-based oil and grease, the net

effect of trading would be both

beneficial to the environment and

provide cost saving opportunities to

facilities. EPA requests comment on

whether trading should continue to be

allowed for oil and grease, including the

current 15 percent (or greater) net

reduction.

Potential cost impacts associated with

changes in the water bubble have been

accounted for in the estimated capital

and operating and maintenance costs

prepared for the economic impact and

cost-effectiveness analyses.

EPA requests comment on the

modified restrictions on the use of the

bubble, particularly on the larger

environmental gain through the use of

the bubble that would be required for

new sources.

EPA proposes to retain the other

restrictions specified in the current

water bubble rule.

XI. Other Coinciding Agency Activities

A. 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart L—National

Air Emission Standard for Coke Oven

Batteries

Promulgated on October 27, 1993, this

regulation established coke oven

emission limits for lids (% leaking lids),

offtakes PLO (% leaking offtakes),

charging (log), and doors PLD (%

leaking doors). The regulation

established two alternate tracks of limits

through which coke ovens batteries may

achieve compliance; the Maximum

Achievable Control Technology (MACT)

track and the Lowest Achievable

Emissions Rate (LAER) extension track.

All coke manufacturing facilities have

chosen a specific track and, where

appropriate, are attempting to conform

with these regulations. Of the 58 byproduct recovery coke batteries in

operation in the United States, 50 have

selected the LAER extension track,

which subjects them to requirements

through the year 2020. The LAER

extension track limits may become more

stringent in 2010. These plants will not

be affected by the residual Risk

Standards when promulgated. The

remaining eight by-product recovery

coke batteries that selected the MACT

Track Limits must comply with

Residual Risk Standards after they are

promulgated.

B. Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,

and Battery Stacks Proposed Rule

EPA is developing a regulation under

section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act

(CAA) to reduce emissions from

pushing, quenching, and battery stacks

at coke plants and plans to propose the

rule in November 2000 and promulgate

it in November 2001. This rule would

establish requirements to control coke

oven emissions and would apply to all

coke batteries at coke plants that are

major sources of hazardous air pollutant

(HAP) emissions or that are part of a

facility that is a major source of HAP

emissions. A major source means any

stationary source or group of stationary

sources within a contiguous area and

under common control that emits or has

the potential to emit considering

controls, in aggregate, 10 tons or more

per year of any single HAP or 25 tons

per year of more of any combination of

HAP.

The rule includes both emission

limitations and work practice standards.

Relative to pushing, two options are

proposed. One option would require

sources to meet an opacity limit based

on the daily observations of four pushes.

The other option is a work practice

standard that places failing ovens under

scrutiny until they are repaired or taken

out of service. The proposed rule also

includes emission limits for particulate

matter (PM), as a surrogate for coke oven

emissions, for control devices applied to

pushing emissions. To address

quenching emissions, sources would be

required to use clean water as makeup

water, equip quench towers with baffles,

and inspect and repair baffles on an ongoing basis. battery stacks, the proposed

rule establishes opacity limits and

requires the installation and operation

of continuous opacity monitors (COM).

In addition, all batteries would be

required to operate at all times

according to an operation and

maintenance plan to ensure good

operation and maintenance of batteries

and control equipment. The proposed

rule also includes notification,

recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements.

C. Steel Pickling—HCL Process

The Steel Pickling National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

(NESHAP) final rule was published on

June 22, 1999, 64 FR, 33202–33223, to

reduce emissions of toxic air pollutants

from sources in steel pickling facilities.

The steel pickling rule applies to all

facilities that pickle steel using

hydrochloric acid or that regenerate

hydrochloric acid and (a) that are major

sources or (b) are part of a facility that

is a major source. The EPA estimates

that 62 of the 80 steel pickling facilities

using hydrochloric acid and all 8 acid

regeneration plants currently in

operation (six of which are co-located

with pickling facilities) are affected by

this rule. The steel pickling rule does

not apply to any pickling line that uses

an acid other than hydrochloric acid, an

acid solution containing less than 6

percent HCl, or at a temperature less

than 100 °F.

Existing plants have up to two years

from the effective date of the final rule

to comply with its requirements. If

necessary, the owner or operator of an

affected facility may request that EPA

(or the applicable regulatory authority

in a State with an approved permit

program) grant one additional year to

install controls. The EPA’s rule

establishes limitations for hydrochloric

acid and chlorine emissions and offers

flexibility to the industry by providing

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 82033

cost-effective options for both emissions

control and monitoring.

Pickling facility operators may

comply with the emission limitation for

hydrochloric acid by meeting either an

emissions reduction target or a

concentration standard. This option

allows operators to comply with the rule

under a wide variety of acid bath and

ventilation conditions. Emissions

reductions for hydrochloric acid are

based on wet scrubber control

technology, which provides the facility

operator the option of recycling

hydrochloric acid from the scrubber

effluent.

Interested parties can download the

final rule from EPA’s web site on the

Internet under ‘‘recent actions’’ at the

following address: http://www.epa.gov/

ttn/oarpg. further information about the

rule, contact James Maysilles of the

EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards at 919–541–3265.

D. Integrated Iron and Steel

Manufacturing NESHAP

EPA plans to propose an Integrated

Iron and Steel Manufacturing NESHAP

under section 112(d) of the CAA

applicable to sinter plants, blast

furnaces, BOF shops and ancillary

operations in November 2000 and to

promulgate it in November 2001. The

EPA has included integrated iron and

steel manufacturing facilities on the list

of major sources of hazardous air

pollutant (HAP) emissions under

section 112(c) of the CAA. Information

on this action is at: http://www.epa.gov/

ttn/oarp.

You may be subject to the rule if you

own or operate an integrated iron and

steel facility that is a major source of

HAP emissions, or that is part of a

facility that is a major source of HAP

emissions. This source category

includes sinter production, iron

production, and steel production.

XII. Related Acts of Congress, Executive

Orders, and Agency Initiatives

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory

Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency

must determine whether the regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to OMB review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely

to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive

Order 12866, it has been determined

that this rule is a ‘‘significant regulatory

action.’’ As such, this action was

submitted to OMB for review. Changes

made in response to OMB suggestions or

recommendations will be documented

in the public record.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act as

Amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

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

The Regulatory Flexibility Act

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.

purposes of assessing the impacts of

today’s rule on small entities, small

entity is defined as: (1) A small business

that has between 500 and 1500

employees (each firm was assigned the

relevant definition depending on SIC

determination and based on SBA size

standards); (2) a small governmental

jurisdiction that is a government of a

city, county, town, school district or

special district with a population of less

than 50,000; and (3) a small

organization that is any not-for-profit

enterprise which is independently

owned and operated and is not

dominant in its field.

After considering the economic

impact of today’s proposed rule on

small entities, including consideration

of alterative regulatory approaches being

proposed, I certify that this action will

not have significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

EPA identified an estimated 34 small

companies that may be affected by the

rule among the estimated 115 total

companies potentially affected by the

rule. EPA has fully evaluated the

economic impact of the proposed rule

on affected small companies. In some

instances, EPA proposes alternative

regulatory approaches. This analysis

reflects the most stringent of the

alternative options. small companies,

EPA examined the compliance cost to

revenue ratio to identify the potential

impact of the rule on small companies.

EPA has determined that the range of

compliance costs to revenues is between

0 and 1.91 percent with only three

companies experiencing an impact of

greater than 1%, using the most

stringent set of co-proposed options.

Furthermore, an economic achievability

analysis was conducted using a

discounted cash flow approach for

facility impacts analysis and the Altman

Z test for the firm impacts analysis (for

a full discussion, see Section VI). EPA

projects that one small company may

incur an impact such as facility closure

or firm failure. No small governments

are regulated by this action.

Although this proposed rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities,

EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the

impact of this rule on small entities. The

Agency has attempted to mitigate the

potential impacts of the proposed rule

to all entities, including small entities,

by measures such as simplifying the

structure of the existing regulation and

encouraging the co-treatment of

compatible wastewaters. EPA has

engaged in very substantive outreach to

the potentially affected entities via

public meetings and trade association

consultations. The outreach activities

are described in detail in Section IV.D.5

of this preamble. We continue to be

interested in the potential impacts of the

proposed rule on small entities and

welcome comments on issues related to

such impacts.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures to State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or to the private sector, of $100 million

or more in any one year. Before

promulgating an EPA rule for which a

written statement is needed, section 205

of the UMRA generally requires EPA to

identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and

adopt the least costly, most costVerDate 11<MAY>2000 23:48 Dec 26, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27DEP2.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 27DEP2
82034 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

effective or least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule.

The provisions of section 205 do not

apply when they are inconsistent with

applicable law. Moreover, section 205

allows EPA to adopt an alternative other

than the least costly, most cost-effective

or least burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation why that alternative

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes

any regulatory requirements that may

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, including tribal

governments, it must have developed

under section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, enabling

officials of affected small governments

to have meaningful and timely input in

the development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

EPA has determined that this rule

does not contain a Federal mandate that

may result in expenditures of $100

million or more for State, local, and

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or

the private sector in any one year. EPA

has estimated total annualized costs of

the rule as between $56.5 million to

$61.4 million (1999 $, pre-tax).

Accordingly, today’s proposal is not

subject to the requirements of sections

202 and 205 of the UMRA. EPA has,

however, sought meaningful and timely

input from the private sector, states, and

small governments on the development

of this notice. Prior to issuing this

proposed rule, EPA met with members

of the private sector as discussed earlier

in the preamble.

EPA has determined that this rule

contains no regulatory requirements that

might significantly or uniquely affect

small governments, including tribal

governments. EPA recognizes that small

governments may own or operate

POTWs that will need to enter into

pretreatment agreements with the

indirect dischargers of the Iron and

Steel industry that would be subject to

this proposed rule. However, EPA

currently estimates that the added costs

of entering into or modifying existing

pretreatment agreements will be

minimal. The main costs resulting from

this proposed rule will fall upon the

private entities that own and operate the

Iron and Steel facilities.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

The proposed iron and steel effluent

limitations guidelines and standards

contain no information collection

activities and, therefore, no information

collection request will be submitted to

OMB for review under the provisions of

the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

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) of 1995, (Pub L. 104–113 sec.

12(d) 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to

use voluntary consensus standards in its

regulatory activities unless to do so

would be inconsistent with applicable

law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary

consensus standards are technical

standards (e.g., materials specifications,

test methods, sampling procedures, and

business practices) that are developed or

adopted by voluntary consensus

standard bodies. The NTTAA directs

EPA to provide Congress, through the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB), explanations when the Agency

decides not to use available and

applicable voluntary consensus

standards.

This rulemaking involves technical

standards. The rule requires dischargers

to measure for 7 metals, 4 organic

contaminants, TSS, Oil and Grease

(HEM), thiocyanate, total cyanide, total

residual chlorine, ammonia as Nitrogen,

2,3,7,8-TCDF, nitrate and pH. EPA

performed a search to identify

potentially voluntary consensus

standards that could be used to measure

the analytes in today’s final guideline.

EPA’s search revealed that consensus

standards have already been

promulgated in tables at 40 CFR 136.3

for measurement of all analytes except

thiocyanate.

Today, EPA is proposing to

promulgate two consensus standards for

thiocyanate, Method 4500–CN M

(Standard Methods for the Examination

of Water and Wastewater, 20th Edition,

1998) and D4374–98 (Annual Book of

ASTM Standards, volume 11.02, 1999).

EPA welcomes comments on this aspect

f the proposed rulemaking and,

specifically, invites the public to

identify additional potentially

applicable voluntary consensus

standards and to explain why such

standards should be used in this

regulation.

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 or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency. This

proposed rule is not subject to E.O.

13045 because it is not ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under Executive

Order 12866 (EPA estimates that it

would have an annual effect on the

economy of less than $100 million), and

is a technology-based rule that does not

involve health standards or address an

environmental health or safety risk that

may have a disproportional effect on

children.

G. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled

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

1999), requires EPA to develop an

accountable process to ensure

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State

and local officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government.’’

This proposed rule does not have

federalism implications. It will not have

substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132. The proposed

rule establishes effluent limitations

imposing requirements that apply to

iron and steel facilities when they

discharge process wastewater or

introduce process wastewater to a

POTW. EPA has determined that there

are no iron and steel facilities owned

and operated by State and local

governments that would be subject to

this proposed rule; therefore, this

proposed rule will not impose any

treatment technology costs on State or

local governments. Further, this

proposed rule will only affect State and

local governments incidentally in their

capacity as implementers of CWA

permitting programs. Therefore, the

proposed rule, at most, imposes only

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 82035

minimal administrative costs on States

that have authorized NPDES programs

and on local governments that are

administering approved pretreatment

programs. (These State and local

governments must incorporate the new

effluent limitations guidelines and

standards in new and reissued NPDES

permits or local pretreatment orders or

permits). Thus, Executive Order 13132

does not apply to this rule.

Although Executive Order 13132 does

not apply to this rule, EPA did consult

with State government representatives

in developing this proposal, as

discussed in Section IV of this

document. A summary of the concerns

raised during consultation and EPA’s

response to those concerns is provided

in Section IV.D.5 of this preamble. In

addition, in the spirit of this Executive

Order and consistent with EPA policy to

promote communications between EPA

and State and local governments, EPA

specifically solicits comment on this

proposed rule from State and local

officials.

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 nor does it

impose substantial direct compliance

costs on them. EPA has determined that

no communities of Indian tribal

governments are affected by this rule.

Accordingly, the requirements of

section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084

do not apply to this rule.

I. Plain Language Directive

Executive Order 12866 and the

President’s memorandum of June 1,

1998, require each agency to write all

rules in plain language. We invite your

comments on how to make this

proposed rule easier to understand.

example: Have we organized the

material to suit your needs? Are the

requirements in the rule clearly stated?

Does the rule contain technical language

or jargon that isn’t clear? Would a

different format (grouping and order of

sections, use of headings, paragraphing)

make the rule easier to understand?

Would more (but shorter) sections be

better? Could we improve clarity by

adding tables, lists, or diagrams? What

else could we do to make the rule easier

to understand?

XIII. Solicitation of Data and Comments

A. Introduction and General Solicitation

EPA invites and encourages public

participation in this rulemaking. The

Agency asks that comments address any

perceived deficiencies in the record of

this proposal and that suggested

revisions or corrections be supported by

data.

The Agency invites all parties to

coordinate their data collection

activities with EPA in order to facilitate

mutually beneficial and cost-effective

data submissions. EPA is interested in

participating in study plans, data

collection and documentation. Please

refer to the ‘‘ Further Information’’

section at the beginning of this preamble

for technical contacts at EPA. Comments

on the proposal must be received by

February 26, 2001.

B. Specific Data and Comment

Solicitations

1. Revised Production Basis for

Regulation

EPA believes that some NPDES and

pretreatment permit production rates

have been derived in a manner that is

not consistent with the term ‘‘reasonable

measure of actual production’’ specified

at §§ 122.45(b)(2)(i), 403.6(c)(3), and

420.04. Thus EPA is soliciting comment

on four alternate approaches for

establishing permit effluent limitations.

These are described in detail in Section

X.D.2, and summarized below:

Alternative A: Retaining essential

requirements of the current rule while

providing additional instructions for

avoiding unrealistically high

estimates of actual production

Alternative B: Including a requirement

for the permit writer to establish

multi-tiered permit limits

Alternative C: Revising the definition of

production to be the average daily

operating rate for the year with the

highest annual production over the

past five years

Alternative D: Establishing productionbased maximum monthly average

effluent limitations and standards in

combination with daily-maximum

concentration-based effluent

limitations and standards.

2. Revised Subcategorization

The revised subcategorization

described in Section IV.E simplifies the

structure and use of the regulation. The

proposed subcategorization removes

defunct manufacturing processes,

eliminates subsegments in the hot

forming and finishing subcategories,

creates a new subcategory for nonintegrated steelmaking and hot forming

processes, and creates new

subcategories or segments for

manufacturing processes not currently

regulated. The Agency requests

comments on the new subcategorization

and its effects on the implementation of

today’s proposed rule.

3. Applicability Changes

As described in Section III, the

Agency determined that certain

facilities covered by the current Iron

and Steel rule have manufacturing

processes that more closely resemble

those in facilities to be covered by the

MP&M rule. These processes include:

The cold forming for steel bar, rod, wire,

pipe or tube; batch hot dip coating of

steel; and wire drawing and coating.

EPA is proposing to move these

operations into the MP&M category,

which will be regulated under 40 CFR

part 438. The Agency also proposes

coverage of the following operations not

covered by the current Iron and Steel

rule: continuous electroplating of flat

steel products, direct-reduced

ironmaking, briquetting, and steel

forging operations. EPA solicits

comments on these proposed

applicability changes. EPA also solicits

comments on its proposal to regulate

continuous strip electroplating

operations in the part 420.

4. Changes in Water Bubble

As discussed in Section X.E, EPA is

proposing making the following changes

to the water bubble rule:

• Allow trades for cokemaking where

more stringent limits for cokemaking

would result;

• Prohibit trades for sintering

operations where less stringent

82036 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

limitations for sintering would result,

since discharge of dioxins could result;

• Allow trades for cold rolling

operations which are currently excluded

from the water bubble provisions; and

• Prohibit trades for oil & grease.

The Agency solicits comments on the

economic and environmental impacts of

the proposed changes.

5. Approach to PSES and PSNS for

ammonia-N in Ironmaking Wastewaters

In Section IX.B, EPA proposes

regulatory flexibility that would allow

indirectly discharging ironmaking

operations to not have to meet the

pretretment standards for ammonia-N if

the facility certifies to the pretreatment

control authority under 40 CFR 403.12

that they discharge to POTWs with the

capability, when considered together

with the indirect discharger’s removals,

to achieve removals at least equivalent

to those expected under BAT for

ammonia-N. The Agency solicits

comment on this certification

alternative, particularly from POTWs

currently receiving process wastewaters

from ironmaking operations.

6. Alternative Approaches for

Regulating Integrated and Stand-Alone

Hot ming Mills

EPA is proposing two different BAT

approaches for the carbon and alloy

segment of the Integrated and StandAlone Hot ming Subcategory. The

technology basis for these options is

identical and consists of a scale pit with

oil skimming, roughing clarifier, cooling

tower with high-rate recycle and mixedmedia filtration of blowdown.

The difference between BAT Option

A and BAT Option B involves the

amount of time that facilities in the

segment would have to achieve BAT

limitations. Under BAT Option A, all

facilities would be subject to BAT

limitations as soon as they are placed in

the facility’s NPDES permit. Under BAT

Option B, in contrast, all facilities could

obtain additional time to achieve BAT

limitations. If EPA ultimately

determines in April 2002 that BAT

Option A is not economically

achievable for the segment as a whole,

it may decide to take final action based

on BAT Option B.

more details on Options A and B,

refer to Section IX.D. EPA solicits

comment on both of these options. EPA

also solicits comment on whether there

is any rational basis to distinguish

among mills in this segment, so as to

apply BAT Option B only to a specific

subsegment of mills for which the

model technology is not economically

achievable at the time of promulgation.

7. Compliance Monitoring Location for

pH

Stakeholders have indicated that

permit authorities often interpret the

current regulation to require application

of pH limitations at internal monitoring

locations, prior to additional treatment

or mixing with other wastewater. EPA is

proposing to allow permit authorities

the flexibility to establish pH effluent

limitations at final outfalls such that

redundant and unnecessary pH

neutralization can be avoided.

8. ELGs and Standards in lbs/ton vs kg/

kkg or lbs/1000 lbs

The current part 420 regulation and

other previous mass-based regulations

have presented pollutant limitations in

terms of kilograms of allowable

pollutant discharge per thousand

kilograms of production (kg/kkg), also

expressed as pounds of allowable

pollutant discharge per thousand

pounds of production (lbs/1,000 lbs).

Today’s proposed regulation presents

pollutant limitations in terms of pounds

of allowable pollutant discharge per ton

of production (lbs/ton). The Agency

made this change to express the

limitations in terms of the production

value that is a standard throughout the

industry. The Agency requests

comments on this format.

9. POTW Performance Criteria

In Section IX.A(2) and (3), EPA

describes the traditional methodology

used to determine POTW performance

and the proposed revisions to that

methodology, respectively. EPA used

the traditional methodology to estimate

POTW percent removals, which are a

component of the pass-through

methodology used to identify the

pollutants to be regulated for PSES and

PSNS and the analysis to determine net

pollutant reductions. Previously, EPA

edited data at or near the minimum

level for POTW performance based on

the editing criteria used to calculate

BAT limitations. EPA is considering

revising the POTW data editing criteria.

Given the range of analytical minimum

levels and their influence on calculated

percent removals, EPA is considering

several editing alternatives, detailed in

Section IX.A(3). The Agency solicits

comments on potential revisions to the

pass-through methodology.

10. Mercury and Selenium in

Cokemaking Wastewater

EPA is proposing regulation of

mercury and selenium at cokemaking

plants based on toxicity and presence in

cokemaking wastewaters as discussed in

Section IX.B(1) Currently, permits for

several cokemaking sites require

monitoring for mercury and selenium.

EPA solicits comments on the need for

limits for mercury and selenium,

including any additional data available

to support or oppose the need for limits.

11. Regulatory Approach for Dioxins

and Furans at Sinter Plants

In Section IX, dioxins and furans were

identified as pollutants of concern for

sinter plants using wet air pollution

controls. EPA proposes to limit dioxins

and furans in wastewaters from sinter

plants. The proposed limit would be for

2,3,7,8–TCDF and would be set to less

than the minimum level. EPA proposes

to require compliance monitoring after

primary treatment of sinter plant

wastewaters or after sinter plant and

blast furnace wastewaters are co-treated,

but before any additional process or

non-process flows are combined with

the wastewater. EPA solicits comments

on this proposed regulatory approach.

The Agency is also considering whether

to limit dioxins and furans found in

sinter plant wastewaters on the basis of

2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQs (toxicity

equivalents) which would measure all

of the 17 dioxin and furan congeners

with chlorine substitutions at the 2,3,7

and 8 lateral positions. This is

consistent with the international

toxicity equivalents factors approach;

consistent with EPA’s approach to

regulating dioxins in other media and

for conducting risk assessments; and

consistent with EPA’s source

characterization work to assess the

national inventory of dioxin releases to

environmental media.

12. Consideration of Zero Discharge as

NSPS for the Non-Integrated

Steelmaking and Hot ming Subcategory

As described in Section IV.F(5)c, nonintegrated mills have demonstrated

lower discharge flow rates than

continuous casters and hot forming

mills at integrated and stand alone

mills. Many non-integrated sites report

zero discharge of process wastewater

using high-rate recycle systems for the

entire mill. EPA determined that new

facilities can incorporate process water

treatment and water pollution control at

the design stage, thus avoiding costs

associated with retrofit situations. The

Agency solicits comments on

establishing zero discharge limitations

at NSPS for the Non-Integrated

Steelmaking and Hot ming Subcategory.

