[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 122 (Thursday, June 25, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34686-34746]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13792]



[[Page 34685]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Part 442



Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source 
Performance Standards for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning Point 
Source Category; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 / Thursday, June 25, 1998 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 34686]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 442

[FRL-6100-6]
RIN 2040-AC23


Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New 
Source Performance Standards for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning 
Point Source Category

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This proposed regulation establishes technology-based effluent 
limitations guidelines for the discharge of pollutants into waters of 
the United States and into publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) by 
existing and new facilities that perform transportation equipment 
cleaning operations. Transportation equipment cleaning (TEC) facilities 
are defined as those facilities that generate wastewater from cleaning 
the interior of tank trucks, closed-top hopper trucks, rail tank cars, 
closed-top hopper rail cars, intermodal tank containers, inland tank 
barges, closed-top hopper barges, ocean/sea tankers, and other similar 
tanks (excluding drums and intermediate bulk containers) used to 
transport materials or cargos that come into direct contact with the 
tank or container interior. Facilities which do not engage in cleaning 
the interior of tanks are not considered within the scope of this 
proposal.
    EPA is proposing to subcategorize the TEC Point Source Category 
into 11 subcategories based on types of cargos carried and 
transportation mode. EPA is proposing to establish effluent limitations 
for existing facilities and new sources discharging wastewater directly 
to surface waters in the following subcategories: Truck/Chemical, Rail/
Chemical, Barge/Chemical & Petroleum, Truck/Food, Rail/Food and Barge/
Food Subcategories.
    EPA is proposing to establish pretreatment standards for existing 
facilities and new sources discharging wastewater to POTWs in the 
following subcategories: Truck/Chemical and Rail/Chemical 
Subcategories. Additionally, EPA is proposing to establish effluent 
limitations for new sources discharging wastewater to POTWs in the 
Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory.
    EPA is proposing not to establish effluent limitations or 
pretreatment standards for existing or new facilities in the Truck/
Petroleum, Rail/Petroleum, Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/Hopper 
Subcategories. Also, EPA is proposing not to establish pretreatment 
standards for existing or new sources in the Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and 
Barge/Food Subcategories because the pollutants generated by these 
subcategories are amenable to treatment in a Publicly Owned Treatment 
Works (POTW).
    This proposal would not apply to wastewater discharges from 
cleaning operations located at industrial facilities regulated under 
other Clean Water Act effluent guidelines, provided that the facility 
cleans only tanks containing cargos or commodities generated or used 
on-site, or by a facility under the same corporate structure.
    The wastewater flows covered by the rule include all contact 
washwaters which have come into direct contact with the tank or 
container interior including pre-rinse cleaning solutions, chemical 
cleaning solutions, and final rinse solutions. Additionally, the rule 
covers wastewater generated from washing vehicle exteriors, equipment 
and floor washings, and TEC contaminated wastewater at those facilities 
subject to the TEC guidelines and standards. Compliance with this 
proposal is estimated to reduce the discharge of priority pollutants by 
at least 100,000 pounds per year and result in recreational benefits of 
$1.8 million to $6.3 million in 1997 dollars. Additional non use 
benefits are projected to range from $ 885,000 to $3.2 million. 
Compliance with this proposal is expected to result in a total pretax 
compliance cost of $37.5 million annually.