13. Zero Discharge for all EAFs

As described in Section IV.F(5)a, the

proposed Non-Integrated Steelmaking

and Hot ming Subcategory includes a

segment for EAF steelmaking. Since the

only EAF remaining in the United States

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 82037

that discharges wastewater is now only

used for emergency purposes, EPA did

not cost the site to replace the wet air

pollution control unit. If the unit is still

being used at the time this rule is

promulgated, BPJ will apply. The

Agency solicits comments on excluding

a segment for EAFs with wet air

pollution control.

14. Surface Quality Issues for Steel

Finishing Operations

the purposes of this proposal, the

Agency has selected the median

production-normalized flow rate (PNF)

reported by the industry for steel

finishing operations. This approach was

intended to address product quality

issues associated with water use. A

number of mills engaging in steel

finishing operations claim to need a

relatively high PNF (i.e., higher than the

median PNF selected by EPA for this

proposed subcategory). Therefore, the

Agency requests comments on surface

quality and any other issues that impact

water use and necessitate high water use

rates in steel finishing operations.

15. Limits for Nitrates/Nitrites at

Stainless Finishing Facilities

In Section IX, nitrate/nitrite was

identified as a pollutant of concern for

stainless steel acid pickling operations

where nitric acids and combinations of

nitric and hydrofluoric acids are used

for surface treatments for various grades

of stainless steels. The model BAT

technology for stainless steel finishing

operations includes acid purification

units for recovery and reuse of spent

nitric and nitric/hydrofluoric acid

pickling solutions. EPA is considering

developing a limit, based on acid

purification technology, for nitrate/

nitrite (in the form of nitrate-nitrite-N)

for stainless steel finishing operations

with combination acid pickling. EPA

solicits effluent quality monitoring data

from stainless steel acid pickling

operations using acid purification and

from POTWs that receive wastewater

from these operations.

EPA is aware of other process changes

which may result in decreased nitrate

concentrations in stainless steel acid

pickling wastewaters, including

chemical substitution for nitric acid.

EPA solicits information on this or any

other process capable of achieving

substantial reduction or elimination of

nitrates from stainless steel pickling

wastewaters, particularly process

details; for which grades of stainless

steel the process can be used;

performance data; and detailed cost

estimates.

16. Revision of Subcategorization for

BPT Effluent Limitations

EPA is considering converting the

existing mass-based BPT limitations for

conventional pollutants TSS and O&G

to corresponding concentration-based

BPT limitations via the production

normalized flows used to develop the

existing BPT limitations. By this

conversion, EPA does not intend to

change the substance of the current BPT

limitations in any way. Rather, EPA

intends to simplify application of the

current BPT limitations in view of the

new subcategorization arrangement.

EPA solicits comments on this

approach.

17. Best Management Practices

EPA is planning to include in

guidance documents or in the technical

development document for the final rule

a number of recommended Best

Management Practices (BMPs) for use in

the NPDES and pretreatment programs.

These BMPs would not be codified in

part 420, but could be used by permit

writers on a facility-by-facility basis as

deemed appropriate to address sitespecific issues. Among the BMPs being

considered in this fashion are those

listed at Section 6.5 of the Preliminary

Study (EPA 821–R–95–037) and others

dealing with management of oily

wastewaters from hot forming

operations and periodic reviews and

assessments of the integrity of process

water collection systems and

wastewater treatment system operations.

EPA solicits comments on this

approach.

18. Cash Flow in the Economic Analysis

In the economic analysis, cash flow at

the site-level is defined as the sum of

net income and depreciation. The

measure is widely used within industry

in evaluating capital investment

decisions because both net income and

depreciation (which is an accounting

offset against income, but not an actual

cash expenditure) are potentially

available to finance future investment.

However, assuming that total cash flow

is available over an extended time

horizon (for example, 15 years) to

finance investments related to

environmental compliance could

overstate a site’s ability to comply. In

particular, the cost of capital equipment

(not associated with regulatory

compliance) is not netted out of cash

flow, as it is of income through the

subtraction of depreciation. Thus, any

costs associated with either replacing

existing capital equipment, or repaying

money that was previously borrowed to

pay for it, are omitted from the site-level

analysis. EPA solicits comment on its

use of cash flow as a measure of

resources available to finance

environmental compliance and

suggestions for alternative

methodologies.

Appendix A: Definitions, Acronyms,

and Abbreviations Used in This Notice

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 for industrial discharges

to surface waters, as defined by section

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

BCT—The best control technology for

conventional pollutants, applicable to

discharges of conventional pollutants from

existing industrial point sources, as defined

by section 304(b)(4) of the CWA.

BPT—The best practicable control

technology currently available, applicable to

effluent limitations, for industrial discharges

to surface waters, as defined by section

304(b)(1) of the CWA.

Clean Water Act (CWA)—The Federal

Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of

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

amended e.g., by the Clean Water Act of 1977

(Pub. L. 95–217), and the Water Quality Act

of 1987 (Pub. L. 100–4).

Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 308

Questionnaire—A qestionnaire 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.

Conventional Pollutants—Constituents of

wastewater as determined by section

304(a)(4) of the CWA (and EPA regulations),

i.e., pollutants classified as biochemical

oxygen demand, total suspended solids, oil

and grease, fecal coliform, and pH.

Daily Discharge—The discharge of a

pollutant measured during any calendar day

or any 24-hour period that reasonably

represents a calendar day.

Direct Discharger—A facility that

discharges or may discharge treated or

untreated wastewaters into waters of the

United States.

Effluent Limitation—Under CWA section

502(1), any restriction, including schedules

of compliance, established by a State or the

Administrator on quantities, rates, and

concentrations of chemical, physical,

biological, and other constituents which are

discharged from point sources into navigable

waters, the waters of the contiguous zone, or

the ocean (CWA sections 301(b) and 304(b)).

Existing Source— this rule, any facility

from which there is or may be a discharge of

pollutants, the construction of which is

commenced before the publication of the

final regulations prescribing a standard of

performance under section 306 of the CWA.

82038 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Facility—All contiguous property owned,

operated, leased, or under the control of the

same person or entity.

Hazardous Waste—Any waste, including

wastewater, defined as hazardous under

RCRA, TSCA, or any state law.

Indirect Discharger—A facility that

discharges or may discharge wastewaters into

a publicly-owned treatment works.

LTA (Long-Term Average)— 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 effluent

limitations guidelines and standards in

today’s proposed regulation.

Minimum Level—the lowest level at which

the entire analytical system must give a

recognizable signal and an acceptable

calibration point for the analyte.

NAICS—North American Industry

Classification System. NAICS was developed

jointly by the U.S., Canada, and Mexico to

provide new comparability in statistics about

business activity across North America.

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.

Non-Conventional Pollutants—Pollutants

that are neither conventional pollutants nor

priority pollutants listed at 40 CFR part 401.

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 effective date of the final

regulations (if those regulations are

promulgated after April 26, 2001). EPA is

scheduled to take final action on this

proposal in April 2002. See 40 CFR 122.2.

Outfall—The mouth of conduit drains and

other conduits from which a facility effluent

discharges into receiving waters.

Pass Through—A pollutant is determined

to ‘‘pass through’’ a POTW when the average

percentage removed by an efficiently

operated POTW is less than the average

percentage removed by the industry’s direct

dischargers that are using well-designed,

well-operated BAT technology.

Point Source—Any discernable, confined,

and discrete conveyance from which

pollutants are or may be discharged. See

CWA section 502(14).

Pollutants of Concern (POCs)—Pollutants

commonly found in iron and steel

wastewaters. Generally, a chemical is

considered as a POC if it was detected in

untreated process wastewater at 10 times the

minimum level (ML) in more than 10% of the

samples.

Priority Pollutant—One hundred twentysix compounds that are a subset of the 65

toxic pollutants and classes of pollutants

outlined in section 307 of the CWA. See 40

CFR part 403, Appendix A (reprinted after 40

CFR 423.17).

PSES—Pretreatment standards for existing

sources of indirect discharges, under Section

307(b) of the CWA, applicable to indirect

dischargers that commenced construction

after December 27, 2001. See 40 CFR 403.3

(K)(1).

PSNS—Pretreatment standards for new

sources under section 307(c) 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. 6901

et seq.), which regulates the generation,

treatment, storage, disposal, or recycling of

solid and hazardous wastes.

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.

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.

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 in 40 CFR Part 420

Environmental protection, Iron, Steel,

Waste treatment and disposal, Water

pollution control.

Dated: October 31, 2000.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

the reasons set out in the preamble,

Title 40, Chapter I of the Code of

Federal Regulations is amended by

revising part 420 as follows:

Part 420—Iron and Steel Manufacturing

Point Source Category

Sec.

420.1 General applicability.

420.2 General definitions.

420.3 Calculation of NPDES and

pretreatment permit effluent limitations.

420.4 Alternative effluent limitations

under the ‘‘water bubble.’’

420.5 Pretreatment standards compliance

date.

420.6 Effluent limitations guidelines and

standards for pH.

420.7 Supplemental NPDES permit

application and pretreatment report

requirements.

Subpart A—Cokemaking Subcategory

420.10 Applicability.

420.11 Subcategory definitions.

420.12 Effluent limitations attainable by the

application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

420.13 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of

the best control technology for

conventional pollutants (BCT).

420.14 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of

the best available control technology

economically achievable (BAT).

420.15 New source performance standards

(NSPS).

420.16 Pretreatment standards for existing

sources (PSES).

420.17 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS).

Subpart B—Ironmaking Subcategory

420.20 Applicability.

420.21 Subcategory definitions.

420.22 Effluent limitations attainable by the

application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

420.23 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of

the best control technology for

conventional pollutants (BCT).

420.24 Effluent limitations attainable by the

application of the best available control

technology economically achievable

(BAT).

420.25 New source performance standards

(NSPS).

420.26 Pretreatment standards for existing

sources (PSES).

420.27 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS).

420.28 Point of compliance monitoring.

Subpart C—Integrated Steelmaking

Subcategory

420.30 Applicability.

420.31 Subcategory definitions.

420.32 Effluent limitations attainable by the

application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

420.33 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of

the best control technology for

conventional pollutants (BCT).

420.34 Effluent limitations attainable by the

application of the best available control

technology economically achievable

(BAT).

420.35 New source performance standards

(NSPS).

420.36 Pretreatment standards for existing

sources (PSES).

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 82039

420.37 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS).

Subpart D—Integrated and Stand-Alone Hot

ming Subcategory

420.40 Applicability.

420.41 Subcategory definitions.

420.42 Effluent limitations attainable by the

application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

420.43 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of

the best control technology for

conventional pollutants (BCT).

420.44 Effluent limitations attainable by the

application of the best available control

technology economically achievable

(BAT).

420.45 New source performance standards

(NSPS).

420.46 Pretreatment standards for existing

sources (PSES).

420.47 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS).

Subpart E—Non-Integrated Steelmaking

and Hot ming Subcategory

420.50 Applicability.

420.51 Subcategory definitions.

420.52 Effluent limitations attainable by the

application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

420.53 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of

the best control technology for

conventional pollutants (BCT).

420.54 Effluent limitations attainable by the

application of the best available control

technology economically achievable

(BAT).

420.55 New source performance standards

(NSPS).

420.56 Pretreatment standards for existing

sources (PSES).

420.57 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS).

Subpart F—Steel Finishing Subcategory

420.60 Applicability.

420.61 Subcategory definitions.

420.62 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of

the best practicable control technology

currently available (BPT).

420.63 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of

the best control technology for

conventional pollutants (BCT).

420.64 Effluent limitations attainable by the

application of the best available control

technology economically achievable

(BAT).

420.65 New source performance standards

(NSPS).

420.66 Pretreatment standards for existing

sources (PSES).

420.67 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS).

Subpart G—Other Operations Subcategory

420.70 Applicability.

420.71 Subcategory definitions.

420.72 Effluent limitations attainable by the

application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

420.73 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of

the best control technology for

conventional pollutants (BCT).

420.74 Effluent limitations attainable by the

application of the best available control

technology economically achievable

(BAT).

420.75 New source performance standards

(NSPS).

420.76 Pretreatment standards for existing

sources (PSES).

420.77 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.

§ 420.1 General applicability.

(a) This part applies to discharges and

the introduction of pollutants to

publicly owned treatment works

(POTWs) resulting from the

manufacture of metallurgical coke

(furnace coke and foundry coke), sinter,

iron, steel and semi-finishing steel

products including hot and cold

finished flat-rolled carbon and alloy and

stainless steels; flat-rolled and other

steel shapes coated with other metals or

combinations of metals; plates;

structural shapes and members; and hot

rolled pipes and tubes. Manufacturing

activities that may be subject to this part

are generally reported under one or

more of the following North American

Industry Classification System (NAISC)

codes: 32419, 331111, 331210, 331221

and 331222 (North American Industry

Classification System, U.S. Office of

Management and Budget, Washington,

DC, 1997).

(b) This part does not apply to

discharges and the introduction of

pollutants to POTWs resulting from cold

finished bar or cold finished pipe and

tube operations; wire drawing or coating

operations; or, stand-alone, hot-dipped

coating operations for products other

than flat-rolled products.

§ 420.2 General definitions.

As used in this part:

(a) The general definitions and

abbreviations in 40 CFR part 401 shall

apply, except as modified in this part.

(b) Alloy steels means steels which

contain one or more of the following

alloying elements in excess of the

specified percentage: Manganese,

1.65%; silicon, 0.5%; copper, 0.6%; or

in which a definite range or a definite

minimum quantity of any of the

following elements is specified or

required within the limits of the

recognized field of constructional alloy

steels: aluminum, boron, chromium

(less than 10%), cobalt, lead,

molybdenum, nickel, niobium

(columbium), titanium, tungsten,

vanadium, zirconium, or any other

alloying element added to obtain a

desired alloying effect.

(c) Billet means a semi-finished piece

of steel, usually smaller than a bloom,

resulting from hot-rolling an ingot. The

piece may be square, but not more than

twice as wide as thick . It is normally

used for ‘‘long’’ products, such as bars,

channels or other structural shapes.

(d) Bloom means a semi-finished

piece of steel resulting from rolling or

forging an ingot. The piece is square, or

not more than twice as wide as thick,

and has a cross-sectional area of at least

8 square inches but usually 36 square

inches or more.

(e) Carbon steels are those steels for

which no minimum content of elements

other than carbon is specified or

necessary to obtain a desired alloying

effect and when the maximum content

for any of the following elements do not

exceed the percentage specified:

Manganese, 1.65%; silicon, 0.5%;

copper, 0.6%.

(f) Maximum daily means the highest

allowable discharge of wastewater

pollutants during any one day.

(g) Maximum monthly average means

the highest allowable average of daily

discharges of wastewater pollutants over

a calendar month, and is calculated as

the sum of all daily values measured

during a calendar month divided by the

number of daily values measured during

that month.

(h) Plate means finished sheet steel

with a width of more than 8 inches and

a thickness ranging from 0.25 inch to

more than 12 inches.

(i) Regulated parameters with

approved methods of analysis in Table

1B at 40 CFR 136.3 are defined as

follows:

(1) Ammonia (as N) means ammonia

reported as nitrogen.

(2) Chromium means total chromium.

(3) Chromium (VI) means hexavalent

chromium.

(4) Copper means total copper.

(5) Cyanide means total cyanide.

(6) HEM means oil and grease

measured as hexane extractable

material.

(7) Lead means total lead.

(8) Mercury means total mercury.

(9) Nickel means total nickel.

(10) Nitrate+Nitrite (as N) means

nitrite and nitrate reported as nitrogen.

(11) Selenium means total selenium.

(12) TRC means total residual

chlorine.

82040 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

(13) TSS means total suspended

solids.

(14) Zinc means total zinc.

(j) Regulated parameters with

approved methods of analysis in Table

1C at 40 CFR 136.3 are as follows:

(1) Benzo(a)pyrene 

(2) Naphthalene 

(3) Phenol

(k) Regulated parameter with

approved method of analysis by EPA

Method 1613B is defined as follows:

(1) 2,3,7,8-TCDF means 2,3,7,8-

tetrachlorodibenzofuran.

(l) Process wastewaters are defined at

40 CFR 401.11.

(m) Non-process wastewaters mean

utility wastewaters (for example, water

treatment residuals); treated or

untreated wastewaters from

groundwater remediation systems;

dewatering water for building

foundations; and other wastewater

streams not associated with a

production process.

(n) Rod means a semi-finished length

of steel with circular cross-section

(diameter 0.25 inch or less) that is rolled

from a billet and coiled for further

processing. Rod is commonly drawn

into wire products or used to make bolts

and nails.

(o) Semi-finished steel means blooms,

billets or slabs that are later worked into

finished shapes (bar, rod, plate, sheet).

(p) Sheet means a thin flat steel shape

created by hot-rolling a cast slab flat

while maintaining the side dimensions.

Sheets are within the following size

limitations: 0.0499 to 0.2299 inches

thick and 12 to over 48 inches width,

and are often coiled.

(q) Slab means a semi-finished piece

of steel resulting from hot-rolling an

ingot into an oblong shape, which is

relatively wide and thin.

(r) Specialty steels are steels

containing alloying elements that are

added to enhance the properties of the

steel product when individual alloying

elements (e.g., aluminum, chromium,

cobalt, columbium, molybdenum,

nickel, titanium, tungsten, vanadium,

zirconium) exceed 3%, or when the

total of all alloying elements exceeds 5

percent. Specialty steel categories

include: Electrical, alloy, stainless and

tool.

(s) Stainless means steel containing

10% or more chromium, with or

without other alloying elements. It is a

trade name given to corrosion and heat

resistant steel in which the chief

alloying elements are chromium, nickel

and silicon in various combinations and

possibly a small per cent of titanium,

vanadium, and other elements.

(t) Strip means thin flat steel

resembling hot-rolled sheet, but

normally narrower (up to 12 inches

wide) and produced to more closely

controlled thicknesses (0.0255 to 0.2299

inches).

§ 420.3 Calculation of NPDES and

pretreatment permit effluent limitations.

(a) The following protocols shall be

used when calculating the daily

operating rate (reasonable meaure of

actual production), except as

specifically provided for in subparts A

through G of this part:

(1) Production levels from unit

operations that do not generate or

discharge process wastewater shall not

be included in the calculation of the

daily operating rate.

(2) similar, multiple production

facilities with process waters treated in

the same process wastewater treatment

system (e.g., two blast furnaces

equipped with one process water

treatment and recycle system), the

reasonable measure of production (daily

operating rate) shall be determined from

the combined production of the similar

production facilities during the same

time period.

(3) process wastewater treatment

systems where wastewaters from two or

more different production facilities (e.g.,

blast furnaces and sintering) are cotreated in the same process wastewater

treatment system, the reasonable

measure of production (daily operating

rate) shall be determined for each

production facility or combination of

similar, multiple production facilities

separately (not necessarily during the

same time period) and summed. The

reasonable measure of production for

each set of similar, multiple production

facilities shall be established using the

protocols in § 420.3(a)(2).

(b) all process operations regulated by

subparts A through G of this part, mass

effluent limitations and pretreatment

requirements for each process operation

shall be computed by multiplying the

reasonable measure of actual production

by the respective effluent limitations

guidelines or standards. The mass

effluent limitations or pretreatment

requirements applicable at a given

NPDES or pretreatment compliance

monitoring point shall be the sum of the

mass effluent limitations or

pretreatment requirements for each

process operation with process

wastewaters discharging to that

compliance monitoring point.

(c) Mass NPDES permit effluent

limitations or pretreatment

requirements derived from this part

shall remain in effect for the term of the

NPDES permit or pretreatment control

mechanism, except:

(1) When the permit is modified in

accordance with § 122.62 of this chapter

or local POTW permit modification

provisions; or

(2) Where alternate effluent

limitations are established for increased

or decreased production levels in

accordance with § 122.45(b)(2)(ii)(A)(1)

of this chapter.

(d) Permit and pretreatment control

authorities may provide for increased

loadings for non-process wastewaters

defined at § 420.2 and for storm water

from the immediate process area in

NPDES permits and pretreatment

control mechanisms using best

professional judgment, but only to the

extent such non-process wastewaters

result in an increased flow.

§ 420.4 Alternative effluent limitations

under the ‘‘water bubble’’.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs

(d) through (g) of this section, any

existing and new source direct

discharging point source subject to this

part may qualify for alternative effluent

limitations to those specified in

subparts A through G of this part,

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application

of best practicable control technology

currently available, best available

technology economically achievable,

best conventional technology, and best

demonstrated technology. The

alternative effluent limitations for each

pollutant are determined for a

combination of outfalls by totaling the

mass limitations allowed under subparts

A through G of this part for each

pollutant and subtracting from each

total the net reduction amount specified

for that pollutant in paragraph (b) of this

section. The permit authority shall

determine a net reduction amount for

each pollutant subject to this section

that is greater than the minimum

percentage specified in paragraph (b) of

this section upon consideration of

additional available control measures

that would result in effluent reductions

and which can be achieved without

requiring significant additional

expenditures at any outfall(s) in the

combination for which the discharge is

projected to be better than required by

this regulation.

(b) The water bubble may be used to

calculate alternative effluent limitations

only for identical pollutants (e.g. lead

for lead, not lead for zinc).

(c) In the case of Total Suspended

Solids (TSS), the minimum net

reduction amount shall be at least 15

percent of the amount(s) for existing

sources and 20 percent of the amount(s)

for new sources by which the TSS

discharges from any waste stream(s) in

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 82041

the combination will meet otherwise

allowable effluent limitations for TSS.

all other pollutants, the minimum net

reduction amount shall be at least 10

percent of the amount(s) for existing

sources and 20 percent of the amount(s)

for new sources by which the discharges

from any waste stream(s) in the

combination will meet otherwise

allowable effluent limitations for each

pollutant under this regulation.

(d) Use of the water bubble to develop

alternate effluent limitations for oil &

grease is prohibited.

(e) A discharger cannot qualify for

alternative effluent limitations if the

application of such alternative effluent

limitations would cause or contribute to

an exceedance of any applicable water

quality standards.

(f) Each outfall or internal NPDES

permit compliance point from which

process wastewaters are discharged

must have specific, fixed effluent

limitations for each pollutant limited by

the applicable subparts A through G of

this part.

(g) Subcategory-Specific Restrictions:

(1) There shall be no alternate effluent

limitations for cokemaking process

wastewater unless the alternative

limitations are more stringent than the

limitations in subpart A of this part;

(2) There shall be no alternate effluent

limitations for sintering process

wastewater unless the alternative

limitations are more stringent than the

sintering process wastewater limitations

in subpart B of this part.

(h) The water bubble may be used to

calculate alternative effluent limitations

only for identical pollutants (e.g., lead

for lead, not lead for zinc).

§ 420.5 Pretreatment standards

compliance dates.

Compliance with the pretreatment

standards for existing sources set forth

in this part is required not later than

three years from date of publication of

the final rule whether or not the

pretreatment authority issues or amends

a pretreatment permit requiring such

compliance. Until that date, the

pretreatment standards for existing

sources set forth in the 2000 version of

this part shall continue to apply.

§ 420.6 Effluent limitations guidelines and

standards for pH.

(a) The pH level shall be maintained

between 6.0 and 9.0 su at all times.

(b) The pH level in process

wastewaters subject to a subpart within

this part shall be monitored at the point

of discharge to the receiving water or at

the point at which the wastewater

leaves the wastewater treatment facility

operated to treated effluent subject to

that subpart.

§ 420.7 Supplemental NPDES permit

application and pretreatment report

requirements.

In addition to the information and

data for NPDES permit applications and

pretreatment reports required by part

122, subpart B and § 403.12,

respectively, the permit applicant shall

provide the following information with

its permit application or pretreatment

report:

(a) Complete applications for any new

variances or for renewal of any existing

variances from the generally applicable

effluent limitations;

(b) Any proposed alternative effluent

limitations under the ‘‘water bubble’’

rule at § 420.4.

Subpart A—Cokemaking Subcategory

§ 420.10 Applicability.

The provisions of this subpart are

applicable to discharges and the

introduction of pollutants into publicly

owned treatment works resulting from

by-product and other cokemaking

operations.

§ 420.11 Subcategory definitions.

As used in this subpart:

(a) Product means the average daily

operating (production) rate of

metallurgical coke plus coke breeze

determined in accordance with § 420.3.

(b) By-product cokemaking means

operations in which coal is heated in

the absence of air to produce

metallurgical coke (furnace coke and

foundry coke) and recovery of byproducts derived from the gases and

liquids which are driven from the coal

during cokemaking.

(c) Cokemaking, non-recovery means

cokemaking operations for production

of metallurgical coke (furnace coke and

foundry coke) without recovery of byproducts.

(d) Coke means a processed form of

coal which serves as the basic fuel for

the smelting of iron ore.

(1) Foundry coke means coke

produced for foundry operations.

(2) Furnace coke means coke

produced for blast furnace operations.

(e) Iron and steel coke plant means

by-product cokemaking operations

which provide more than fifty per cent

of the coke produced to ironmaking

blast furnaces associated with steel

production.

(f) Merchant coke plant means byproduct cokemaking operations other

than those at iron and steel coke plants.

(g) Merchant bar means rounds, flats,

angles, squares and channels that are

used by fabricators to manufacture a

wide variety of products such as

furniture, stair railings and farm

equipment.

(h) Wet desulfurization system means

one that utilizes water to remove (scrub)

sulfur compounds from coke oven offgases.

(i) NESHAPs means National

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants applicable to by-product coke

plants.

§ 420.12 Effluent limitations attainable by

the application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

(a) By-product cokemaking. Except as

provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through

125.32, any existing point source subject

to this segment must achieve the

following effluent limitations

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application

of the best practicable control

technology currently available (BPT):

Effluent Limitations (BPT)

Process wastewater source Maximum daily 3 Maximum monthly

avg.3

(1) Iron and steel coke plants 1

Oil & grease ...................................................................................................................................... 0.0654 0.0218

TSS ................................................................................................................................................... 0.506 0.262

(2) Merchant coke plants 2

Oil & grease ...................................................................................................................................... 0.0698 0.0232

TSS ................................................................................................................................................... 0.540 0.280

1 iron and steel coke plants, increased loadings, not to exceed 11 per cent of the above limitations, shall be provided for process wastewaters

from wet desulfurization systems, but only to the extent such systems generate process wastewaters. 2 merchant coke plants, increased loadings, not to exceed 10 per cent of the above limitations, shall be provided for process wastewaters from

wet desulfurization systems, but only to the extent such systems generate process wastewaters. 3Pounds per ton of product.

82042 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

(b) Cokemaking—non-recovery.

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this segment must

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the degree of

effluent reduction attainable by the

application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT): There shall be no discharge of

process wastewater pollutants to waters

of the U.S.

§ 420.13 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of

the best control technology for

conventional pollutants (BCT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the degree of

effluent reduction attainable by the

application of the best control

technology for conventional pollutants

(BCT): The limitations shall be the same

as those specified for conventional

pollutants (which are defined in 40 CFR

401.16) in § 420.12 for the best

practicable control technology currently

available (BPT).

§ 420.14 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of

the best available control technology

economically achievable (BAT).

(a) By-product cokemaking. Except as

provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through

125.32, any existing point source subject

to this subpart must achieve the

following effluent limitations

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application

of the best available control technology

economically achievable (BAT):

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT)

Regulated parameter Maximum daily1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Ammonia (as N) ............................................................................................................................................... 0.00137 0.000618

Benzo(a)pyrene ............................................................................................................................................... 0.0000909 0.0000304

Cyanide ............................................................................................................................................................ 0.0104 0.00394

Mercury ............................................................................................................................................................ 0.000000864 0.000000523

Naphthalene ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.000103 0.0000345

Phenol .............................................................................................................................................................. 0.0000332 0.0000187

Selenium .......................................................................................................................................................... 0.000185 0.000159

Thiocyanate ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.00164 0.00115

TRC .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.000659

1Pounds per ton of product.

(1) Increased loadings, not to exceed

9.5 per cent of the above limitations,

shall be provided for process

wastewaters from wet desulfurization

systems, but only to the extent such

systems generate process wastewaters.

(2) Increased loadings, not to exceed

6.3 per cent of the above limitations,

shall be provided for process

wastewaters generated as a result of

control measures necessary for

compliance with by-product coke plant

NESHAPs, but only to the extent such

systems generate process wastewaters.

(3) Increased loadings shall be

provided for process wastewaters from

other wet air pollution control systems

(except those from coal charging and

coke pushing emission controls), coal

tar processing operations and coke plant

groundwater remediation systems, but

only to the extent such systems generate

process wastewaters and those

wastewaters are co-treated with process

wastewaters from by-product

cokemaking wastewaters.

(4) The effluent limitations for TRC

shall be applicable only when

chlorination of cokemaking wastewaters

is practiced.

(b) Cokemaking—non-recovery.

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the degree of

effluent reduction attainable by the

application of the best available control

technology economically achievable

(BAT): There shall be no discharge of

process wastewater pollutants to waters

of the U.S.

§ 420.15 New source performance

standards (NSPS).

New sources subject to this subpart

must achieve the following new source

performance standards (NSPS), as

applicable.

(a) Any new source subject to the

provisions of this section that

commenced discharging after [insert

date 10 years prior to the date that is 60

days after the publication date of the

final rule] and before [insert date that is

60 days after the publication date of the

final rule] must continue to achieve the

standards specified in the 2000 version

of § 420.14. toxic and nonconventional

pollutants, those standards shall not

apply after the expiration of the

applicable time period specified in 40

CFR 122.29(d)(1); thereafter, the source

must achieve the standards specified in

§ 420.14.

(b) By-product cokemaking. The

following standards apply with respect

to each new source that commences

construction after [insert date that is 60

days after the publication date of the

final rule:

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT)

Regulated parameter Maximum daily1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Ammonia (as N) ............................................................................................................................................... 0.00137 0.000618

Benzo(a)pyrene ............................................................................................................................................... 0.0000909 0.0000304

Cyanide ............................................................................................................................................................ 0.0104 0.00394

Mercury ............................................................................................................................................................ 0.000000864 0.000000523

Naphthalene ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.000103 0.0000345

Oil & grease ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.0246 0.0132

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 82043

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT)—Continued

Regulated parameter Maximum daily1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Phenol .............................................................................................................................................................. 0.0000332 0.0000187

Selenium .......................................................................................................................................................... 0.000185 0.000159

Thiocyanate ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.00164 0.00115

TRC .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.000659

TSS .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.0665 0.0337

1Pounds per ton of product.

(1) Increased loadings, not to exceed

9.5 per cent of the above limitations,

shall be provided for process

wastewaters from wet desulfurization

systems, but only to the extent such

systems generate process wastewaters.

(2) Increased loadings, not to exceed

6.3 per cent of the above limitations,

shall be provided for process

wastewaters generated as a result of

control measures necessary for

compliance with by-product coke plant

NESHAPs, but only to the extent such

systems generate process wastewaters.

(3) Increased loadings shall be

provided for process wastewaters from

other wet air pollution control systems

(except those from coal charging and

coke pushing emission controls), coal

tar processing operations and coke plant

groundwater remediation systems, but

only to the extent such systems generate

process wastewaters and those

wastewaters are co-treated with process

wastewaters from by-product

cokemaking wastewaters.

(4) The effluent limitations for TRC

shall be applicable only when

chlorination of cokemaking wastewaters

is practiced.

(c) Cokemaking—non-recovery. There

shall be no discharge of process

wasterwater pollutants to waters of the

U.S.

§ 420.16 Pretreatment standards for

existing sources (PSES).

Option 1 for paragraph (a): (a) Byproduct cokemaking. Except as

provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13,

any existing source subject to this

subpart must achieve the following

pretreatment standards for existing

sources (PSES):

PHYSICAL CHEMICAL TREATMENT

[Pretreatment Standards (PSES)]

Regulated parameter Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Ammonia (as N) ............................................................................................................................................... 0.0845 0.0559

Cyanide ............................................................................................................................................................ 0.0244 0.0128

Naphthalene ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.00268 0.000869

Phenol .............................................................................................................................................................. 2.13 0.720

Selenium .......................................................................................................................................................... 0.00125 0.00104

Thiocyanate ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.402 0.317

1Pounds per ton of product.

(1) Increased loadings, not to exceed

13.9 per cent of the above limitations,

shall be provided for process

wastewaters from wet desulfurization

systems, but only to the extent such

systems generate process wastewaters.

(2) Increased loadings, not to exceed

9.3 per cent of the above limitations,

shall be provided for process

wastewaters generated as a result of

control measures necessary for

compliance with by-product coke plant

NESHAPs, but only to the extent such

systems generate process wastewaters.

(3) Increased loadings shall be

provided for process wastwaters from

other wet air pollution control systems

(except those from coal charging and

coke pushing emission controls), coal

tar processing operations and coke plant

groundwater remediation systems, but

only to the extent such systems generate

process wastewaters and those

wastewaters are co-treated with process

wastewaters from by-product

cokemaking wastewaters.

Option 2 for paragraph (a): (a) Byproduct cokemaking. Except as

provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13,

any existing source subject to this

subpart must achieve the following

pretreatment standards for existing

sources (PSES):

PHYSICAL CHEMICAL PLUS BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT

[Pretreatment Standards (PSES)]

Regulated parameter Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Ammonia (as N) ............................................................................................................................................... 0.00539 0.00357

Cyanide ............................................................................................................................................................ 0.00616 0.00422

Naphthalene ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.000103 0.0000345

Phenol .............................................................................................................................................................. 0.0000332 0.0000187

Selenium .......................................................................................................................................................... 0.000185 0.000159

Thiocyanate ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.00164 0.00115

1Pounds per ton of product.

82044 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

(1) Increased loadings, not to exceed

9.5 percent of the above limitations,

shall be provided for process

wastewaters from wet desulfurization

systems, but only to the extent such

systems generate process wastewaters.

(2) Increased loadings, not to exceed

6.3 percent of the above limitations,

shall be provided for process

wastewaters generated as a result of

control measures necessary for

compliance with by-product coke plant

NESHAPs, but only to the extent such

systems generate process wastewaters.

(3) Increased loadings shall be

provided for process wastewaters from

other wet air pollution control systems

(except those from coal charging and

coke pushing emission controls), coal

tar processing operations and coke plant

groundwater remediation systems, but

only to the extent such systems generate

process wastewaters and those

wastewaters are co-treated with process

wastewaters from by-product

cokemaking wastewaters.

(b) Cokemaking-non-recovery. There

shall be no discharge of process

wastewater pollutants to POTWs.

§ 420.17 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS).

New sources subject to this subpart

must achieve the following pretreatment

standards for new sources (PSNS), as

applicable.

(a) Any new source subject to the

provisions of this section that

commenced discharging after [insert

date 10 years prior to the date that is 60

days after the publication date of the

final rule] and before [insert date that is

60 days after the publication date of the

final rule] must continue to achieve the

standards specified in the 2000 version

of § 420.16 for ten years beginning on

the date the source commenced

discharge or during the period of

depreciation or amortization of the

facility, whichever comes first, after

which the source must achieve the

standards specified in § 420.16.

(b) By-product cokemaking. Except as

provided in 40 CFR 403.7, the following

standards apply with respect to each

new source that commences discharge

after [insert date that is 60 days after the

publication date of the final rule]:

PHYSICAL CHEMICAL PLUS BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT

[Pretreatment Standards (PSNS)]

Regulated parameter Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Ammonia (as N) ............................................................................................................................................... 0.00539 0.00357

Cyanide ............................................................................................................................................................ 0.00616 0.00422

Naphthalene ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.000103 0.0000345

Phenol .............................................................................................................................................................. 0.0000332 0.0000187

Selenium .......................................................................................................................................................... 0.000185 0.000159

Thiocyanate ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.00164 0.00115

1Pounds per ton of product.

(1) Increased loadings, not to exceed

9.5 percent of the above limitations,

shall be provided for process

wastewaters from wet desulfurization

systems, but only to the extent such

systems generate process wastewaters.

(2) Increased loadings, not to exceed

6.3 percent of the above limitations,

shall be provided for process

wastewaters generated as a result of

control measures necessary for

compliance with by-product coke plant

NESHAPs, but only to the extent such

systems generate process wastewaters.

(3) Increased loadings shall be

provided for process wastewaters from

other wet air pollution control systems

(except those from coal charging and

coke pushing emission controls), coal

tar processing operations and coke plant

groundwater remediation systems, but

only to the extent such systems generate

process wastewaters and those

wastewaters are co-treated with process

wastewaters from by-product

cokemaking wastewaters.

(c) Cokemaking—non-recovery. There

shall be no discharge of process

wastewater pollutants to POTWs.

Subpart B—Ironmaking Subcategory

§ 420.20 Applicability.

The provisions of this subpart are

applicable to discharges and the

introduction of pollutants into publicly

owned treatment works resulting from:

Sintering operations conducted by

heating in a traveling grate combustion

system of iron bearing materials (e.g.,

iron ore, mill scale, blast furnace flue

dusts, blast furnace wastewater

treatment sludges), limestone, coke fines

and other materials to produce an

agglomerate for charging to the blast

furnace; and, ironmaking operations in

which iron ore and other iron-bearing

materials are reduced to molten iron in

a blast furnace.

§ 420.21 Subcategory definitions.

As used in this subpart:

(a) Product means:

(1) Sinter agglomerated from ironbearing materials; or

(2) Molten iron produced in a blast

furnace, and does not include slag

skimmed remotely from the blast

furnace.

The average daily operating

(production) rate of sinter and molten

iron must be determined in accordance

with § 420.3.

(b) Dry-air pollution control system is

an emission control system that utilizes

filters to remove iron-bearing particles

(fines) from blast furnace or sintering

off-gases.

(c) Minimum level (ML) means the

level at which the analytical system

gives recognizable signals and an

acceptable calibration point. 2,3,7,8-

tetrachlorodibenzofuran, the minimum

level is 10 pg/L per EPA Method 1613B

for water and wastewater samples.

(d) Pg/L means picograms per liter

(ppt = 1.0×10-12 gm/L).

(e) Sintering means a process for

agglomerating iron-bearing materials

into small pellets (sinter) which can be

charged to a blast furnace.

(f) Wet-air pollution control system is

an emission control system that utilizes

a water mist to clean process or furnace

off-gases.

§ 420.22 Effluent limitations attainable by

the application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve, for each applicable operation,

the following effluent limitations

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 82045

of the best practicable control

technology currently available (BPT):

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BPT)

Process wastewater source Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg 1

(a) Sintering operations with wet air pollution controls:

Oil & grease .............................................................................................................................................. 0.0300 0.0100

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 0.150 0.050

(b) Blast furnaces:

OIl & grease .............................................................................................................................................

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 0.156 0.0520

(c) Sintering operations with dry air pollution controls .................................................................................... (2) (2)

1Pounds per ton of product.

2There shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to waters of the U.S. for sintering operations with dry air pollution controls.

§ 420.23 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of

the best control technology for

conventional pollutants (BCT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the degree of

effluent reduction attainable by the

application of the best control

technology for conventional pollutants

(BCT): The limitations shall be the same

as those specified for conventional

pollutants (which are defined in 40 CFR

401.16) in § 420.22 of this subpart for

the best practicable control technology

currently available (BPT).

§ 420.24 Effluent limitations attainable by

the application of the best available control

technology economically achievable (BAT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the degree of

effluent reduction attainable by the

application of the best available control

technology economically achievable

(BAT).

(a) Sintering operations with wet air

pollution control system. The following

table is effluent limitations (BAT) for

sintering operations with wet air

pollution control system:

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT)

Regulated parameter Maximum daily 1 Maximum

monthly avg.1

Ammonia (as N) ................................................................................................................................................. 0.000652 0.000293

Cyanide .............................................................................................................................................................. 0.00493 0.00187

Lead ................................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000913 0.0000476

Phenol ................................................................................................................................................................ 0.0000463 0.0000157

2,3,7,8–TCDF .................................................................................................................................................... 3<ML

TRC 2 ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.000313

Zinc .................................................................................................................................................................... 0.000116 0.0000457

1Pounds per ton of product.

2Applicable only when sintering process wastewater is chlorinated.

3Ten parts per quadrillion (10 x 10-12 g/l).

(b) Sintering operations with dry air

pollution control system. There shall be

no discharge of process wastewater

pollutants to waters of the U.S.

(c) Blast furnaces. The following table

is effluent limitations (BAT) for blast

furnaces:

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT)

Regulated parameter Maximum daily 1 Maximum

monthly avg.1

Ammonia (as N) ................................................................................................................................................. 0.000217 0.0000977

Cyanide .............................................................................................................................................................. 0.00164 0.000623

Lead ................................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000304 0.0000159

Phenol ................................................................................................................................................................ 0.0000154 0.00000523

2,3,7,8-TCDF 3 ................................................................................................................................................... 4 <ML

TRC 2 ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.000104

Zinc .................................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000387 0.0000152

1Pounds per ton of product.

2Applicable only when blast furnace process wastewater is chlorinated.

3Applicable only when process wastewaters from blast furnaces and sintering operations are co-treated.

4Ten parts per quadrillion (10 x 10-12 g/l).

82046 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

§ 420.25 New Source Performance

Standards (NSPS).

New sources subject to this subpart

must achieve the following new source

performance standards (NSPS), as

applicable.

(a) Any new source subject to the

provisions of this section that

commenced discharging after [insert

date 10 years prior to the date that is 60

days after the publication date of the

final rule] and before [insert date that is

60 days after the publication date of the

final rule] must continue to achieve the

applicable standards specified in the

2000 version of §§ 420.24 and 420.34.

toxic and nonconventional pollutants,

those standards shall not apply after the

expiration of the applicable time period

specified in 40 CFR 122.29(d)(1);

thereafter, the source must achieve the

applicable standards specified in

§ 420.24.

(b) The following standards apply

with respect to each new source that

commences construction after [insert

date that is 60 days after the publication

date of the final rule].

(1) Sintering operations with wet air

pollution control system. The following

table is Performance Standards (NSPS)

for sintering operations with wet air

pollution control system:

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)

Regulated parameter Maximum daily 1 Maximum

monthly avg.1

Ammonia (as N) ................................................................................................................................................. 0.000652 0.000293

Cyanide .............................................................................................................................................................. 0.00493 0.00187

Lead ................................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000913 0.0000476

Oil & grease ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.00531 0.00420

Phenol ................................................................................................................................................................ 0.0000463 0.0000157

2,3,7,8-TCDF ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 <ML

TRC 2 ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.000313

TSS .................................................................................................................................................................... 0.0251 0.00939

Zinc .................................................................................................................................................................... 0.000116 0.0000457

1Pounds per ton of product.

2Applicable only when sintering process wastewater is chlorinated.

3Ten parts per quadrillion (10 x 10-2 g/l).

(2) Sintering operations with dry air

pollution control system. There shall be

no discharge of process wastewater

pollutants to waters of the U.S.

(3) Blast furnaces. The following table

is Performance Standards (NSPS) for

blast furnaces:

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)

Regulated parameter Maximum daily 1 Maximum

monthly avg.1

Ammonia (as N) ................................................................................................................................................. 0.000217 0.0000977

Cyanide .............................................................................................................................................................. 0.00164 0.000623

Lead ................................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000304 0.0000159

Oil & grease ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.00177 0.00140

Phenol ................................................................................................................................................................ 0.0000154 0.00000523

2,3,7,8-TCDF3 .................................................................................................................................................... 4 <ML

TRC 2 ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.000104

TSS .................................................................................................................................................................... 0.00836 0.00313

Zinc .................................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000387 0.0000152

1Pounds per ton of product.

2Applicable only when blast furnace process wastewater is chlorinated.

3Applicable only when process wastewaters from blast furnaces and sintering operations are co-treated.

4Ten parts per quadrillion (10 x 10-12 g/l).

§ 420.26 Pretreatment Standards for

Existing Sources (PSES).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7,

any existing source subject to this

subpart must achieve the following

pretreatment standards for existing

sources (PSES):

(a) Sintering operations with wet air

pollution control system. The following

table is Pretreatment Standards (PSES)

for sintering operations with wet air

pollution control system:

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS (PSES)

Regulated parameter Maximum daily 1 Maximum

monthly avg.1

Ammonia (as N) 2 .............................................................................................................................................. 0.000652 0.000293

Lead ................................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000913 0.0000476

2,3,7,8-TCDF ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 <ML

Zinc .................................................................................................................................................................... 0.000116 0.0000457

1Pounds per ton of product.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 82047

2 Not applicable when the facilities discharge to POTWs with the capability, when considered together with the indirect discharger’s removals,

to achieve removals at least equivalent to those expected under BAT. 3Ten parts per quadrillion (10 x 10-12 g/l).

(b) Sintering operations with dry air

pollution control system. There shall be

no discharge of process wastewater

pollutants to POTWs.

(c) Blast furnaces. The following table

is Pretreatment Standards (PSES) for

blast furnaces:

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS (PSES)

Regulated parameter Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Ammonia (as N ) 2 ........................................................................................................................................... 0.000217 0.0000977

Lead ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.0000304 0.0000159

2,3,7,8–TCDF 3 ................................................................................................................................................ 4 <ML

Zinc .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.0000387 0.0000152

1Pounds per ton of product.