DATES: Comments on the proposal must be received by September 23, 1998.
    In addition, EPA will conduct a public hearing on Tuesday, August 
18, 1998, from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments and supporting data on this proposal 
to: John Tinger, US EPA, (4303), 401 M St. SW, Washington, D.C. 20460.
    The public hearing covering the rulemaking will be held at the EPA 
headquarters auditorium, Waterside Mall, 401 M St. SW, Washington, DC. 
Persons wishing to present formal comments at the public hearing should 
have a written copy for submittal.
    The public record is available for review in the EPA Water Docket, 
401 M St. SW, Washington, D.C. 20460. The public record for this 
rulemaking has been established under docket number W-97-25, and 
includes supporting documentation, but does not include any information 
claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). The record is 
available for inspection from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
excluding legal holidays. For access to docket materials, please call 
(202) 260-3027 to schedule an appointment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional technical information 
contact Mr. John Tinger at (202) 260-4992. For additional economic 
information contact Mr. George Denning at (202) 260-7374.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities: Entities potentially 
regulated by this action include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Category                  Examples of regulated entities   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..........................  Facilities that clean the interiors 
                                     of tank trucks, rail tank cars, or 
                                     barges that have been used to      
                                     transport cargos and that are not  
                                     already covered by Clean Water Act 
                                     effluent guidelines.               
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 this action. Other types of 
entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine 
whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully 
examine the applicability criteria in Section III of the proposed rule. 
If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a 
particular entity, consult the person listed for technical information 
in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Supporting Documentation

    The regulations proposed today are supported by several major 
documents:
    1. ``Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations 
Guidelines and Standards for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning 
Category'' (EPA-821-B-98-011). Hereafter referred to as the Technical 
Development Document, the document

[[Page 34687]]

presents EPA's technical conclusions concerning the proposal. EPA 
describes, among other things, the data collection activities in 
support of the proposal, the wastewater treatment technology options, 
wastewater characterization, and the estimation of costs to the 
industry.
    2. ``Economic Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines 
and Standards for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning Category'' 
(EPA-821-B-98-012).
    3. ``Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limitations 
Guidelines and Standards for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning 
Category'' (EPA-821-B-98-013).
    4. ``Statistical Support Document of Proposed Effluent Limitations 
Guidelines and Standards for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning 
Category'' (EPA-821-B-98-014).
    5. ``Environmental Assessment of Proposed Effluent Limitations 
Guidelines and Standards for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning 
Category'' (EPA-821-B-98-015).
    How to Obtain Supporting Documents:  All documents are available 
from the Office of Water Resource Center, RC-4100, U.S. EPA, 401 M 
Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20460; telephone (202) 260-7786 for the 
voice mail publication request. The Technical Development Document can 
also be obtained through EPA's Home Page on the Internet, located at 
WWW.EPA.GOV/OST/RULES. The preamble and rule can also be obtained at 
this site.