2 Not applicable when the facilities discharge to POTWs with the capability, when considered together with the indirect discharger’s removals,

to achieve removals at least equivalent to those expected under BAT. 3Applicable only when process wastewater from blast furnaces and sintering operations are co-treated.

4Ten parts per quadrillion (10 x 10 12 g/l).

§ 420.27 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS).

New sources subject to this subpart

must achieve the following pretreatment

standards for new sources (PSNS), as

applicable.

(a) Any new source subject to the

provisions of this section that

commenced discharging after [insert

date 10 years prior to the date that is 60

days after the publication date of the

final rule] and before [insert date that is

60 days after the publication date of the

final rule] must continue to achieve the

standards specified in the 2000 version

of § 420.26 for ten years beginning on

the date the source commenced

discharge or during the period of

depreciation or amortization of the

facility, whichever comes first, after

which the source must achieve the

standards specified in § 420.26.

(b) Except as provided in 40 CFR

403.7, the following standards apply

with respect to each new source that

commences construction after [insert

date that is 60 days after the publication

date of the final rule]:

(1) sintering operations with wet air

pollution control system. The following

table is Pretreatment Standards (PSNS)

for sintering operations with wet air

pollution control system:

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS (PSNS)

Regulated parameter Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Ammonia (as N) 2 ............................................................................................................................................ 0.000652 0.000293

Lead ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.0000913 0.0000476

2,3,7,8-TCDF ................................................................................................................................................... 3 <ML

Zinc .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.000116 0.0000457

1Pounds per ton of product.

2 Not applicable when the facilities discharge to POTWs with the capability, when considered together with the indirect discharger’s removals,

to achieve removals at least equivalent to those expected under BAT. 3Ten parts per quadrillion (10 x 10 12 g/l).

(2) Sintering operations with dry air

pollution control system. There shall be

no discharge of process wastewater

pollutants to POTWs.

(3) Blast furnaces: The following table

is Pretreatment Standards (PSNS) for

blast furnaces:

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS (PSNS)

Regulated parameter Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Ammonia (as N ) 2 ........................................................................................................................................... 0.000217 0.0000977

Lead ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.0000304 0.0000159

2,3,7,8-TCDF 3 ................................................................................................................................................. 4 <ML

Zinc .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.0000387 0.0000152

1Pounds per ton of product.

2 Not applicable when the facilities discharge to POTWs with the capability, when considered together with the indirect discharger’s removals,

to achieve removals at least equivalent to those expected under BAT. 3Applicable only when process wastewater from blast furnaces and sintering operations are co-treated.

4Ten parts per quadrillion (10 x 10 12 g/l).

82048 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

§ 420.28 Point of compliance monitoring.

(a) Sinter Direct Dischargers. Pursuant

to 40 CFR 122.44(i) and 122.45(h), a

direct discharger must demonstrate

compliance with the effluent limitations

and standards for 2,3,7,8-TCDF at the

point after treatment of sinter plant

wastewater separately or in combination

with blast furnace wastewater, but prior

to mixing with any other process or

non-process wastewaters or non-contact

cooling waters.

(b) Sinter Indirect Dischargers. An

indirect discharger must demonstrate

compliance with the pretreatment

standards for 2,3,7,8=TCDF by

monitoring at the point after treatment

of sinter plant wastewater separately or

in combination with blast furnace

wastewater, but prior to mixing with

any other process or non-process

wastewaters or non-contact cooling

waters.

Subpart C—Integrated Steelmaking

Subcategory

§ 420.30 Applicability.

The provisions of this subpart are

applicable to discharges and the

introduction of pollutants into publicly

owned treatment works resulting from

steelmaking operations conducted at

integrated steel mills. Such operations

include steelmaking in basic oxygen

furnaces and vacuum degassing and

continuous casting of molten steels. The

provisions of this subpart are also

applicable to steelmaking in basic

oxygen furnaces conducted at any

location.

§ 420.31 Subcategory definitions.

As used in this subpart:

(a) Product means steel produced in a

basic oxygen furnace (BOF) from molten

iron, steel scrap, fluxes and alloying

elements in various combinations by

adding oxygen (air), before further

processing in ladle metallurgy stations

or casting operations. The average daily

operating (production) rates shall be

determined in accordance with § 420.3,

except as noted in paragraph (b) of this

section.

(b) Average hourly operating rate and

average daily operating rate for vacuum

degassing operations must be

determined in accordance with the

methods set out in § 420.3 for the week

with the highest vacuum degassing

production during the year with the

highest annual production from the past

five years.

(c) Basic furnace means one in which

the brick lining is composed of

refractory material derived from

dolomite (CaO and MgO), limestone

(CaO), or magnesite (MgO).

(d) Semi-wet-air means an emission

control system in which water is added

for the purpose of conditioning the

temperature and/or the humidity of

furnace or process off-gases prior to

cleaning the gases in a dry-air emission

control system.

(e) Wet-air open combustion means an

emission control system which has been

designed to add excess air to furnace or

process off-gases so as to assure a more

complete combustion (conversion) of

carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide.

(f) Wet-air suppressed combustion

means an emission control system

which has been designed to restrict the

amount of air available to furnace or

process off-gases so as to assure minimal

combustion (conversion) of carbon

monoxide to carbon dioxide.

§ 420.32 Effluent limitations attainable by

the application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve, for each applicable operation,

the following effluent limitations

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application

of the best practicable control

technology currently available (BPT):

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BPT)

Process wastewater source Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly Avg. 1

(a) Basic oxygen furnaces:

(1) semi-wet air pollution controls: ........................................................................................................... (3)

Oil & grease ......................................................................................................................................

TSS ....................................................................................................................................................

(2) wet-open combustion:

Oil & grease ......................................................................................................................................

TSS .................................................................................................................................................... 0.137 0.0458

(3) wet-suppressed combustion:

Oil & grease ......................................................................................................................................

TSS .................................................................................................................................................... 0.0624 0.0208

(b) Vacuum degassing:

Oil & grease

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 0.0312 0.0104

(c) Continuous casting:

Oil & grease .............................................................................................................................................. 0.0468 0.0156

TSS ........................................................................................................................................................... 0.156 0.052

(d) Ladle metallurgy ......................................................................................................................................... (2) (2)

1Pounds per ton of product.

2There shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to waters of the U.S. for ladle metallurgy.

3 1982 regulation allowed for no discharge of process wastewater from this operation.

§ 420.33 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of

the best control technology for

conventional pollutants (BCT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the degree of

effluent reduction attainable by the

application of the best control

technology for conventional pollutants

(BCT): The limitations shall be the same

as those specified for conventional

pollutants (which are defined in 40 CFR

401.16) in § 420.32 for the best

practicable control technology currently

available (BPT).

§ 420.34 Effluent limitations attainable by

the application of the best available control

technology economically achievable (BAT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 82049

source subject to this subpart must

achieve, for each applicable operation,

the following effluent limitations

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application

of the best available control technology

economically achievable (BAT):

(a) Basic oxygen furnaces with semiwet air pollution control system; basic

oxygen furnaces with wet-suppressed

combustion air pollution control system;

vacuum degassing; continuous casting.

This table is Effluent Limitations (BAT)

for basic oxygen furnaces with semi-wet

air pollution control system; basic

oxygen furnaces with wet-suppressed

combustion air pollution control

system; vacuum degassing; and

continuous casting:

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT)

Process wastewater source Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg. 1

(1) Basic oxygen furnaces:

(i) semi-wet air pollution controls:

(A) Lead ............................................................................................................................................. 0.0000122 0.00000634

(B) Zinc .............................................................................................................................................. 0.0000140 0.00000795

(ii) wet-suppressed combustion:

(A) Lead ............................................................................................................................................. 0.0000243 0.0000127

(B) Zinc .............................................................................................................................................. 0.0000279 0.0000159

(2) Vacuum degassing:

(i) Lead .............................................................................................................................................. 0.0000183 0.00000951

(ii) Zinc ............................................................................................................................................... 0.0000209 0.0000119

(3) Continuous casting:

(i) Lead .............................................................................................................................................. 0.0000243 0.0000127

(ii) Zinc ............................................................................................................................................... 0.0000279 0.0000159

1Pounds per ton of product.

(b) Basic oxygen furnaces with wetopen combustion air pollution controlsystem. The following table is Effluent

Limitations (BAT) for basic oxygen

furnaces with wet-open combustion air

pollution control system:

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT)

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Lead ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.0000243 0.0000127

Zinc .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.0000279 0.0000159

1Pounds per ton of product.

(c) Ladle Metallurgy. There shall be no

discharge of process wastewater

pollutants to waters of the U.S.

§ 420.35 New Source Performance

Standards (NSPS).

New sources subject to this subpart

must achieve the following new source

performance standards (NSPS), as

applicable.

(a) Any new source subject to the

provisions of this section that

commenced discharging after [insert

date 10 years prior to the date that is 60

days after the publication date of the

final rule] and before [insert date that is

60 days after the publication date of the

final rule] must continue to achieve the

applicable standards specified in the

2000 version of §§ 420.44, 420.54 and

420.64. toxic and nonconventional

pollutants, those standards shall not

apply after the expiration of the

applicable time period specified in 40

CFR 122.29(d)(1); thereafter, the source

must achieve the applicable standards

specified in § 420.34.

(b) The following standards apply

with respect to each new source that

commences construction after [insert

date that is 60 days after the publication

date of the final rule].

(1) Basic oxygen furnaces with semiwet air pollution control system; basic

oxygen furnaces with wet-suppressed

combustion air pollution control system;

vacuum degassing; continuous casting.

The following table is Performance

Standards (NSPS) for basic oxygen

furnaces with semi-wet air pollution

control system; basic oxygen furnaces

with wet-suppressed combustion air

pollution control system; vacuum

degassing; and continuous casting:

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)

Process wastewater source Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

(i) Basic oxygen furnaces:

(A) semi-wet air pollution controls:

(1) Lead ............................................................................................................................................. 0.0000122 0.00000634

(2) Zinc .............................................................................................................................................. 0.0000140 0.00000795

(ii) wet-suppressed combustion:

(A) Lead .................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000243 0.0000127

(B) Zinc ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000279 0.0000159

(ii) Vacuum degassing

(A) Lead .................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000183 0.00000951

82050 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)—Continued

Process wastewater source Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

(B) Zinc ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000209 0.0000119

(iii) Continuous casting

(A) Lead .................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000243 0.0000127

(B) Zinc ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000279 0.0000159

1Pounds per ton of product.

(2) Basic oxygen furnaces with wetopen combustion air pollution control

system. The following table is

Performance Standards (NSPS) for basic

oxygen furnaces with wet-open

combustion air pollution control

system:

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Lead ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.0000243 0.0000127

Zinc .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.0000279 0.0000159

1Pounds per ton of product.

(3) Ladle Metallurgy. There shall be

no discharge of process wastewater

pollutants to waters of the U.S.

§ 420.36 Pretreatment Standards for

Existing Sources (PSES).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7,

any existing source subject to this

subpart must achieve the following

pretreatment standards for existing

sources (PSES):

(a) Basic oxygen furnaces with semiwet air pollution control system; basic

oxygen furnaces with wet-suppressed

combustion air pollution control system;

vacuum degassing; continuous casting.

The following table is Pretreatment

Standards (PSES) for basic oxygen

furnaces with semi-wet air pollution

control system; basic oxygen furnaces

with wet-suppressed combustion air

pollution control system; vacuum

degassing; and continuous casting:

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS (PSES)

Process Wastewater Source Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

(1) Basic oxygen furnaces:

(i) semi-wet air pollution controls

(A) Lead ............................................................................................................................................. 0.0000122 0.00000634

(B) Zinc .............................................................................................................................................. 0.0000140 0.00000795

(ii) wet-suppressed combustion

(A) Lead ............................................................................................................................................. 0.0000243 0.0000127

(B) Zinc .............................................................................................................................................. 0.0000279 0.0000159

(2) Vacuum degassing:

(i) Lead ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000183 0.00000951

(ii) Zinc ...................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000209 0.0000119

(3) Continuous casting:

(i) Lead ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000243 0.0000127

(ii) Zinc ...................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000279 0.0000159

1Pounds per ton of product.

(b) Basic oxygen furnaces with wetopen combustion air pollution control

system. The following table is

Pretreatment Standards (PSES) for basic

oxygen furnaces with wet-open

combustion air pollution control

system:

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS (PSES)

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Lead ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.0000243 0.0000127

Zinc .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.0000279 0.0000159

1Pounds per ton of product.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 82051

(c) Ladle Metallurgy. There shall be no

discharge of process wastewater

pollutants to POTWs.

§ 420.37 Pretreatment Standards for New

Sources (PSNS).

New sources subject to this subpart

must achieve the following pretreatment

standards for new sources (PSNS), as

applicable.

(a) Any new source subject to the

provisions of this section that

commenced discharging after [insert

date 10 years prior to the date that is 60

days after the publication date of the

final rule] and before [insert date that is

60 days after the publication date of the

final rule] must continue to achieve the

standards specified in the 2000 version

of §§ 420.46, 420.56, and 420.66 for ten

years beginning on the date the source

commenced discharge or during the

period of depreciation or amortization

of the facility, whichever comes first,

after which the source must achieve the

standards specified in § 420.36.

(b) Except as provided in 40 CFR

403.7, the following standards apply

with respect to each new source that

commences construction after [insert

date that is 60 days after the publication

date of the final rule]:

(1) Basic oxygen furnaces with semiwet air pollution control system; basic

oxygen furnaces with wet-suppressed

combustion air pollution control system;

vacuum degassing; continuous casting.

The following table is Pretreatment

Standards (PSNS) for basic oxygen

furnaces with semi-wet air pollution

control system; basic oxygen furnaces

with wet-suppressed combustion air

pollution control system; vacuum

degassing; and continuous casting:

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS (PSNS)

Process wastewater source Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

(i) Basic oxygen furnaces:

(A) semi-wet air pollution controls:

(1) Lead ............................................................................................................................................. 0.0000122 0.00000634

(2) Zinc .............................................................................................................................................. 0.0000140 0.00000795

(B) wet-suppressed combustion:

(1) Lead ............................................................................................................................................. 0.0000243 0.0000127

(2) Zinc .............................................................................................................................................. 0.0000279 0.0000159

(ii) Vacuum degassing:

(A) Lead ............................................................................................................................................. 0.0000183 0.00000951

(B) Zinc .............................................................................................................................................. 0.0000209 0.0000119

(iii) Continuous casting:

(A) Lead ............................................................................................................................................. 0.0000243 0.0000127

(B) Zinc .............................................................................................................................................. 0.0000279 0.0000159

1Pounds per ton of product.

(2) Basic oxygen furnaces with wetopen combustion air pollution control

system. The following table is

Pretreatment Standards (PSNS) basic

oxygen furnaces with wet-open

combustion air pollution control

system:

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS (PSNS)

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Lead ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.0000243 0.0000127

Zinc .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.0000279 0.0000159

1Pounds per ton of product.

(3) Ladle Metallurgy. There shall be

no discharge of process wastewater

pollutants to POTWs.

Subpart D—Integrated and StandAlone Hot ming Subcategory

§ 420.40 Applicability.

The provisions of this subpart are

applicable to discharges and the

introduction of pollutants into publicly

owned treatment works resulting from

primary, section, flat and pipe and tube

hot forming operations conducted at

integrated steel mills and at stand-alone

hot forming mills.

§ 420.41 Subcategory definitions.

As used in this subpart:

(a) Product means the solid, flat-rolled

steel, steel shapes or pipe and tube

produced at primary, section, flat, pipe

and tube hot-forming mills. The average

daily operating (production) rate shall

be determined in accordance with

§ 420.3.

(b) Hot forming means those steel

processing operations in which

solidified, heated steel is shaped by

mechanical pressure applied through

one or a series of rolls.

(c) Primary mill means the first hot

forming operation performed on

solidified steel after the steel is removed

from ingot molds in which steel ingots

are reduced to blooms or slabs by

passing the heated steel between

rotating steel rolls.

(d) Section mill means those steel hot

forming operations that produce a

variety of steel shapes other than those

produced on primary mills, flat mills or

pipe and tube mills.

(e) Flat mill means those steel hot

forming operations that reduce heated

slabs to plates, strip and sheet or skelp.

(f) Pipe and tube mill means steel hot

forming operations that produce buttwelded or seamless tubular steel

products.

(g) Scarfing means steel surface

conditioning operations in which flames

generated by combustion of oxygen and

fuel are used to remove surface metal

imperfections from blooms, billets or

slabs.

(h) Plate mill means steel hot forming

operations that produce flat, hot-rolled

82052 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

products that are: Between 8 and 48

inches wide and over 0.23 inches thick;

or greater than 48 inches wide and over

0.18 inches thick.

(i) Hot strip and sheet mill means

operations that produce flat, hot rolled

steel products other than plates.

(j) Carbon steel hot-forming means

operations that produce a majority

(tonnage basis) of carbon steels by hot

forming.

(k) Specialty steel hot-forming means

operations that produce less than a

majority (tonnage basis) of carbon steel

by hot forming.

(l) Carbon and alloy steel means

operations that produce a majority

(tonnage basis) of carbon and alloy steel

products by hot forming.

(m) Stainless steels means operations

that produce a majority (tonnage basis)

of stainless steel products by hot

forming.

(n) Skep means flat, hot-rolled steel

strip or sheet used to form welded pipe

or tube products.

§ 420.42 Effluent limitations attainable by

the application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve, for each applicable operation,

the following effluent limitations

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application

of the best practicable control

technology currently available (BPT):

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BPT)

Process wastewater source Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly Avg.1

(a) Primary mills, carbon and specialty:

(1) without scarfing:

(i) Oil & grease .................................................................................................................................. 0.0748

(ii) TSS .............................................................................................................................................. 0.300 0.112

(2) with scarfing:

(i) Oil & grease: ................................................................................................................................. 0.442

(ii) TSS .............................................................................................................................................. 0.111 0.166

(b) Section mills:

(1) carbon:

(i) Oil & grease .................................................................................................................................. 0.179

(ii) TSS .............................................................................................................................................. 0.714 0.268

(2) Specialty:

(i) Oil & grease .................................................................................................................................. 0.112

(ii) TSS .............................................................................................................................................. 0.448 0.128

(c) Flat mills:

(1) Hot strip and sheet, carbon and specialty:

(i) Oil & grease .................................................................................................................................. 0.214

(ii) TSS .............................................................................................................................................. 0.854 0.320

(2) Plate mills, carbon:

(i) Oil & grease .................................................................................................................................. 0.114

(ii) TSS .............................................................................................................................................. 0.454 0.170

(3) Plate mills, specialty:

(i) Oil & grease .................................................................................................................................. 0.0500

(ii) TSS .............................................................................................................................................. 0.200 0.0752

(d) Pipe and tube mills, carbon and specialty:

(i) Oil & grease .................................................................................................................................. 0.106

(2) TSS .............................................................................................................................................. 0.424 0.159

1Pounds per ton of product.

§ 420.43 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of

the best control technology for

conventional pollutants (BCT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the degree of

effluent reduction attainable by the

application of the best control

technology for conventional pollutants

(BCT): The limitations shall be the same

as those specified for conventional

pollutants (which are defined in 40 CFR

401.16) in § 420.42 of this subpart for

the best practicable control technology

currently available (BPT).

§ 420.44 Effluent limitations attainable by

the application of the best available control

technology economically achievable (BAT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the degree of

effluent reduction attainable by the

application of the best available control

technology economically achievable

(BAT):

(a) Carbon and Alloy Steels. The

following table is Effluent Limitations

(BAT) for carbon and alloy steels:

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT)

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Lead ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.000122 0.0000634

Zinc .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.000131 0.0000907

1Pounds per ton of product.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 82053

(b) Stainless Steels. The following

table is Effluent Limitations (BAT) for

stainless steels:

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT)

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Chromium ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.0000808 0.0000362

Nickel ............................................................................................................................................................... 0.000275 0.000144

1Pounds per ton of product.

§ 420.45 New Source Performance

Standards (NSPS).

New sources subject to this subpart

must achieve the following new source

performance standards (NSPS), as

applicable.

(a) Any new source subject to the

provisions of this section that

commenced discharging after [insert

date 10 years prior to the date that is 60

days after the publication date of the

final rule] and before [insert date that is

60 days after the publication date of the

final rule] must continue to achieve the

applicable standards specified in the

2000 version of §§ 420.44, 420.54,

420.64, and 420.74. toxic and

nonconventional pollutants, those

standards shall not apply after the

expiration of the applicable time period

specified in 40 CFR 122.29(d)(1);

thereafter, the source must achieve the

applicable standards specified in

§ 420.44.

(b) The following standards apply

with respect to each new source that

commences construction after [insert

date that is 60 days after the publication

date of the final rule]. 

(1) Carbon and Alloy Steels. The

following table is Performance

Standards (NSPS) for carbon and alloy

steels:

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Lead ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.000122 0.0000634

Oil & grease ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.00793 0.00628

TSS .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.0182 0.0124

Zinc .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.000131 0.0000907

1Pounds per ton of product.

(2) Stainless Steels. The following

table is Performance Standards (NSPS)

for stainless steels:

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Chromium ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.0000808 0.0000362

Nickel ............................................................................................................................................................... 0.000275 0.000144

Oil & grease ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.0236 0.0119

TSS .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.0265 0.0109

1Pounds per ton of product.

§ 420.46 Pretreatment Standards for

Existing Sources (PSES).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7,

any existing source subject to this

subpart which introduces pollutants

into a publicly owned treatment works

must comply with 40 CFR part 403.

§ 420.47 Pretreatment Standards for New

Sources (PSNS).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7,

any new source subject to this subpart

which introduces pollutants into a

publicly owned treatment works must

comply with 40 CFR part 403.

Subpart E—Non-Integrated

Steelmaking and Hot ming

Subcategory

§ 420.50 Applicability.

The provisions of this subpart are

applicable to discharges and the

introduction of pollutants into publicly

owned treatment works resulting from

steelmaking and hot forming operations

conducted at non-integrated steel mills.

Such operations include steelmaking in

electric arc furnaces; vacuum degassing

and continuous casting of molten steels;

and, hot forming of flat-rolled steels,

steel shapes and pipe and tube. The

provisions of this subpart are also

applicable to steelmaking operations in

electric arc furnaces and related vacuum

degassing, continuous casting and hot

forming operations conducted at any

location.

§ 420.51 Subcategory definitions.

As used in this subpart:

(a) Product means:

(1) Steel produced in electric furnaces

before further processing in ladle

metallurgy stations or casting

operations;

(2) Flat-rolled steel, steel shapes or

pipe and tube produced by hot-forming

operations. The daily operating

82054 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

(production) rate shall be determined in

accordance with § 420.3.

(b) Except for the term ‘‘product,’’

definitions set out for subpart C of this

part are applicable to this subpart.

(c) Electric arc furnace means one in

which the heat is supplied by an electric

arc from graphite electrodes to the

molten metal bath. The charge is

generally 100% scrap metal.

§ 420.52 Effluent limitations attainable by

the application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve, for each applicable operation,

the following effluent limitations

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application

of the best practicable control

technology currently available (BPT):

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BPT)

Process wastewater source Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

(a) Electric arc furnaces .................................................................................................................................. (2) (2)

(b) Vacuum degassing:

(1) Oil & grease

(2) TSS ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.0312 0.0104

(c) Continuous casting:

(1) Oil & grease ........................................................................................................................................ 0.0468 0.0156

(2) TSS ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.156 0.052

(d) Hot forming mills:

(1) Oil & grease ........................................................................................................................................ 0.0748

(2) TSS ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.300 0.112

(e) Ladle metallurgy ......................................................................................................................................... (2) (2)

1Pounds per ton of product.

2There shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to waters of the U.S. for electric arc furnaces or ladle metallurgy.

§ 420.53 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of

the best control technology for

conventional pollutants (BCT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the degree of

effluent reduction attainable by the

application of the best control

technology for conventional pollutants

(BCT): The limitations shall be the same

as those specified for conventional

pollutants (which are defined in 40 CFR

401.16) in § 420.52 of this subpart for

the best practicable control technology

currently available (BPT).

§ 420.54 Effluent limitations attainable by

the application of the best available control

technology economically achievable (BAT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the degree of

effluent reduction attainable by the

application of the best available control

technology economically achievable

(BAT).

(a) Carbon and Alloy Steels. The

following effluent limitations apply to

discharges in the carbon and alloy steels

segment for each operation as

applicable.

(1) Electric arc furnaces. There shall

be no discharge of process wastewater

pollutants to waters of the U.S.

(2) Vacuum degassing; continuous

casting. The following table is Effluent

Limitations (BAT) for vacuum degassing

and continuous casting:

CARBON AND ALLOY STEELS—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT)

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Lead ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.0000122 0.00000634

Zinc .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.0000101 0.00000450

1Pounds per ton of product.

(3) Hot forming operations. The

following table is Effluent Limitations

(BAT) for hot forming operations:

CARBON AND ALLOY STEELS—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT)

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Lead ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.0000609 0.0000317

Zinc .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.0000506 0.0000225

1Pounds per ton of product.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 82055

(4) Ladle Metallurgy. There shall be

no discharge of process wastewater

pollutants to waters of the U.S.

(b) Stainless Steels. The following

effluent limitations apply to discharges

in the stainless steels segment for each

operation as applicable.

(1) Electric arc furnaces. There shall

be no discharge of process wastewater

pollutants to waters of the U.S.

(2) Vacuum degassing; continuous

casting. The following table is Effluent

Limitations (BAT) for vacuum degassing

and continuous casting:

STAINLESS STEELS—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT)

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Chromium ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.00000808 0.00000362

Nickel ............................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000275 0.0000144

1Pounds per ton of product.

(3) Hot forming operations. The

following table is Effluent Limitations

(BAT) for hot forming operations:

STAINLESS STEELS—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT)

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Chromium ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.0000404 0.0000181

Nickel ............................................................................................................................................................... 0.000137 0.0000720

1Pounds per ton of product.

(4) Ladle Metallurgy. There shall be

no discharge of process wastewater

pollutants to waters of the U.S.

§ 420.55 New Source Performance

Standards (NSPS).

New sources subject to this subpart

must achieve the following new source

performance standards (NSPS), as

applicable.

(a) Any new source subject to the

provisions of this section that

commenced discharging after [insert

date 10 years prior to the date that is 60

days after the publication date of the

final rule] and before [insert date that is

60 days after the publication date of the

final rule] must continue to achieve the

standards specified in the 2000 version

of § 420.74. toxic and nonconventional

pollutants, those standards shall not

apply after the expiration of the

applicable time period specified in 40

CFR 122.29(d)(1); thereafter, the source

must achieve the standards specified in

§ 420.54.

(b) The following standards apply

with respect to each new source that

commences construction after [insert

date that is 60 days after the publication

date of the final rule].

(1) Carbon and alloy steels. The

following performance standards apply

to discharges in the carbon and alloy

steels segment for each operation as

applicable: There shall be no discharge

of process wastewater pollutants to

waters of the U.S.

(2) Stainless steels. The following

performance standards apply to

discharges in the stainless steels

segment for each operation as

applicable: There shall be no discharge

of process wastewater pollutants to

waters of the U.S.

§ 420.56 Pretreatment Standards for

Existing Sources (PSES).

Except as provided in 40 CFR

403.7and 403.13, any existing source

subject to this subpart which introduces

pollutants into a publicly owned

treatment works must comply with 40

CFR part 403 and achieve the following

pretreatment standards for existing

sources.

(a) Carbon and alloy steels. The

following pretreatment standards apply

to discharges in the carbon and alloy

steels segment for each operation as

applicable:

(1) Electric arc furnace steelmaking—

semi-wet. [Reserved.]

(2) Vacuum degassing; continuous

casting. The following table is

Pretreatment Standards (PSES) for

vacuum degassing and continuous

casting:

CARBON AND ALLOY STEELS.—PRETREATMENT STANDARDS (PSES)

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Lead ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.0001878 0.0000626

Zinc .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.000282 0.0000938

1Pounds per ton of product.

(3) Hot forming operations. Any

existing source subject to this subpart

which introduces pollutants into a

publicly owned treatment works must

comply with 40 CFR part 403.

(4) Ladle Metallurgy. There shall be

no discharge of process wastewater

pollutants to POTWs.

(b) Stainless steels. The following

pretreatment standards apply to

discharges in the stainless steels

segment for each operation as

applicable.

(1) Electric arc furnaces. There shall

be no discharge of process wastewater

pollutants to POTWs.

82056 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

(2) Vacuum degassing; continuous

casting. The following table is

Pretreatment Standards (PSES) for

vacuum degassing and continuous

casting:

STAINLESS STEELS—PRETREATMENT STANDARDS (PSES)

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Chromium ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.00000808 0.00000362

Nickel ............................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000275 0.0000144

1Pounds per ton of product.

(3) Hot forming operations. The

following table is Pretreatment

Standards (PSES) for hot forming

operations:

STAINLESS STEELS—PRETREATMENT STANDARDS (PSES)

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Chromium ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.0000404 0.0000181

Nickel ............................................................................................................................................................... 0.000137 0.0000720

1Pounds per ton of product.

(4) Ladle Metallurgy. There shall be

no discharge of process wastewater

pollutants to POTWs.

§ 420.57 Pretreatment Standards for New

Sources (PSNS).

New sources subject to this subpart

must achieve the following pretreatment

standards for new sources (PSNS), as

applicable.

(a) Any new source subject to the

provisions of this section that

commenced discharging after [insert

date 10 years prior to the date that is 60

days after the publication date of the

final rule] and before [insert date that is

60 days after the publication date of the

final rule] must continue to achieve the

standards specified in the 2000 version

of § 420.76 for ten years beginning on

the date the source commenced

discharge or during the period of

depreciation or amortization of the

facility, whichever comes first, after

which the source must achieve the

standards specified in § 420.56.

(b) Except as provided in 40 CFR

403.7, the following standards apply

with respect to each new source that

commences construction after [insert

date that is 60 days after the publication

date of the final rule]:

(1) Carbon and alloy steels. The

following performance standards apply

to discharges in the carbon and alloy

steels segment for each operation as

applicable: There shall be no discharge

of process wastewater pollutants to

POTWs.

(2) Stainless steels. The following

effluent limitations apply to discharges

in the stainless steels segment for each

operation as applicable: There shall be

no discharge of process wastewater

pollutants to POTWs.

Subpart F—Steel Finishing

Subcategory

§ 420.60 Applicability.

(a) The provisions of this subpart are

applicable to discharges and the

introduction of pollutants into publicly

owned treatment works resulting from

carbon, alloy and stainless steel

finishing operations. Such operations

include descaling, acid pickling, cold

rolling and annealing, acid and alkaline

cleaning, continuous hot dip coating

and electroplating of metals on steels.

(b) Wastewater discharges from the

following operations on steel are subject

to this subpart: Cold forming,

continuous electroplating, or

continuous hot dip coating of sheets,

strips or plates.

(c) This subpart does not apply to

discharges of process wastewater from

surface finishing or cold forming

operations on steel wire, rod, bar, pipe

or tubing. This subpart does not apply

to process wastewater from these same

operations when they are performed on

base materials other than steel.

Wastewater discharges from performing

these operations are subject to 40 CFR

part 438.

§ 420.61 Subcategory definitions.

As used in this subpart:

(a) Product means:

(1) Steel processed (including rework)

for descaling, acid pickling and acid or

alkaline cleaning operations;

(2) Finished rolled steel for cold

rolling and annealing operations; and

(3) Finished coated steel for hot

coating and electroplating operations.

The daily operating (production) rate

shall be determined in accordance with

§ 420.3.

(b) Acid cleaning means surface

treatment of steel products using acid

solutions conducted after cold rolling

operations and prior to subsequent

surface coating operations, and

associated rinsing operations.

(c) Acid pickling means the first

surface treatment of steel products using

acid solutions conducted after hot

forming operations for chemical

removal of oxides and scale, and

associated rinsing operations.

(d) Acid purification units or acid

recovery units means those devices used

for recovery and/or reconstitution of

acid solutions from used acid pickling

solutions.

(e) Acid regeneration means recovery

of hydrochloric acid from used pickling

solutions.

(f) Alkaline cleaning means surface

treatment of steel products using

alkaline solutions and associated rinses,

which are conducted after cold rolling

operations and prior to subsequent

surface coating operations.

(g) Bar means a finished hot-rolled

steel product.

(h) Batch means those steel finishing

operations in which semi-finished steel

products are processed in discrete

batches.

(i) Cold forming means operations

conducted on unheated steel for

purposes of imparting desired

mechanical properties and surface

qualities (density, smoothness) to the

steel.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 82057

(j) Cold working means operations

(rolling, forging, stretching) conducted

on unheated (often ambient

temperature) steel that change structure,

shape and create a permanent increase

in hardness and strength.

(k) Combination means cold rolling

operations which include recirculation

of rolling solutions at one or more mill

stands, and once-through use of rolling

solutions at the remaining stand or

stands.

(l) Combination pickling means acid

pickling operations using more than one

acid solution or mixed acid solutions.

(m) Continuous means operations in

which semi-finished steel products are

processed on a continuous or semicontinuous basis.

(n) Descaling means removal of scale

from semi-finished steel products by

action of molten salt baths or chemical

solutions.

(o) Direct application means cold

rolling operations which include oncethrough use of rolling solutions at all

mill stands.

(p) Electrolytic descaling means

removal of scale from semi-finished

steel products by electrolysis utilizing

sodium sulfate solutions.

(q) Electroplating means the

application of metal coatings including,

but not limited to, chromium, copper,

nickel, tin, zinc and combinations

thereof on steel products using an

electro-chemical process.

(r) Flat bar means a semi-finished hotrolled flat steel product.

(s) Fume scrubbers means emission

control devices used to collect and clean

fumes originating in acid pickling, acid

cleaning, alkaline cleaning and steel

coating operations.

(t) Hot coating-galvanizing means

coating steel products with zinc or

mixtures of zinc and aluminum by the

hot dip process, including related

operations preceding and subsequent to

immersing the steel in the molten metal.

(u) Hot coating-terne means coating

steel products with terne (lead and zinc)

metal by the hot dip process, including

related operations proceeding and

subsequent to immersing the steel in the

molten metal.

(v) Hydrochloric acid pickling means

acid pickling operations using

hydrochloric acid solutions.

(w) Miscellaneous steel products

means flat rolled strip and sheet steel

products other than wire and fasteners.

(x) Multiple stands means those

recirculation or direct application cold

rolling mills which include more than

one stand of work rolls.

(y) Other hot coating means coating

steel products with metals other than

zinc or terne metal by the hot dip

process, including related operations

preceding and subsequent to immersing

the steel in the molten metal.

(z) Pickling means the descaling

process by which the hard black oxide

formed on the steel surface during hot

rolling is removed by the chemical

action of acids.

(aa) Recirculation means cold rolling

operations which include recirculation

of rolling solutions at all mill stands.

(bb) Salt bath descaling-reducing

means the removal of scale from semifinished steel products by action of

molten salt baths containing sodium

hydride.

(cc) Salt bath descaling-oxidizing

means removal of scale from semifinished steel by action of molten salt

baths other than those containing

sodium hydride.

(dd) Single stand means those

recirculation or direct application cold

rolling mills which include only one

stand of work rolls.

(ee) Spent acid solution (or spent

pickle liquor) means acid solutions

which are no longer effective and are

discharged or removed from the

pickling process.

(ff) Tube means a hollow steel

cylinder formed usually from a strip.

(gg) Wire rod means a semi-finished

steel product of circular cross section,

generally with a diameter of

approximately 0.25 inches.

§ 420.62 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, any existing

point source subject to this subpart must

achieve, for each applicable operation,

the following effluent limitations

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application

of the best practicable control

technology currently available (BPT):

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (BPT)

Pollutant TSS Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

(a) Salt bath descaling-oxidizing:

(1) batch, sheet and plate ........................................................................................................................ 0.408 0.175

(2) batch, rod ............................................................................................................................................ 0.246 0.105

(3) batch, pipe and tubes ......................................................................................................................... 0.992 0.426

(4) continuous ........................................................................................................................................... 0.193 0.0826

(b) Salt bath descaling-reducing:

(1) batch ................................................................................................................................................... 0.190 0.0814

(2) continuous ........................................................................................................................................... 1.06 0.456

(c) Acid pickling-sulfuric:

(1) rod, coil ............................................................................................................................................... 0.164 0.070

(2) bar, billet, bloom ................................................................................................................................. 0.0526 0.0226

(3) strip, sheet and plate .......................................................................................................................... 0.105 0.045

(4) pipe, tubes and other products ........................................................................................................... 0.292 0.125

(d) Acid pickling-hydrochloric:

(1) rod, coil ............................................................................................................................................... 0.286 0.123

(2) strip, sheet and plate .......................................................................................................................... 0.164 0.070

(3) pipe, tubes and other products ........................................................................................................... 0.596 0.256

(e) Acid pickling-combination:

(1) rod, coil ............................................................................................................................................... 0.298 0.128

(2) bar, billet, bloom ................................................................................................................................. 0.134 0.0576

(3) strip, sheet and plate-continuous ........................................................................................................ 0.876 0.376

(4) strip, sheet and plate-batch ................................................................................................................ 0.268 0.115

(5) pipe, tubes and other products ........................................................................................................... 0.450 0.193

(f) Cold rolling mills:

(1) recirculation-single stand .................................................................................................................... 0.0025 0.00125

82058 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (BPT)—Continued

Pollutant TSS Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

(2) recirculation-multiple stands ............................................................................................................... 0.0125 0.00626

(3) combination ......................................................................................................................................... 0.150 0.0752

(4) direct application-single stand ............................................................................................................ 0.045 0.0226

(5) direct application-mult. stands ............................................................................................................ 0.200 0.100

(g) Alkaline cleaning:

(1) batch ................................................................................................................................................... 0.146 0.0626

(2) continuous ........................................................................................................................................... 0.204 0.0876

(h) Hot coating: galvanizing, terne, other metals:

(1) strip, sheet and miscellaneous products ............................................................................................ 0.350 0.150

(i) Electroplating ............................................................................................................................................... 2 60 2 31

(j) Fume scrubbers

Acid pickling, alkaline cleaning, hot coating, other .................................................................................. 3 12.58 3 5.39

(k) Absorber vent scrubber, hydrochloric acid regeneration ........................................................................... 3 84.04 3 35.86

Pollutant oil & grease Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

(a) Salt bath descaling-oxidizing:

(1) batch, sheet and plate ........................................................................................................................ NA NA

(2) batch, rod ............................................................................................................................................ NA NA

(3) batch, pipe and tubes ......................................................................................................................... NA NA

(4) continuous ........................................................................................................................................... NA NA

(b) Salt bath descaling-reducing:

(1) batch ................................................................................................................................................... NA NA

(2) continuous ........................................................................................................................................... NA NA

(c) Acid pickling-sulfuric 4:

(1) rod, coil ............................................................................................................................................... 0.0700 0.0234

(2) bar, billet, bloom ................................................................................................................................. 0.0226 0.00750

(3) strip, sheet and plate .......................................................................................................................... 0.0450 0.0150

(4) pipe, tubes and other products ........................................................................................................... 0.125 0.0418

(d) Acid pickling-hydrochloric 4:

(1) rod, coil ............................................................................................................................................... 0.123 0.0408

(2) strip, sheet and plate .......................................................................................................................... 0.0700 0.0234

(3) pipe, tubes and other products ........................................................................................................... 0.256 0.0852

(e) Acid pickling-combination 4:

(1) rod, coil ............................................................................................................................................... 0.128 0.0426

(2) bar, billet, bloom ................................................................................................................................. 0.0576 0.0192

(3) strip, sheet and plate-continuous ........................................................................................................ 0.376 0.125

(4) strip, sheet and plate-batch ................................................................................................................ 0.115 0.0384

(5) pipe, tubes and other products ........................................................................................................... 0.193 0.0644

(f) Cold rolling mills:

(1) recirculation-single stand .................................................................................................................... 0.00104 0.000418

(2) recirculation-multiple stands ............................................................................................................... 0.0522 0.00208

(3) combination ......................................................................................................................................... 0.0626 0.0250

(4) direct application-single stand ............................................................................................................ 0.0188 0.00752

(5) direct application-mult. stands ............................................................................................................ 0.0834 0.0334

(g) Alkaline cleaning:

(1) batch ................................................................................................................................................... 0.0626 0.0208

(2) continuous ........................................................................................................................................... 0.0876 0.0292

(h) Hot coating: galvanizing, terne, other metals:

(1) strip, sheet and miscellaneous products ............................................................................................ 0.150 0.0500

(i) Electroplating ........................................................................................................................................ 2 52 2 26

(j) Fume scrubbers:

Acid pickling, alkaline cleaning, hot coating, other .................................................................................. 3 5.39 31.76

(k) Absorber vent scrubber, hydrochloric acid regeneration ........................................................................... 3 35.86 3 11.99

1Pounds per ton of product for all operations except electroplating, fume scrubbers, and adsorber vent scrubbers.

2The values are expressed in milligrams per liter for this operation.

3The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

4The limitations for oil and grease shall be applicable when acid pickling wastewaters are treated with cold rolling wastewaters.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 82059

§ 420.63 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of

the best control technology for

conventional pollutants (BCT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the degree of

effluent reduction attainable by the

application of the best control

technology for conventional pollutants

(BCT): The limitations shall be the same

as those specified for conventional

pollutants (which are defined in 40 CFR

401.16) in § 420.62 of this subpart for

the best practicable control technology

currently available (BPT).

§ 420.64 Effluent limitations attainable by

the application of the best available control

technology economically achievable (BAT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the degree of

effluent reduction attainable by the

application of the best available control

technology economically achievable

(BAT).

(a) Ammonia (as N) (1) Stainless

Steel. The following effluent limitations

apply to discharges in the stainless

steels segment for each operation as

applicable. Increased mass discharges

may be provided by the permit authority

on a site-specific basis to account for

unregulated process wastewaters and

non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily

wastewater from hot forming mill

basements and roll shops, tramp oils

from mill oil collection systems, utility

wastewaters, groundwater remediation

wastewaters), but only to the extent

such flows are co-treated with process

wastewaters regulated by this subpart

and generate an increased effluent

volume. Such increased mass discharges

shall be calculated as a percentage

increase of the mass discharge otherwise

applicable on the basis of the increased

effluent volume.

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT)

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

(i) Acid pickling and other descaling:

(A) bar, billet ............................................................................................................................................. 0.0437 0.0287

(B) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.146 0.0960

(C) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.00665 0.00436

(D) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.133 0.0873

(ii) Wet air pollution control devices:

(A) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 4.109 2 2.69

1Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.

2The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

(b) Chromium (VI). (1) Carbon and

Alloy Steel. The following effluent

limitations apply to discharges in the

carbon and alloy steels segment for each

operation as applicable. Increased mass

discharges may be provided by the

permit authority on a site-specific basis

to account for unregulated process

wastewaters and non-process

wastewaters (e.g., oily wastewater from

hot forming mill basements and roll

shops, tramp oils from mill oil

collection systems, utility wastewaters,

groundwater remediation wastewaters),

but only to the extent such flows are cotreated with process wastewaters

regulated by this subpart and generate

an increased effluent volume. Such

increased mass discharges shall be

calculated as a percentage increase of

the mass discharge otherwise applicable

on the basis of the increased effluent

volume. The effluent limitations for

chromium (VI) shall be applicable only

when chromium (VI) is present in

untreated wastewaters as a result of

process or other operations.

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT)

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

(i) Acid pickling—hydrochloric:

(A) bar, billet, rod, coil .............................................................................................................................. 0.0000508 0.0000463

(B) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.000106 0.0000963

(C) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000363 0.00000330

(D) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.0000518 0.00000472

(ii) Acid pickling—sulfuric:

(A) bar, billet, rod, coil .............................................................................................................................. 0.0000290 0.0000264

(B) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.0000518 0.0000472

(C) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.00000363 0.00000330

(D) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.0000238 0.0000217

(iii) Acid regeneration:

(A) fume scrubbers ............................................................................................................................ 2 0.0149 2 0.0136

(iv) Alkaline cleaning:

(A) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.00000207 0.00000189

(B) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.0000363 0.0000330

(v) Cold forming:

(A) direct application-single stand ..................................................................................................... 0.000000311 0.000000283

(B) direct application-multiple stands ................................................................................................ 0.0000285 0.0000260

(C) recirculation-single stand ............................................................................................................ 0.000000104 0.000000944

(D) recirculation-multiple stands ........................................................................................................ 0.00000259 0.00000236

(E) combination-multiple stand .......................................................................................................... 0.0000148 0.0000135

(vi) Continuous annealing lines ....................................................................................................................... 0.00000207 0.00000189

82060 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT)—Continued

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

(vii) Electroplating:

(A) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.00000363 0.00000330

(B) strip, sheet: tin, chromium .................................................................................................................. 0.000114 0.000104

(C) strip, sheet: zinc, other metals ........................................................................................................... 0.0000570 0.0000519

(viii) Hot coating:

(A) galvanizing, terne and other metals ................................................................................................... 0.0000570 0.0000519

(ix) Wet air pollution control devices:

(A) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 0.00224 2 0.00204

1Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.

2The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

(2) Stainless Steel. The following

effluent limitations apply to discharges

in the stainless steels segment for each

operation as applicable. Increased mass

discharges may be provided by the

permit authority on a site-specific basis

to account for unregulated process

wastewaters and non-process

wastewaters (e.g., oily wastewater from

hot forming mill basements and roll

shops, tramp oils from mill oil

collection systems, utility wastewaters,

groundwater remediation wastewaters),

but only to the extent such flows are cotreated with process wastewaters

regulated by this subpart and generate

an increased effluent volume. Such

increased mass discharges shall be

calculated as a percentage increase of

the mass discharge otherwise applicable

on the basis of the increased effluent

volume.

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT)

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

(i) Acid pickling and other descaling:

(A) bar, billet ............................................................................................................................................. 0.000318 0.000196

(B) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.00107 0.000655

(C) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000484 0.0000298

(D) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.000969 0.000595

(ii) Acid regeneration:

(A) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 0.199 2 0.122

(iii) Alkaline cleaning:

(A) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.0000277 0.0000170

(B ) strip, sheet ......................................................................................................................................... 0.00346 0.00213

(iv) Cold forming:

(A) direct application-single stand ............................................................................................................ 0.0000484 0.0000298

(B) direct application-multiple stands ....................................................................................................... 0.000381 0.000234

(C) recirculation-single stand .................................................................................................................... 0.00000415 0.00000255

(D) recirculation-multiple stands ............................................................................................................... 0.0000221 0.0000136

(E) combination-multiple stand ................................................................................................................. 0.000198 0.000122

(v) Continuous annealing ................................................................................................................................. 0.0000277 0.0000170

(vi)Wet air pollution control devices:

(A) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 0.0299 2 0.0184

1Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.

2The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

(c) Chromium. (1) Carbon and Alloy

Steel. The following effluent limitations

apply to discharges in the carbon and

alloy steels segment for each operation

as applicable. Increased mass discharges

may be provided by the permit authority

on a site-specific basis to account for

unregulated process wastewaters and

non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily

wastewater from hot forming mill

basements and roll shops, tramp oils

from mill oil collection systems, utility

wastewaters, groundwater remediation

wastewaters), but only to the extent

such flows are co-treated with process

wastewaters regulated by this subpart

and generate an increased effluent

volume. Such increased mass discharges

shall be calculated as a percentage

increase of the mass discharge otherwise

applicable on the basis of the increased

effluent volume. The effluent

limitations for chromium shall be

applicable only when chromium is

present in untreated wastewaters as a

result of process or other operations.

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT)

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

(i) Acid pickling—hydrochloric:

(A) bar, billet, rod, coil .............................................................................................................................. 0.000227 0.000117

(B) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.000472 0.000243

(C) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000162 0.00000834

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 82061

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT)—Continued

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

(D) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.0000231 0.0000119

(ii) Acid pickling—sulfuric:

(A) bar, billet, rod, coil .............................................................................................................................. 0.000130 0.0000668

(B) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.000231 0.000119

(C) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000162 0.00000834

(D) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.000106 0.0000548

(iii) Acid regeneration:

(A) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 0.0666 2 0.0343

(iv) Alkaline cleaning:

(A) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.00000925 0.00000477

(B) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.000162 0.0000834

(v) Cold forming:

(A) direct application-single stand ............................................................................................................ 0.00000139 0.000000715

(B) direct application-multiple stands ....................................................................................................... 0.000127 0.0000656

(C) recirculation-single stand .................................................................................................................... 0.000000463 0.000000238

(D) recirculation-multiple stands ............................................................................................................... 0.0000116 0.00000596

(E) combination-multiple stand ................................................................................................................. 0.0000662 0.0000341

(vi) Continuous annealing lines ....................................................................................................................... 0.00000925 0.00000477

(vii) Electroplating:

(A) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000162 0.00000834

(B) strip, sheet: tin, chromium .................................................................................................................. 0.000509 0.000262

(C) strip, sheet: zinc, other metals ........................................................................................................... 0.000255 0.000131

(viii) Hot coating:

(A) galvanizing, terne and other metals ................................................................................................... 0.000255 0.000131

(ix) Wet air pollution control devices:

(A) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 0.00999 2 0.00515

1Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.

2The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

(2) Stainless Steel. The following

effluent limitations apply to discharges

in the stainless steels segment for each

operation as applicable. Increased mass

discharges may be provided by the

permit authority on a site-specific basis

to account for unregulated process

wastewaters and non-process

wastewaters (e.g., oily wastewater from

hot forming mill basements and roll

shops, tramp oils from mill oil

collection systems, utility wastewaters,

groundwater remediation wastewaters),

but only to the extent such flows are cotreated with process wastewaters

regulated by this subpart and generate

an increased effluent volume. Such

increased mass discharges shall be

calculated as a percentage increase of

the mass discharge otherwise applicable

on the basis of the increased effluent

volume.

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT)

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

(i) Acid pickling and other descaling:

(A) bar, billet ............................................................................................................................................. 0.000500 0.000280

(B) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.00167 0.000939

(C) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000760 0.0000427

(D) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.00152 0.000854

(ii) Acid regeneration:

(A) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 0.313 2 0.176

(iii) Alkaline cleaning:

(A) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.0000434 0.0000244

(B) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.00543 0.00305

(iv) Cold forming:

(A) direct application-single stand ............................................................................................................ 0.0000760 0.0000427

(B) direct application-multiple stands ....................................................................................................... 0.000597 0.000335

(C) recirculation-single stand .................................................................................................................... 0.00000652 0.00000366

(D) recirculation-multiple stands ............................................................................................................... 0.0000348 0.0000195

(E) combination-multiple stand ................................................................................................................. 0.000311 0.000174

(v) Continuous annealing ................................................................................................................................. 0.0000434 0.0000244

(vi) Wet air pollution control devices:

(A) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 0.0469 2 0.0263

1Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.

2The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

82062 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

(d) Fluoride. (1) Stainless Steel. The

following effluent limitations apply to

discharges in the stainless steels

segment for each operation as

applicable. Increased mass discharges

may be provided by the permit authority

on a site-specific basis to account for

unregulated process wastewaters and

non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily

wastewater from hot forming mill

basements and roll shops, tramp oils

from mill oil collection systems, utility

wastewaters, groundwater remediation

wastewaters), but only to the extent

such flows are co-treated with process

wastewaters regulated by this subpart

and generate an increased effluent

volume. Such increased mass discharges

shall be calculated as a percentage

increase of the mass discharge otherwise

applicable on the basis of the increased

effluent volume.

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT)

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

(i) Acid pickling and other descaling:

(A) bar, billet ............................................................................................................................................. 0.0446 0.0356

(B) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.149 0.119

(C) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.00679 0.00542

(D) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.136 0.108

(ii) Wet air pollution control devices:

(A) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 4.19 2 3.34

1Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.

2The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

(e) Lead. (1) Carbon and Alloy Steel.

The following effluent limitations apply

to discharges in the carbon and alloy

steels segment for each operation as

applicable. Increased mass discharges

may be provided by the permit authority

on a site-specific basis to account for

unregulated process wastewaters and

non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily

wastewater from hot forming mill

basements and roll shops, tramp oils

from mill oil collection systems, utility

wastewaters, groundwater remediation

wastewaters), but only to the extent

such flows are co-treated with process

wastewaters regulated by this subpart

and generate an increased effluent

volume. Such increased mass discharges

shall be calculated as a percentage

increase of the mass discharge otherwise

applicable on the basis of the increased

effluent volume.

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT)

Maximum daily1 Maximum monthly avg.1

(i) Acid pickling—hydrochloric:

(A) bar, billet, rod, coil .............................................................................................................................. 0.000596 0.000311

(B) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.00124 0.000647

(C) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000426 0.0000222

(D) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.00609 0.0000317

(ii) Acid pickling—sulfuric:

(A) bar, billet, rod, coil .............................................................................................................................. 0.000341 0.000178

(B) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.000609 0.000317

(C) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000426 0.0000222

(D) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.000280 0.000146

(iii) Acid regeneration:

(A) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 0.175 2 0.913

(iv) Alkaline cleaning:

(A) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.0000243 0.0000127

(B) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.000426 0.000222

(v) Cold forming:

(A) direct application-single stand ............................................................................................................ 0.00000365 0.00000190

(B) direct application-multiple stands ....................................................................................................... 0.000335 0.000174

(C) recirculation-single stand .................................................................................................................... 0.00000122 0.00000634

(D) recirculation-multiple stands ............................................................................................................... 0.0000304 0.0000159

(E) combination-multiple stand ................................................................................................................. 0.000174 0.0000907

(vi) Continuous annealing lines ....................................................................................................................... 0.0000243 0.0000127

(vii) Electroplating:

(A) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000426 0.0000222

(B) strip, sheet: tin, chromium .................................................................................................................. 0.000134 0.000698

(C) strip, sheet: zinc, other metals ........................................................................................................... 0.000669 0.000349

(viii) Hot coating:

(A) galvanizing, terne and other metals ................................................................................................... 0.000669 0.000349

(ix) Wet air pollution control devices:

(A) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 0.026396 2 0.0137

1Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.

2The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 82063

(f) Nickel. (1) Stainless Steel. The

following effluent limitations apply to

discharges in the stainless steels

segment for each operation as

applicable. Increased mass discharges

may be provided by the permit authority

on a site-specific basis to account for

unregulated process wastewaters and

non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily

wastewater from hot forming mill

basements and roll shops, tramp oils

from mill oil collection systems, utility

wastewaters, groundwater remediation

wastewaters), but only to the extent

such flows are co-treated with process

wastewaters regulated by this subpart

and generate an increased effluent

volume. Such increased mass discharges

shall be calculated as a percentage

increase of the mass discharge otherwise

applicable on the basis of the increased

effluent volume.

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT)

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

(i) Acid pickling and other descaling:

(A) bar, billet ............................................................................................................................................. 0.000147 0.000104

(B) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.000494 0.000347

(C) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000224 0.0000158

(D) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.000449 0.000315

(ii) Acid regeneration:

(A) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 0.0923 2 0.0649

(iii) Alkaline cleaning:

(A) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.0000128 0.00000901

(B) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 2 0.00160 2 0.00113

(iv) Cold forming:

(A) direct application-single stand ............................................................................................................ 0.0000224 0.0000158

(B) direct application-multiple stands ....................................................................................................... 0.000176 0.000124

(C) recirculation-single stand .................................................................................................................... 0.00000192 0.00000135

(D) recirculation-multiple stands ............................................................................................................... 0.0000103 0.00000721

(E) combination-multiple stand ................................................................................................................. 0.0000917 0.0000644

(v) Continuous annealing 0.0000128 0.00000901

(vi) Wet air pollution control devices:

(A) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 0.0138 2 0.00973

1Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.

2The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

(g) Zinc. (1) Carbon and Alloy Steel.

The following effluent limitations apply

to discharges in the carbon and alloy

steels segment for each operation as

applicable. Increased mass discharges

may be provided by the permit authority

on a site-specific basis to account for

unregulated process wastewaters and

non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily

wastewater from hot forming mill

basements and roll shops, tramp oils

from mill oil collection systems, utility

wastewaters, groundwater remediation

wastewaters), but only to the extent

such flows are co-treated with process

wastewaters regulated by this subpart

and generate an increased effluent

volume. Such increased mass discharges

shall be calculated as a percentage

increase of the mass discharge otherwise

applicable on the basis of the increased

effluent volume.

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT)

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

(i) Acid pickling—hydrochloric:

(A) bar, billet, rod, coil .............................................................................................................................. 0.000637 0.000262

(B) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.00133 0.00546

(C) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000455 0.0000187

(D) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.0000650 0.0000267

(i) Acid pickling—sulfuric:

(A) bar, billet, rod, coil .............................................................................................................................. 0.000364 0.000150

(B) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.000650 0.000267

(C) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000455 0.0000187

(D) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.000299 0.000123

(ii) Acid regeneration:

(A) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 0.187 2 0.0770

(iii) Alkaline cleaning:

(A) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.0000260 0.0000107

(B) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.000455 0.000187

(iv) Cold forming:

(A) direct application-single stand ............................................................................................................ 0.00000390 0.00000160

(B) direct application-multiple stands ....................................................................................................... 0.000357 0.000147

(C) recirculation-single stand .................................................................................................................... 0.00000130 0.00000535

(D) recirculation-multiple stands ............................................................................................................... 0.0000325 0.0000134

(E) combination-multiple stand ................................................................................................................. 0.000186 0.0000765

(v) Continuous annealing 0.0000260 0.0000107

(vii) Electroplating:

82064 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT)—Continued

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

(A) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000455 0.0000187

(B) strip, sheet: tin, chromium .................................................................................................................. 0.00143 0.000588

(C) strip, sheet: zinc, other metals ........................................................................................................... 0.000715 0.000294

(viii) Hot coating:

(A) galvanizing, terne and other metals ................................................................................................... 0.000715 0.000294

(ix) Wet air pollution control devices:

(A) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 0.0281 2 0.0116

1Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.

2The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

§ 420.65 New Source Performance

Standards (NSPS).

New sources subject to this subpart

must achieve the following new source

performance standards (NSPS), as

applicable.

(a) Any new source subject to the

provisions of this section that

commenced discharging after [insert

date 10 years prior to the date that is 60

days after the publication date of the

final rule] and before [insert date that is

60 days after the publication date of the

final rule] must continue to achieve the

applicable standards specified in the

2000 version of §§ 420.84, 420.94,

420.104, 420.114, and 420.124. toxic

and nonconventional pollutants, those

standards shall not apply after the

expiration of the applicable time period

specified in 40 CFR 122.29(d)(1);

thereafter, the source must achieve the

applicable standards specified in

§ 420.64.

(b) The following standards apply

with respect to each new source that

commences construction after [insert

date that is 60 days after the publication

date of the final rule].

(1) Total Suspended Solids. (i) Carbon

and Alloy Steel. The following

performance standards apply to

discharges in the carbon and alloy steels

segment for each operation as

applicable. Increased mass discharges

may be provided by the permit authority

on a site-specific basis to account for

unregulated process wastewaters and

non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily

wastewater from hot forming mill

basements and roll shops, tramp oils

from mill oil collection systems, utility

wastewaters, groundwater remediation

wastewaters), but only to the extent

such flows are co-treated with process

wastewaters regulated by this subpart

and generate an increased effluent

volume. Such increased mass discharges

shall be calculated as a percentage

increase of the mass discharge otherwise

applicable on the basis of the increased

effluent volume.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

(i) Acid pickling—hydrochloric:

(A) bar, billet, rod, coil .............................................................................................................................. 0.0566 0.0308

(B) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.118 0.0641

(C) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.00405 0.00220

(D) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.00578 0.00314

(ii) Acid pickling—sulfuric:

(A) bar, billet, rod, coil .............................................................................................................................. 0.0324 0.0176

(B) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.0578 0.0314

(C) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.00405 0.00220

(D) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.0266 0.0145

(iii) Acid regeneration:

(A) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 16.6 2 9.05

(iv) Alkaline cleaning:

(A) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.00231 0.00126

(B ) strip, sheet ......................................................................................................................................... 0.0405 0.0220

(v) Cold forming:

(A) direct application-single stand ............................................................................................................ 0.000347 0.000189

(B) direct application-multiple stands ....................................................................................................... 0.0318 0.0173

(C) recirculation-single stand .................................................................................................................... 0.000116 0.0000628

(D) recirculation-multiple stands ............................................................................................................... 0.00289 0.00157

(E) combination-multiple stand ................................................................................................................. 0.0165 0.00899

(vi) Continuous annealing lines 0.00231 0.00126

(vii) Electroplating:

(A) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.00405 0.00220

(B) strip, sheet: tin, chromium .................................................................................................................. 0.127 0.0691

(C) strip, sheet: zinc, other metals ........................................................................................................... 0.0636 0.0346

(viii) Hot coating:

(A) galvanizing, terne and other metals ................................................................................................... 0.0636 0.0346

(ix) Wet air pollution control devices:

(A) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 2.50 2 1.36

1Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.

2The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 82065

(ii) Stainless Steel. The following

performance standards apply to

discharges in the stainless steels

segment for each operation as

applicable. Increased mass discharges

may be provided by the permit authority

on a site-specific basis to account for

unregulated process wastewaters and

non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily

wastewater from hot forming mill

basements and roll shops, tramp oils

from mill oil collection systems, utility

wastewaters, groundwater remediation

wastewaters), but only to the extent

such flows are co-treated with process

wastewaters regulated by this subpart

and generate an increased effluent

volume. Such increased mass discharges

shall be calculated as a percentage

increase of the mass discharge otherwise

applicable on the basis of the increased

effluent volume.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

(A) Acid pickling and other descaling:

(1) bar, billet ............................................................................................................................................. 0.0242 0.0121

(2) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.0809 0.0406

(3) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.00368 0.00184

(4) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.0735 0.0369

(B) Acid regeneration:

(1) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 15.1 2 7.59

(C) Alkaline cleaning:

(1) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.00210 0.00105

(2) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.263 0.132

(D) Cold forming:

(1) direct application-single stand ............................................................................................................ 0.00368 0.00184

(2) direct application-multiple stands ........................................................................................................ 0.0289 0.0145

(3) recirculation-single stand .................................................................................................................... 0.000315 0.000158

(4) recirculation-multiple stands ............................................................................................................... 0.00168 0.000843

(5) combination-multiple stand ................................................................................................................. 0.0150 0.00754

(E) Continuous annealing 0.00210 0.00105

(F) Wet air pollution control devices:

(1) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 2.27 2 1.14

1Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.

2The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

(2) Oil & Grease. (i) Carbon and Alloy

Steel. The following performance

standards apply to discharges in the

carbon and alloy steels segment for each

operation as applicable. Increased mass

discharges may be provided by the

permit authority on a site-specific basis

to account for unregulated process

wastewaters and non-process

wastewaters (e.g., oily wastewater from

hot forming mill basements and roll

shops, tramp oils from mill oil

collection systems, utility wastewaters,

groundwater remediation wastewaters),

but only to the extent such flows are cotreated with process wastewaters

regulated by this subpart and generate

an increased effluent volume. Such

increased mass discharges shall be

calculated as a percentage increase of

the mass discharge otherwise applicable

on the basis of the increased effluent

volume.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

(A) Acid pickling—hydrochloric:

(1) bar, billet, rod, coil .............................................................................................................................. 0.0307 0.0274

(2) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.638 0.0571

(3) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.00219 0.00196

(4) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.00313 0.00280

(B) Acid pickling—sulfuric:

(1) bar, billet, rod, coil .............................................................................................................................. 0.0175 0.0157

(2) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.0313 0.0280

(3) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.00219 0.00196

(4) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.0144 0.0129

(C) Acid regeneration:

(1) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 9.01 2 8.07

(D) Alkaline cleaning:

(1) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.00125 0.00112

(2) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.0219 0.0196

(E) Cold forming:

(1) direct application-single stand ............................................................................................................ 0.000188 0.000168

(2) direct application-multiple stands ........................................................................................................ 0.0172 0.0154

(3) recirculation-single stand .................................................................................................................... 0.0000626 0.0000560

(4) recirculation-multiple stands ............................................................................................................... 0.00156 0.00140

(5) combination-multiple stand ................................................................................................................. 0.0895 0.00801

(F) Continuous annealing lines ........................................................................................................................ 0.00125 0.00112

(G) Electroplating:

82066 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)—Continued

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

(1) strip, sheet: tin, chromium .................................................................................................................. 0.00219 0.0196

(2) strip, sheet: zinc, other metals ............................................................................................................ 0.0688 0.0616

(3) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.0344 0.0308

(H) Hot coating:

(1) galvanizing, terne and other metals ................................................................................................... 0.0344 0.0308

(I) Wet air pollution control devices:

(1) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 1.35 2 1.21

1Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.

2The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

(ii) Stainless Steel. The following

performance standards apply to

discharges in the stainless steels

segment for each operation as

applicable. Increased mass discharges

may be provided by the permit authority

on a site-specific basis to account for

unregulated process wastewaters and

non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily

wastewater from hot forming mill

basements and roll shops, tramp oils

from mill oil collection systems, utility

wastewaters, groundwater remediation

wastewaters), but only to the extent

such flows are co-treated with process

wastewaters regulated by this subpart

and generate an increased effluent

volume. Such increased mass discharges

shall be calculated as a percentage

increase of the mass discharge otherwise

applicable on the basis of the increased

effluent volume.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

(A) Acid pickling and other descaling:

(1) bar, billet ............................................................................................................................................. 0.0172 0.0136

(2) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.0576 0.0456

(3) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.00262 0.00207

(4) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.0523 0.0414

(B) Acid regeneration:

(1) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 10.8 2 8.52

(C) Alkaline cleaning:

(1) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.00149 0.00118

(2) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.187 0.148

(D) Cold forming:

(1) direct application-single stand ............................................................................................................ 0.00262 0.00207

(2) direct application-multiple stands ........................................................................................................ 0.0206 0.0163

(3) recirculation-single stand .................................................................................................................... 0.000224 0.000177

(4) recirculation-multiple stands ............................................................................................................... 0.00120 0.000947

(5) combination-multiple stand ................................................................................................................. 0.0107 0.00846

(E) Continuous annealing ................................................................................................................................ 0.00149 0.00118

(F) Wet air pollution control devices:

(1) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 1.61 2 1.28

1Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.

2The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

(3) Ammonia as (N). (i) Stainless

Steel. The following performance

standards apply to discharges in the

stainless steels segment for each

operation as applicable. Increased mass

discharges may be provided by the

permit authority on a site-specific basis

to account for unregulated process

wastewaters and non-process

wastewaters (e.g., oily wastewater from

hot forming mill basements and roll

shops, tramp oils from mill oil

collection systems, utility wastewaters,

groundwater remediation wastewaters),

but only to the extent such flows are cotreated with process wastewaters

regulated by this subpart and generate

an increased effluent volume. Such

increased mass discharges shall be

calculated as a percentage increase of

the mass discharge otherwise applicable

on the basis of the increased effluent

volume.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

(A) Acid pickling and other descaling:

(1) bar, billet ............................................................................................................................................. 0.0437 0.0287

(2) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.146 0.0960

(3) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.00665 0.00436

(4) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.133 0.0873

(B) Wet air pollution control devices:

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 82067

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)—Continued

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

(1) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 4.10 2 2.69

1Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.

2The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

(4) Chromium (VI). (i) Carbon and

Alloy Steel. The following performance

standards apply to discharges in the

carbon and alloy steels segment for each

operation as applicable. Increased mass

discharges may be provided by the

permit authority on a site-specific basis

to account for unregulated process

wastewaters and non-process

wastewaters (e.g., oily wastewater from

hot forming mill basements and roll

shops, tramp oils from mill oil

collection systems, utility wastewaters,

groundwater remediation wastewaters),

but only to the extent such flows are cotreated with process wastewaters

regulated by this subpart and generate

an increased effluent volume. Such

increased mass discharges shall be

calculated as a percentage increase of

the mass discharge otherwise applicable

on the basis of the increased effluent

volume. The performance standards for

chromium (VI) shall be applicable only

when chromium (VI) is present in

untreated wastewaters as a result of

process or other operations.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

(A) Acid pickling—hydrochloric:

(1) bar, billet, rod, coil .............................................................................................................................. 0.0000508 0.0000463

(2) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.000106 0.0000963

(3) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.00000363 0.00000330

(4) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.00000518 0.00000472

(B) Acid pickling—sulfuric:

(1) bar, billet, rod, coil .............................................................................................................................. 0.0000290 0.0000264

(2) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.0000518 0.0000472

(3) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.00000363 0.00000330

(4) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.0000238 0.0000217

(C) Acid regeneration:

(1) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 0.0149 2 0.0136

(D) Alkaline cleaning:

(1) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.00000207 0.00000189

(2) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.0000363 0.0000330

(E) Cold forming:

(1) direct application-single stand ............................................................................................................ 0.000000311 0.000000283

(2) direct application-multiple stands ........................................................................................................ 0.0000285 0.0000260

(3) recirculation-single stand .................................................................................................................... 0.000000104 0.000000944

(4) recirculation-multiple stands ............................................................................................................... 0.00000259 0.00000236

(5) combination-multiple stand ................................................................................................................. 0.0000148 0.0000135

(F) Continuous annealing lines ........................................................................................................................ 0.00000207 0.00000189

(G) Electroplating:

(1) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.00000363 0.00000330

(2) strip, sheet: tin, chromium .................................................................................................................. 0.000114 0.000104

(3) strip, sheet: zinc, other metals ............................................................................................................ 0.0000570 0.0000519

(H) Hot coating:

(1) galvanizing, terne and other metals ................................................................................................... 0.0000570 0.0000519

(I) Wet air pollution control devices:

(1) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 0.00224 2 0.00204

1Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.

2The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

(ii) Stainless Steel. The following

performance standards apply to

discharges in the stainless steels

segment for each operation as

applicable. Increased mass discharges

may be provided by the permit authority

on a site-specific basis to account for

unregulated process wastewaters and

non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily

wastewater from hot forming mill

basements and roll shops, tramp oils

from mill oil collection systems, utility

wastewaters, groundwater remediation

wastewaters), but only to the extent

such flows are co-treated with process

wastewaters regulated by this subpart

and generate an increased effluent

volume. Such increased mass discharges

shall be calculated as a percentage

increase of the mass discharge otherwise

applicable on the basis of the increased

effluent volume.

82068 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

(A) Acid pickling and other descaling:

(1) bar, billet ............................................................................................................................................. 0.000318 0.000196

(2) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.00107 0.000655

(3) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000484 0.0000298

(4) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.000969 0.000595

(B) Acid regeneration:

(1) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 0.199 2 0.122

(C) Alkaline cleaning:

(1) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.0000277 0.0000170

(2) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.00346 0.00213

(D) Cold forming:

(1) direct application-single stand ............................................................................................................ 0.0000484 0.0000298

(2) direct application-multiple stands ........................................................................................................ 0.000381 0.000234

(3) recirculation-single stand .................................................................................................................... 0.00000415 0.00000255

(4) recirculation-multiple stands ............................................................................................................... 0.0000221 0.0000136

(5) combination-multiple stand ................................................................................................................. 0.000198 0.000122

(E) Continuous annealing ................................................................................................................................ 0.0000277 0.0000170

(F) Wet air pollution control devices:

(1) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 0.0299 2 0.0184

1Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.

2The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

(5) Chromium. (i) Carbon and Alloy

Steel. The following performance

standards apply to discharges in the

carbon and alloy steels segment for each

operation as applicable. Increased mass

discharges may be provided by the

permit authority on a site-specific basis

to account for unregulated process

wastewaters and non-process

wastewaters (e.g., oily wastewater from

hot forming mill basements and roll

shops, tramp oils from mill oil

collection systems, utility wastewaters,

groundwater remediation wastewaters),

but only to the extent such flows are cotreated with process wastewaters

regulated by this subpart and generate

an increased effluent volume. Such

increased mass discharges shall be

calculated as a percentage increase of

the mass discharge otherwise applicable

on the basis of the increased effluent

volume. The performance standards for

chromium shall be applicable only

when chromium is present in untreated

wastewaters as a result of process or

other operations.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

(A) Acid pickling—hydrochloric:

(1) bar, billet, rod, coil .............................................................................................................................. 0.000227 0.000117

(2) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.000472 0.000243

(3) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000162 0.00000834

(4) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.0000231 0.0000119

(B) Acid pickling—sulfuric:

(1) bar, billet, rod, coil .............................................................................................................................. 0.000130 0.0000668

(2) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.000231 0.000119

(3) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000162 0.00000834

(4) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.000106 0.0000548

(C) Acid regeneration:

(1) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 0.0666 2 0.0343

(D) Alkaline cleaning:

(1) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.00000925 0.00000477

(2 ) strip, sheet ......................................................................................................................................... 0.000162 0.0000834

(D) Cold forming:

(1) direct application-single stand ............................................................................................................ 0.00000139 0.000000715

(2) direct application-multiple stands ........................................................................................................ 0.000127 0.0000656

(3) recirculation-single stand .................................................................................................................... 0.000000463 0.000000238

(4) recirculation-multiple stands ............................................................................................................... 0.0000116 0.00000596

(5) combination-multiple stand ................................................................................................................. 0.0000662 0.0000341

(F) Continuous annealing lines ........................................................................................................................ 0.00000925 0.00000477

(G) Electroplating:

(1) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000162 0.00000834

(2) strip, sheet: tin, chromium .................................................................................................................. 0.000509 0.000262

(3) strip, sheet: zinc, other metals ............................................................................................................ 0.000255 0.000131

(H) Hot coating:

(1) galvanizing, terne and other metals ................................................................................................... 0.000255 0.000131

(I) Wet air pollution control devices:

(1) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 0.0010 2 0.00515

1Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 82069

2The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

(ii) Stainless Steel. The following

performance standards apply to

discharges in the stainless steels

segment for each operation as

applicable. Increased mass discharges

may be provided by the permit authority

on a site-specific basis to account for

unregulated process wastewaters and

non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily

wastewater from hot forming mill

basements and roll shops, tramp oils

from mill oil collection systems, utility

wastewaters, groundwater remediation

wastewaters), but only to the extent

such flows are co-treated with process

wastewaters regulated by this subpart

and generate an increased effluent

volume. Such increased mass discharges

shall be calculated as a percentage

increase of the mass discharge otherwise

applicable on the basis of the increased

effluent volume.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

(A) Acid pickling and other descaling:

(1) bar, billet ............................................................................................................................................. 0.000500 0.000280

(2) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.00167 0.000939

(3) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000760 0.0000427

(4) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.00152 0.000854

(B) Acid regeneration:

(1) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 0.313 2 0.176

(C) Alkaline cleaning:

(1) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.0000434 0.0000244

(2) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.00543 0.00305

(D) Cold forming:

(1) direct application-single stand ............................................................................................................ 0.0000760 0.0000427

(2) direct application-multiple stands ........................................................................................................ 0.000597 0.000335

(3) recirculation-single stand .................................................................................................................... 0.00000652 0.00000366

(4) recirculation-multiple stands ............................................................................................................... 0.0000348 0.0000195

(5) combination-multiple stand ................................................................................................................. 0.000311 0.000174

(E) Continuous annealing ................................................................................................................................ 0.0000434 0.0000244

(F) Wet air pollution control devices:

(1) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 0.0469 2 0.0263

1Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.

2The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

(6) Fluoride. (i) Stainless Steel. The

following performance standards apply

to discharges in the stainless steels

segment for each operation as

applicable. Increased mass discharges

may be provided by the permit authority

on a site-specific basis to account for

unregulated process wastewaters and

non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily

wastewater from hot forming mill

basements and roll shops, tramp oils

from mill oil collection systems, utility

wastewaters, groundwater remediation

wastewaters), but only to the extent

such flows are co-treated with process

wastewaters regulated by this subpart

and generate an increased effluent

volume. Such increased mass discharges

shall be calculated as a percentage

increase of the mass discharge otherwise

applicable on the basis of the increased

effluent volume.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

(A) Acid pickling and other descaling:

(1) bar, billet ............................................................................................................................................. 0.0446 0.0356

(2) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.149 0.119

(3) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.00679 0.00542

(4) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.136 0.108

(B) Wet air pollution control devices:

(1) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 4.19 2 3.34

1Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.

2The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

(7) Lead. (i) Carbon and Alloy Steel.

The following performance standards

apply to discharges in the carbon and

alloy steels segment for each operation

as applicable. Increased mass discharges

may be provided by the permit authority

on a site-specific basis to account for

unregulated process wastewaters and

non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily

wastewater from hot forming mill

basements and roll shops, tramp oils

from mill oil collection systems, utility

wastewaters, groundwater remediation

wastewaters), but only to the extent

such flows are co-treated with process

wastewaters regulated by this subpart

and generate an increased effluent

volume. Such increased mass discharges

shall be calculated as a percentage

increase of the mass discharge otherwise

82070 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

applicable on the basis of the increased

effluent volume.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

(A) Acid pickling—hydrochloric:

(1) bar, billet, rod, coil ....................................................................................................................... 0.000596 0.000311

(2) pipe, tube ..................................................................................................................................... 0.00124 0.000647

(3) plate ............................................................................................................................................. 0.0000426 0.0000222

(4) strip, sheet ................................................................................................................................... 0.0000609 0.0000317

(B) Acid pickling—sulfuric:

(1) bar, billet, rod, coil ....................................................................................................................... 0.000341 0.000178

(2) pipe, tube ..................................................................................................................................... 0.000609 0.000317

(3) plate ............................................................................................................................................. 0.0000426 0.0000222

(4) strip, sheet ................................................................................................................................... 0.000280 0.000146

(C) Acid regeneration:

(1) fume scrubbers ............................................................................................................................ 2 0.175 2 0.0913

(D) Alkaline cleaning:

(1) pipe, tube ..................................................................................................................................... 0.0000243 0.0000127

(2) strip, sheet ................................................................................................................................... 0.000426 0.000222

(E) Cold forming:

(1) direct application-single stand ..................................................................................................... 0.00000365 0.00000190

(2) direct application-multiple stands ................................................................................................ 0.000335 0.000174

(3) recirculation-single stand ............................................................................................................. 0.00000122 0.000000634

(4) recirculation-multiple stands ........................................................................................................ 0.0000304 0.0000159

(5) combination-multiple stands ........................................................................................................ 0.000174 0.0000907

(F) Continuous annealing lines ........................................................................................................................ 0.0000243 0.0000127

(G) Electroplating:

(1) strip, sheet: tin, chromium ........................................................................................................... 0.0000426 0.0000222

(2) strip, sheet: zinc, other metals .................................................................................................... 0.00134 0.000698

(3) plate ............................................................................................................................................. 0.000669 0.000349

(H) Hot coating:

(1) galvanizing, terne and other metals ............................................................................................ 0.000669 0.000349

(I) Wet air pollution control devices:

(1) fume scrubbers ............................................................................................................................ 2 0.0263 2 0.0137

1Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.

2The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

(8) Nickel. (i) Stainless Steel. The

following performance standards apply

to discharges in the stainless steels

segment for each operation as

applicable. Increased mass discharges

may be provided by the permit authority

on a site-specific basis to account for

unregulated process wastewaters and

non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily

wastewater from hot forming mill

basements and roll shops, tramp oils

from mill oil collection systems, utility

wastewaters, groundwater remediation

wastewaters), but only to the extent

such flows are co-treated with process

wastewaters regulated by this subpart

and generate an increased effluent

volume. Such increased mass discharges

shall be calculated as a percentage

increase of the mass discharge otherwise

applicable on the basis of the increased

effluent volume.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

(A) Acid pickling and other descaling:

(1) bar, billet ............................................................................................................................................. 0.000147 0.000104

(2) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.000494 0.000347

(3) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000224 0.0000158

(4) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.000449 0.000315

(B) Acid regeneration:

(1) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 0.0923 2 0.0649

(C) Alkaline cleaning:

(1) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.0000128 0.00000901

(2) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.00160 0.00113

(D) Cold forming:

(1) direct application-single stand ............................................................................................................ 0.0000224 0.0000158

(2) direct application-multiple stands ........................................................................................................ 0.000176 0.000124

(3) recirculation-single stand .................................................................................................................... 0.00000192 0.00000135

(4) recirculation-multiple stands ............................................................................................................... 0.0000103 0.00000721

(5) combination-multiple stand ................................................................................................................. 0.0000917 0.0000644

(E) Continuous annealing ................................................................................................................................ 0.0000128 0.00000901

(F) Wet air pollution control devices:

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 82071

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)—Continued

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

(1) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 0.01382 0.009732

1Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.

2The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

(9) Zinc. (i) Carbon and Alloy Steel.

The following performance standards

apply to discharges in the carbon and

alloy steels segment for each operation

as applicable. Increased mass discharges

may be provided by the permit authority

on a site-specific basis to account for

unregulated process wastewaters and

non-process wastewaters (e.g.,

wastewater from hot forming mill

basements and roll shops, tramp oils

from mill oil collection systems, utility

wastewaters, groundwater remediation

wastewaters), but only to the extent

such flows are co-treated with process

wastewaters regulated by this subpart

and generate an increased effluent

volume. Such increased mass discharges

shall be calculated as a percentage

increase of the mass discharge otherwise

applicable on the basis of the increased

effluent volume.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

(i) Acid pickling—hydrochloric:

(A) bar, billet, rod, coil .............................................................................................................................. 0.000637 0.000262

(B) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.00133 0.000546

(C) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000455 0.0000187

(D) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.0000650 0.0000267

(ii) Acid pickling—sulfuric:

(A) bar, billet, rod, coil .............................................................................................................................. 0.000364 0.000150

(B) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.000650 0.000267

(C) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000455 0.0000187

(D) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.000299 0.000123

(iii) Acid regeneration:

(A) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 0.1872 2 0.07702

(iv) Alkaline cleaning:

(A) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.0000260 0.0000107

(B) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.000455 0.000187

(v) Cold forming:

(A) direct application-single stand ............................................................................................................ 0.00000390 0.00000160

(B) direct application-multiple stands ....................................................................................................... 0.000357 0.000147

(C) recirculation-single stand .................................................................................................................... 0.00000130 0.000000535

(D) recirculation-multiple stands ............................................................................................................... 0.0000325 0.0000134

(E) combination-multiple stand ................................................................................................................. 0.000186 0.0000765

(vi) Continuous annealing lines ....................................................................................................................... 0.0000260 0.0000107

(vii) Electroplating:

(A) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000455 0.0000187

(B) strip, sheet: tin, chromium .................................................................................................................. 0.00143 0.000588

(C) strip, sheet: zinc, other metals ........................................................................................................... 0.000715 0.000294

(viii) Hot coating:

(A) galvanizing, terne and other metals ................................................................................................... 0.000715 0.000294

(ix) Wet air pollution control devices:

(A) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 0.02812 0.01162

1Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.

2The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

§ 420.66 Pretreatment Standards for

Existing Sources (PSES).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7

and 403.13, any existing source subject

to this subpart which introduces

pollutants into a publicly owned

treatment works must comply with 40

CFR part 403 and achieve the following

pretreatment standards for existing

sources.

(a) Salt bath descaling, oxidizing.

(1) Batch, sheet and plate.

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS (PSES)

Pollutant Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Chromium ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.00584 0.00234

Nickel ............................................................................................................................................................... 0.00526 0.001752

1Pounds per ton of product.

82072 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

(2) Batch, rod and wire.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (PSES)

Pollutant Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Chromium ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.00350 0.001402

Nickel ............................................................................................................................................................... 0.00316 0.001052

1Pounds per ton of product.

(3) Batch, pipe and tube.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (PSES)

Pollutant Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Chromium ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.01418 0.00568

Nickel ............................................................................................................................................................... 0.01276 0.00426

1Pounds per ton of product.

(4) Continuous.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (PSES)

Pollutant Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Chromium ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.00276 0.001102

Nickel ............................................................................................................................................................... 0.00248 0.000826

1Pounds per ton of product.

(b) Salt bath descaling, reducing. (1) Batch.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (PSES)

Pollutant Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Chromium ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.00272 0.00108

Nickel ............................................................................................................................................................... 0.00244 0.000814

1Pounds per ton of product.

(2) Continuous.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (PSES)

Pollutant Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Chromium ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.0152 0.00608

Nickel ............................................................................................................................................................... 0.01366 0.00456

1Pounds per ton of product.

(c) Sulfuric acid (spent acid solutions

and rinse waters).

(1) Rod, wire, and coil.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (PSES)

Pollutant Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Lead ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.001052 0.000350

Zinc .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.001402 0.000468

1Pounds per ton of product.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 82073

(2) Bar, billet, and bloom.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (PSES)

Pollutant Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Lead ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.000338 0.0001126

Zinc .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.000450 0.0001502

1Pounds per ton of product.

(3) Strip, sheet, and plate.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (PSES)

Pollutant Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Lead ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.000676 0.000226

Zinc .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.000902 0.000300

1Pounds per ton of product.

(4) Pipe, tube, and other products.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (PSES)

Pollutant Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Lead ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.001878 0.000626

Zinc .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.00250 0.000834

1Pounds per ton of product.

(5) Fume scrubber.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (PSES) 2

Pollutant Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Lead ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.0810 0.0271

Zinc .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.1080 0.0361

1Pounds per day.

2The above limitations shall be applicable for each fume scrubber associated with sulfuric acid pickling operations.

(d) Hydrochloric acid pickling (spent

acid solutions and rinse waters).

(1) Rod, wire, and coil.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (PSES)

Pollutant Maximum daily1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Lead ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.00184 0.000614

Zinc .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.00246 0.000818

1Pounds per ton of product.

(2) Strip, sheet, and plate.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (PSES)

Pollutant Maximum daily1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Lead ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.001052 0.000350

Zinc .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.001402 0.000468

1Pounds per ton of product.

82074 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

(3) Pipe, tube, and other products.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (PSES)

Pollutant Maximum daily1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Lead ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.00384 0.001276

Zinc .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.00510 0.001702

1Pounds per ton of product.

(4) Fume scrubber.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (PSES) 2

Pollutant Maximum daily1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Lead ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.0810 0.0271

Zinc .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.1080 0.0361

1Pounds per day.

2The above limitations shall be applicable for each fume scrubber associated with hydrochloric acid pickling operations.

(5) Acid regeneration (absorber vent

scrubber).

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (PSES) 2

Pollutant Maximum daily1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Lead ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.539 0.1802

Zinc .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.719 0.240

1Pounds per day.

2The above limitations shall be applicable to the absorber vent scrubber wastewater associated with hydrochloric acid regeneration plants.

(e) Combination acid pickling (spent

acid solutions and rinse waters).

(1) Rod, wire, and coil.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (PSES)

Pollutant Maximum daily1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Chromium ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.00426 0.001704

Nickel ............................................................................................................................................................... 0.00384 0.001276

1Pounds per ton of product.

(2) Bar, billet, and bloom.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (PSES)

Pollutant Maximum daily1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Chromium ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.001920 0.000768

Nickel ............................................................................................................................................................... 0.001728 0.000576

1Pounds per ton of product.

(3) Strip, sheet, and plat-continuous.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (PSES)

Pollutant Maximum daily1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Chromium ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.01252 0.00500

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 82075

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (PSES)—Continued

Pollutant Maximum daily1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Nickel ............................................................................................................................................................... 0.01126 0.00376

1Pounds per ton of product.

(4) Strip, sheet, and plate-batch.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (PSES)

Pollutant Maximum daily1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Chromium ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.00384 0.001536

Nickel ............................................................................................................................................................... 0.00346 0.001152

1Pounds per ton of product.

(5) Pipe, tube, and other products.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (PSES)

Pollutant Maximum daily1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Chromium ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.00644 0.00258

Nickel ............................................................................................................................................................... 0.00578 0.001928

1Pounds per ton of product.

(6) Fume scrubber.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (PSES)

Pollutant Maximum daily1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Chromium ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.1802 0.0719

Nickel ............................................................................................................................................................... 0.1617 0.0539

1Pounds per day.

2The above limitations shall be applicable to each fume scrubber associated with a combination acid pickling operation.

(f) Cold rolling. (1) Recirculation-single stand.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (PSES)

Pollutant Maximum daily1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Chromium2 ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000418 0.0000168

Lead ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.0000188 0.0000062

Nickel 2 ............................................................................................................................................................. 0.0000376 0.0000126

Zinc .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.0000126 0.0000042

1Pounds per ton of product.

2The limitations for chromium and nickel shall be applicable in lieu of those for lead and zinc when cold rolling wastewaters are treated with

descaling or combination acid pickling wastewaters.

(2) Recirculation-multiple stands.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (PSES)

Pollutant Maximum daily1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Chromium 2 ...................................................................................................................................................... 0.000208 0.0000836

Lead ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.0000938 0.0000312

Nickel 2 ............................................................................................................................................................. 0.0001878 0.0000626

82076 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (PSES)—Continued

Pollutant Maximum daily1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Zinc .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.0000626 0.0000208

1Pounds per ton of product.

2The limitations for chromium and nickel shall be applicable in lieu of those for lead and zinc when cold rolling wastewaters are treated with

descaling or combination acid pickling wastewaters.

(3) Combination.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (PSES)

Pollutant Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Chromium 2 ...................................................................................................................................................... 0.00250 0.001002

Lead ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.001126 0.000376

Nickel 2 ............................................................................................................................................................. 0.00226 0.000752

Zinc .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.000752 0.000250

1Pounds per ton of product.

2The limitations for chromium and nickel shall be applicable in lieu of those for lead and zinc when cold rolling wastewaters are treated with

descaling or combination acid pickling wastewaters.

(4) Direct application-single stand.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (PSES)

Pollutant Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Chromium 2 ...................................................................................................................................................... 0.000752 0.000300

Lead ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.000338 0.0001126

Nickel2 .............................................................................................................................................................. 0.000676 0.000226

Zinc .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.000226 0.0000752

1Pounds per ton of product.

2The limitations for chromium and nickel shall be applicable in lieu of those for lead and zinc when cold rolling wastewaters are treated with

descaling or combination acid pickling wastewaters.

(5) Direct application-multiple stands.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (PSES)

Pollutant Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Chromium 2 ...................................................................................................................................................... 0.00334 0.001336

Lead ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.001502 0.000500

Nickel 2 ............................................................................................................................................................. 0.0030 0.001002

Zinc .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.001002 0.000334

1Pounds per ton of product.

2The limitations for chromium and nickel shall be applicable in lieu of those for lead and zinc when cold rolling wastewaters are treated with

descaling or combination acid pickling wastewaters.

(g) Electroplating.

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS (PSES)

Pollutant Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Chromium ........................................................................................................................................................ 2.77 1.71

Lead ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.69 0.43

Nickel ............................................................................................................................................................... 3.98 2.38

Zinc .................................................................................................................................................................. 2.61 1.48

1 Milligrams per liter.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 82077

(h) Galvanizing, terne coating and

other coatings.

(1) Strip, sheet, and miscellaneous

products.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (PSES)

Pollutant Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Chromium (hexavalent) 2 ................................................................................................................................. 0.000300 0.0001002

Lead ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.00226 0.000752

Zinc .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.00300 0.001000

1Pounds per ton of product.

2The limitations for hexavalent chromium shall be applicable only to galvanizing operations which discharge wastewaters from the chromate

rinse step.

(2) Fume scrubbers.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (PSES)

Pollutant Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

Chromium (hexavalent) 2 ................................................................................................................................. 0.01078 0.003586

Lead ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.0810 0.0271

Zinc .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.1080 0.0361

1Pounds per day.

2The limitations for hexavalent chromium shall be applicable only to galvanizing operations which discharge wastewaters from the chromate

rinse step.

§ 420.67 Pretreatment Standards for New

Sources (PSNS).

New sources subject to this subpart

must achieve the following pretreatment

standards for new sources (PSNS), as

applicable.

(a) Any new source subject to the

provisions of this section that

commenced discharging after [insert

date 10 years prior to the date that is 60

days after the publication date of the

final rule] and before [insert date that is

60 days after the publication date of the

final rule] must continue to achieve the

standards specified in the 2000 version

of §§ 420.86, 420.96, 420.106, 420.116,

and 420.126 for ten years beginning on

the date the source commenced

discharge or during the period of

depreciation or amortization of the

facility, whichever comes first, after

which the source must achieve the

standards specified in § 420.66.

(b) Except as provided in 40 CFR

403.7, the following standards apply

with respect to each new source that

commences construction after [insert

date that is 60 days after the publication

date of the final rule]: 

(1) Ammonia as (N). (i) Stainless

Steel. The following pretreatment

standards apply to discharges in the

stainless steels segment for each

operation as applicable. Increased mass

discharges may be provided by the

permit authority on a site-specific basis

to account for unregulated process

wastewaters and non-process

wastewaters (e.g., oily wastewater from

hot forming mill basements and roll

shops, tramp oils from mill oil

collection systems, utility wastewaters,

groundwater remediation wastewaters),

but only to the extent such flows are cotreated with process wastewaters

regulated by this subpart and generate

an increased effluent volume. Such

increased mass discharges shall be

calculated as a percentage increase of

the mass discharge otherwise applicable

on the basis of the increased effluent

volume.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (PSNS)

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

(A) Acid pickling and other descaling:

(1) bar, billet ............................................................................................................................................. 0.0437 0.0287

(2) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.146 0.0960

(3) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.00665 0.00436

(4) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.133 0.0873

(B) Wet air pollution control devices:

(1) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 4.10 2 2.69

1Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.

2The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

(2) Chromium (VI). (i) Carbon and

Alloy Steel. The following pretreatment

standards apply to discharges in the

carbon and alloy steels segment for each

operation as applicable. Increased mass

discharges may be provided by the

permit authority on a site-specific basis

to account for unregulated process

wastewaters and non-process

wastewaters (e.g., oily wastewater from

hot forming mill basements and roll

shops, tramp oils from mill oil

collection systems, utility wastewaters,

groundwater remediation wastewaters),

but only to the extent such flows are cotreated with process wastewaters

regulated by this subpart and generate

an increased effluent volume. Such

82078 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

increased mass discharges shall be

calculated as a percentage increase of

the mass discharge otherwise applicable

on the basis of the increased effluent

volume. The pretreatment standards for

chromium (VI) shall be applicable only

when chromium (VI) is present in

untreated wastewaters as a result of

process or other operations.

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS (PSNS)

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

(A) Acid pickling—hydrochloric:

(1) bar, billet, rod, coil .............................................................................................................................. 0.0000508 0.0000463

(2) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.000106 0.0000963

(3) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.00000363 0.00000330

(4) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.00000518 0.00000472

(B) Acid pickling—sulfuric:

(1) bar, billet, rod, coil .............................................................................................................................. 0.0000290 0.0000264

(2) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.0000518 0.0000472

(3) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.00000363 0.00000330

(4) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.0000238 0.0000217

(C) Acid regeneration:

(1) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 0.0149 2 0.0136

(D) Alkaline cleaning:

(1) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.00000207 0.00000189

(2) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.0000363 0.0000330

(E) Cold forming:

(1) direct application-single stand ............................................................................................................ 0.000000311 0.000000283

(2) direct application-multiple stands ........................................................................................................ 0.0000285 0.0000260

(3) recirculation-single stand .................................................................................................................... 0.000000104 0.000000944

(4) recirculation-multiple stands ............................................................................................................... 0.00000259 0.00000236

(5) combination-multiple stand ................................................................................................................. 0.0000148 0.0000135

(F) Continuous annealing lines ........................................................................................................................ 0.00000207 0.00000189

(G) Electroplating:

(1) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.00000363 0.00000330

(2) strip, sheet: tin, chromium .................................................................................................................. 0.000114 0.000104

(3) strip, sheet: zinc, other metals ............................................................................................................ 0.0000570 0.0000519

(H) Hot coating:

(1) galvanizing, terne and other metals ................................................................................................... 0.0000570 0.0000519

(I) Wet air pollution control devices:

(1) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 0.00224 2 0.00204

1Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.

2The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

(ii) Stainless Steel. The following

pretreatment standards apply to

discharges in the stainless steels

segment for each operation as

applicable. Increased mass discharges

may be provided by the permit authority

on a site-specific basis to account for

unregulated process wastewaters and

non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily

wastewater from hot forming mill

basements and roll shops, tramp oils

from mill oil collection systems, utility

wastewaters, groundwater remediation

wastewaters), but only to the extent

such flows are co-treated with process

wastewaters regulated by this subpart

and generate an increased effluent

volume. Such increased mass discharges

shall be calculated as a percentage

increase of the mass discharge otherwise

applicable on the basis of the increased

effluent volume.

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS (PSNS)

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

(A) Acid pickling and other descaling:

(1) bar, billet ............................................................................................................................................. 0.000318 0.000196

(2) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.00107 0.000655

(3) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000484 0.0000298

(4) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.000969 0.000595

(B) Acid regeneration:

(1) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 0.199 2 0.122

(C) Alkaline cleaning:

(1) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.0000277 0.0000170

(2) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.00346 0.00213

(D) Cold forming:

(1) direct application-single stand ............................................................................................................ 0.0000484 0.0000298

(2) direct application-multiple stands ........................................................................................................ 0.000381 0.000234

(3) recirculation-single stand .................................................................................................................... 0.00000415 0.00000255

(4) recirculation-multiple stands ............................................................................................................... 0.0000221 0.0000136

(5) combination-multiple stand ................................................................................................................. 0.000198 0.000122

(E) Continuous annealing ................................................................................................................................ 0.0000277 0.0000170

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 82079

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS (PSNS)—Continued

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

(F) Wet air pollution control devices:

(1) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 0.0299 2 0.0184

1Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.

2The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

(3) Chromium. (i) Carbon and Alloy

Steel. The following pretreatment

standards apply to discharges in the

carbon and alloy steels segment for each

operation as applicable. Increased mass

discharges may be provided by the

permit authority on a site-specific basis

to account for unregulated process

wastewaters and non-process

wastewaters (e.g., oily wastewater from

hot forming mill basements and roll

shops, tramp oils from mill oil

collection systems, utility wastewaters,

groundwater remediation wastewaters),

but only to the extent such flows are cotreated with process wastewaters

regulated by this subpart and generate

an increased effluent volume. Such

increased mass discharges shall be

calculated as a percentage increase of

the mass discharge otherwise applicable

on the basis of the increased effluent

volume. The pretreatment standards for

chromium shall be applicable only

when chromium is present in untreated

wastewaters as a result of process or

other operations.

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS (PSNS)

Maximum daily1 Maximum monthly avg.1

(A) Acid pickling—hydrochloric:

(1) bar, billet, rod, coil .............................................................................................................................. 0.000227 0.000117

(2) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.000472 0.000243

(3) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000162 0.00000834

(4) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.0000231 0.0000119

(B) Acid pickling—sulfuric:

(1) bar, billet, rod, coil .............................................................................................................................. 0.000130 0.0000668

(2) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.000231 0.000119

(3) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000162 0.00000834

(4) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.000106 0.0000548

(C) Acid regeneration:

(1) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 0.0666 2 0.0343

(D) Alkaline cleaning:

(1) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.00000925 0.00000477

(2) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.000162 0.0000834

(E) Cold forming:

(1) direct application-single stand ............................................................................................................ 0.00000139 0.000000715

(2) direct application-multiple stands ........................................................................................................ 0.000127 0.0000656

(3) recirculation-single stand .................................................................................................................... 0.000000463 0.000000238

(4) recirculation-multiple stands ............................................................................................................... 0.0000116 0.00000596

(5) combination-multiple stand ................................................................................................................. 0.0000662 0.0000341

(F) Continuous annealing lines ........................................................................................................................ 0.00000925 0.00000477

(G) Electroplating:

(1) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000162 0.00000834

(2) strip, sheet: tin, chromium .................................................................................................................. 0.000509 0.000262

(3) strip, sheet: zinc, other metals ............................................................................................................ 0.000255 0.000131

(H) Hot coating:

(1) galvanizing, terne and other metals ................................................................................................... 0.000255 0.000131

(I) Wet air pollution control devices:

(1) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 0.00999 2 0.00515

1Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.

2The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

(ii) Stainless Steel. The following

pretreatment standards apply to

discharges in the stainless steels

segment for each operation as

applicable. Increased mass discharges

may be provided by the permit authority

on a site-specific basis to account for

unregulated process wastewaters and

non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily

wastewater from hot forming mill

basements and roll shops, tramp oils

from mill oil collection systems, utility

wastewaters, groundwater remediation

wastewaters), but only to the extent

such flows are co-treated with process

wastewaters regulated by this subpart

and generate an increased effluent

volume. Such increased mass discharges

shall be calculated as a percentage

increase of the mass discharge otherwise

applicable on the basis of the increased

effluent volume.

82080 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS (PSNS)

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

(A) Acid pickling and other descaling:

(1) bar, billet ............................................................................................................................................. 0.000500 0.000280

(2) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.00167 0.000939

(3) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000760 0.0000427

(4) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.00152 0.000854

(B) Acid regeneration:

(1) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 0.313 2 0.176

(C) Alkaline cleaning:

(1) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.0000434 0.0000244

(2) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.00543 0.00305

(D) Cold forming:

(1) direct application-single stand ............................................................................................................ 0.0000760 0.0000427

(2) direct application-multiple stands ........................................................................................................ 0.000597 0.000335

(3) recirculation-single stand .................................................................................................................... 0.00000652 0.00000366

(4) recirculation-multiple stands ............................................................................................................... 0.0000348 0.0000195

(5) combination-multiple stand ................................................................................................................. 0.000311 0.000174

(E) Continuous annealing ................................................................................................................................ 0.0000434 0.0000244

(F)Wet air pollution control devices:

(1) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 0.0469 2 0.0263

1Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.

2The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

(4) Fluoride. (i) Stainless Steel. The

following pretreatment standards apply

to discharges in the stainless steels

segment for each operation as

applicable. Increased mass discharges

may be provided by the permit authority

on a site-specific basis to account for

unregulated process wastewaters and

non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily

wastewater from hot forming mill

basements and roll shops, tramp oils

from mill oil collection systems, utility

wastewaters, groundwater remediation

wastewaters), but only to the extent

such flows are co-treated with process

wastewaters regulated by this subpart

and generate an increased effluent

volume. Such increased mass discharges

shall be calculated as a percentage

increase of the mass discharge otherwise

applicable on the basis of the increased

effluent volume.

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS (PSNS)

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg.1

(A) Acid pickling and other descaling:

(1) bar, billet ............................................................................................................................................. 0.0446 0.0356

(2) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.149 0.119

(3) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.00679 0.00542

(4) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.136 0.108

(B) Wet air pollution control devices

(1) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 4.19 2 3.34

1Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.

2The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

(5) Lead. (i) Carbon and Alloy Steel.

The following pretreatment standards

apply to discharges in the carbon and

alloy steels segment for each operation

as applicable. Increased mass discharges

may be provided by the permit authority

on a site-specific basis to account for

unregulated process wastewaters and

non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily

wastewater from hot forming mill

basements and roll shops, tramp oils

from mill oil collection systems, utility

wastewaters, groundwater remediation

wastewaters), but only to the extent

such flows are co-treated with process

wastewaters regulated by this subpart

and generate an increased effluent

volume. Such increased mass discharges

shall be calculated as a percentage

increase of the mass discharge otherwise

applicable on the basis of the increased

effluent volume.

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS (PSNS)

Maximum daily1 Maximum monthly avg.1

(A) Acid pickling—hydrochloric:

(1) bar, billet, rod, coil .............................................................................................................................. 0.000596 0.000311

(2) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.00124 0.000647

(3) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000426 0.0000222

(4) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.0000609 0.0000317

(B) Acid pickling—sulfuric:

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 82081

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS (PSNS)—Continued

Maximum daily1 Maximum monthly avg.1

(1) bar, billet, rod, coil .............................................................................................................................. 0.000341 0.000178

(2) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.000609 0.000317

(3) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000426 0.0000222

(4) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.000280 0.000146

(C) Acid regeneration:

(1) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 0.175 2 0.0913

(D) Alkaline cleaning:

(1) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.0000243 0.0000127

(2) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.000426 0.000222

(E) Cold forming:

(1) direct application-single stand ............................................................................................................ 0.00000365 0.00000190

(2) direct application-multiple stands ........................................................................................................ 0.000335 0.000174

(3) recirculation-single stand .................................................................................................................... 0.00000122 0.000000634

(4) recirculation-multiple stands ............................................................................................................... 0.0000304 0.0000159

(5) combination-multiple stands ............................................................................................................... 0.000174 0.0000907

(F) Continuous annealing lines ........................................................................................................................ 0.0000243 0.0000127

(G) Electroplating:

(1) strip, sheet: tin, chromium .................................................................................................................. 0.0000426 0.0000222

(2) strip, sheet: zinc, other metals ............................................................................................................ 0.00134 0.000698

(3) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.000669 0.000349

(H) Hot coating:

(1) galvanizing, terne and other metals ................................................................................................... 0.000669 0.000349

(I) Wet air pollution control devices:

(1) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 0.0263 2 0.0137

1Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.

2The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

(6) Nickel. (i) Stainless Steel. The

following pretreatment standards apply

to discharges in the stainless steels

segment for each operation as

applicable. Increased mass discharges

may be provided by the permit authority

on a site-specific basis to account for

unregulated process wastewaters and

non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily

wastewater from hot forming mill

basements and roll shops, tramp oils

from mill oil collection systems, utility

wastewaters, groundwater remediation

wastewaters), but only to the extent

such flows are co-treated with process

wastewaters regulated by this subpart

and generate an increased effluent

volume. Such increased mass discharges

shall be calculated as a percentage

increase of the mass discharge otherwise

applicable on the basis of the increased

effluent volume.

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS (PSNS)

Maximum daily1 Maximum monthly avg.1

(A) Acid pickling and other descaling:

(1) bar, billet ............................................................................................................................................. 0.000147 0.000104

(2) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.000494 0.000347

(3) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000224 0.0000158

(4) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.000449 0.000315

(B) Acid regeneration:

(1) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 0.0923 2 0.0649

(C) Alkaline cleaning:

(1) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.0000128 0.00000901

(2) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.00160 0.00113

(D) Cold forming:

(1) direct application-single stand ............................................................................................................ 0.0000224 0.0000158

(2) direct application-multiple stands ........................................................................................................ 0.000176 0.000124

(3) recirculation-single stand .................................................................................................................... 0.00000192 0.00000135

(4) recirculation-multiple stands ............................................................................................................... 0.0000103 0.00000721

(5) combination-multiple stand ................................................................................................................. 0.0000917 0.0000644

(E) Continuous annealing ................................................................................................................................ 0.0000128 0.00000901

(F) Wet air pollution control devices:

(1) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 2 0.0138 2 0.00973

1Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.

2The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

(7) Zinc. (i) Carbon and Alloy Steel.

The following pretreatment standards

apply to discharges in the carbon and

alloy steels segment for each operation

as applicable. Increased mass discharges

may be provided by the permit authority

on a site-specific basis to account for

unregulated process wastewaters and

non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily

82082 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

wastewater from hot forming mill

basements and roll shops, tramp oils

from mill oil collection systems, utility

wastewaters, groundwater remediation

wastewaters), but only to the extent

such flows are co-treated with process

wastewaters regulated by this subpart

and generate an increased effluent

volume. Such increased mass discharges

shall be calculated as a percentage

increase of the mass discharge otherwise

applicable on the basis of the increased

effluent volume.

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS (PSNS)

Maximum daily 1 Maximum monthly avg. 1

(i) Acid pickling—hydrochloric:

(A) bar, billet, rod, coil .............................................................................................................................. 0.000637 0.000262

(B) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.00133 0.000546

(C) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000455 0.0000187

(D) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.0000650 0.0000267

(ii) Acid pickling—sulfuric:

(A) bar, billet, rod, coil .............................................................................................................................. 0.000364 0.000150

(B) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.000650 0.000267

(C) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000455 0.0000187

(D) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.000299 0.000123

(iii) Acid regeneration:

(A) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 20.187 20.0770

(iv) Alkaline cleaning:

(A) pipe, tube ............................................................................................................................................ 0.0000260 0.0000107

(B) strip, sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 0.000455 0.000187

(v) Cold forming:

(A) direct application-single stand ............................................................................................................ 0.00000390 0.00000160

(B) direct application-multiple stands ....................................................................................................... 0.000357 0.000147

(C) recirculation-single stand .................................................................................................................... 0.00000130 0.000000535

(D) recirculation-multiple stands ............................................................................................................... 0.0000325 0.0000134

(E) combination-multiple stand ................................................................................................................. 0.000186 0.0000765

(vi) Continuous annealing lines ....................................................................................................................... 0.0000260 0.0000107

(vii) Electroplating:

(A) plate .................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000455 0.0000187

(B) strip, sheet: tin, chromium .................................................................................................................. 0.00143 0.000588

(C) strip, sheet: zinc, other metals ........................................................................................................... 0.000715 0.000294

(viii) Hot coating:

(A) galvanizing, terne and other metals ................................................................................................... 0.000715 0.000294

(ix) Wet air pollution control devices:

(A) fume scrubbers ................................................................................................................................... 20.0281 20.0116

1Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.

2The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

Subpart G—Other Operations

Subcategory

§ 420.70 Applicability.

The provisions of this subpart are

applicable to discharges and the

introduction of pollutants into publicly

owned treatment works resulting from

production of direct-reduced iron and

forging operations.

§ 420.71 Subcategory definitions.

As used in this subpart:

(a) Product means:

(1) Direct-reduced iron, including any

undersize product;

(2) Direct-reduced iron after forging

operations, but prior to any further

shaping or finishing operations; and

(3) Direct-reduced iron briquetted,

including any undersized product. The

average daily operating (production)

rate must be determined as specified in

§ 420.3.

(b) Briquetting operations means a hot

or cold process that agglomerates

(presses together) iron-bearing materials

into small lumps without melting or

fusion. Used as a concentrated iron ore

substitute for scrap in electric furnaces.

(c) Direct-reduced iron means iron

produced by reduction of iron ore

(pellets or briquettes) using gaseous

(carbon monoxide-carbon dioxide,

hydrogen) or solid reactants.

(d) ging means the hot-working of

heated steel shapes (e.g., ingots, blooms,

billets, slabs) using hydraulic presses.

§ 420.72 Effluent limitations attainable by

the application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve, for each applicable segment,

the following effluent limitations

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application

of the best practicable control

technology currently available (BPT):

(a) Direct-reduced iron. This table is

Effluent Limitations (BPT) for directreduced iron:

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BPT)

Pollutant Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg. 1

TSS .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.0200 0.00929

1Pounds per ton of product.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 82083

(b) ging operations. This table is

Effluent Limitations (BPT) for forging

operations:

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BPT)

Pollutant Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg. 1

Oil and grease ................................................................................................................................................. 0.0149 0.00889

TSS .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.0235 0.0118

1Pounds per ton of product.

(c) Briquetting. There shall be no

discharge of process wastewater

pollutants.

§ 420.73 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of

the best control technology for

conventional pollutants (BCT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the degree of

effluent reduction attainable by the

application of the best control

technology for conventional pollutants

(BCT): The limitations shall be the same

as those specified for conventional

pollutants (which are defined in 40 CFR

401.16) in § 420.72 of this subpart for

the best practicable control technology

currently available (BPT).

§ 420.74 Effluent limitations attainable by

the application of the best available control

technology economically achievable (BAT).

(a) Direct-reduced iron; forging

operations. (Reserved)

(b) Briquetting. Except as provided in

40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any

existing point source subject to this

subpart must achieve the following

effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable

by the application of the best available

control technology economically

achievable (BAT): There shall be no

discharge of process wastewater

pollutants.

§ 420.75 New Source Performance

Standards (NSPS).

New sources subject to this subpart

must achieve the following new source

performance standards (NSPS), as

applicable.

(a) Direct-reduced iron. This table is

Performance Standards (NSPS) for

direct-reduced iron:

PERFORMANCE STANCARDS (NSPS)

Pollutant Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg. 1

TSS .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.0200 0.00929

1Pounds per ton of product.

(b) ging operations. This table is for

Performance Standards (NSPS):

PERFORMANCE STANCARDS (NSPS)

Pollutant Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg. 1

Oil and grease ................................................................................................................................................. 0.0149 0.00889

TSS .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.0235 0.0118

1Pounds per ton of product.

(c) Briquetting. There shall be no

discharge of process wastewater

pollutants.

§ 420.76 Pretreatment Standards for

Existing Sources (PSES).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7,

any existing source subject to this

subpart that introduces pollutants into a

publicly owned treatment works must

comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must

achieve the following pretreatment

standards for existing sources (PSES):

(a) Direct-reduced iron; forging

operations. (Reserved)

(b) Briquetting. There shall be no

discharge of process wastewater

pollutants to POTWs.

§ 420.77 Pretreatment Standards for New

Sources (PSNS).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7,

any new source subject to this subpart

that introduces pollutants into a

publicly owned treatment works must

comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must

achieve the following pretreatment

standards for new sources (PSNS):

(a) Direct-reduced iron; forging

operations. (Reserved)

(b) Briquetting. There shall be no

discharge of process wastewater

pollutants to POTWs.

[FR Doc. 00–31185 Filed 12–26–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P