Table of Contents

I. Legal Authority
II. Background
    A. Clean Water Act
    B. Section 304(m) Requirements
    C. Pollution Prevention Act
III. Scope of the Proposed Regulation
IV. Profile of the Transportation Equipment Cleaning Industry
    A. Transportation Equipment Cleaning Facilities
    B. Transportation Equipment Cleaning Processes
    C. Regulatory History for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning 
Industry
V. Summary of Data Collection Activities
    A. Preliminary Data Summary
    B. Development of TECI Site Identification Database
    C. Survey Questionnaires
    1. 1993 Transportation Equipment Equipment Cleaning Industry 
Screener Questionnaire
    2. 1994 Transportation Equipment Cleaning Industry Detailed 
Questionnaire
    D. Development of National Population Estimates
    E. Site Visits and Wastewater Sampling Program
VI. Industry Subcategorization
    A. Factors Considered for Basis of Subcategorization
    1. Cleaning Processes
    2. Tank Type Cleaned
    3. Cargo Type Cleaned
    4. Water Use Practices
    5. Wastewater Characteristics
    6. Facility Age
    7. Facility Size
    8. Geographical Location
    9. Water Pollution Control Technologies
    10. Treatment Costs
    11. Non-water Quality Impacts
    B. Selection of Subcategorization Approach
VII. Wastewater Generation and Characteristics
VIII. Development of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
    A. Description of Available Technologies
    1. Pollution Prevention Controls
    2. Flow Reduction Technologies
    3. End-of-Pipe Wastewater Treatment Technologies
    B. Technology Options Considered for Basis of Regulation
    1. BPT Technology Options Considered and Selected
    a. Introduction
    b. Truck/Chemical Subcategory
    c. Rail/Chemical Subcategory
    d. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
    e. Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/Food Subcategories
    f. Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories
    g. Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/Hopper Subcategories
    2. BCT Technology Options Considered and Selected
    3. BAT Technology Options Considered and Selected
    a. Truck/Chemical Subcategory
    b. Rail/Chemical Subcategory
    c. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
    d. Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/Food Subcategories
    e. Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories
    f. Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/Hopper Subcategories
    4. NSPS Technology Options Considered and Selected
    a. Introduction
    b. Truck/Chemical Subcategory
    c. Rail/Chemical Subcategory
    d. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
    e. Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/Food Subcategories
    f. Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories
    g. Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/Hopper Subcategories
    5. PSES Technology Options Considered and Selected
    a. Introduction
    b. Pass-Through Analysis
    c. Truck/Chemical Subcategory
    d. Rail/Chemical Subcategory
    e. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
    f. Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/Food Subcategories
    g. Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories
    h. Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/Hopper Subcategories
    6. PSNS Technology Options Considered and Selected
    a. Introduction
    b. Truck/Chemical Subcategory
    c. Rail/Chemical Subcategory
    d. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
    e. Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/Food Subcategories
    f. Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories
    g. Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/Hopper Subcategories
    C. Development of Effluent Limitations
IX. Costs and Pollutant Reductions Achieved by Regulatory 
Alternatives
    A. Methodology for Estimating Costs
    B. Methodology for Estimating Pollutant Reductions
X. Economic Analysis
    A. Introduction
    B. Economic Impact Methodology
    1. Introduction
    2. Methodology Overview
    C. Summary of Costs and Economic Impacts
    1. Number of Facilities Incurring Costs
    2. Total Costs and Impacts of the Proposed Rule
    a. Introduction
    b. Impacts From PSES
    c. Impacts From BPT, BCT, and BAT
    d. Impacts From PSNS
    e. Impacts from NSPS
    3. Economic Impacts of Accepted and Rejected Options
    4. Small Business Analysis
    D. Cost-Benefit Analysis
    E. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
XI. Water Quality Impacts of Proposed Regulations
    A. Characterization of Pollutants
    B. Truck/Chemical Subcategory
    C. Rail/Chemical Subcategory
    D. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
XII. Non-Water Quality Impacts of Proposed Regulations
    A. Energy Impacts
    B. Air Emission Impacts
    C. Solid Waste Impacts
    1. Wastewater Treatment Sludge
    2. Waste Oil
    3. Spent Activated Carbon
    4. Spent Organo-Clay
XIII. Related Acts of Congress, Executive Orders, and Agency 
Initiatives
    A. Summary of Public Participation
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act
    C. Executive Order 12866 (OMB Review)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Paperwork Reduction Act
    F. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    G. The Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

[[Page 34688]]

XIV. Regulatory Implementation

    A. Applicability
    B. Upset and Bypass Provisions
    C. Variances and Modifications
    1. Fundamentally Different Factors Variances
    2. Permit Modifications
    3. Removal Credits
    D. Relationship of Effluent Limitations to NPDES Permits and 
Monitoring Requirements
    E. Best Management Practices (BMPs)
XV. Solicitation of Data and Comments
    A. Introduction and General Solicitation
    B. Specific Data and Comment Solicitations
XVI. Guidelines for Comment Submission of Analytical Data
    A. Types of Data Requested
    B. Analytes Requested
    C. Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Requirements
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, and 501 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311, 
1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, and 1361.

II. Background

A. Clean Water Act

    Congress adopted the Clean Water Act (CWA) to ``restore and 
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the 
Nation's waters'' (Section 101(a), 33 U.S.C. 1251(a)). To achieve this 
goal, the CWA prohibits the discharge of pollutants into navigable 
waters except in compliance with the statute. The Clean Water Act 
confronts the problem of water pollution on a number of different 
fronts. Its primary reliance, however, is on establishing restrictions 
on the types and amounts of pollutants discharged from various 
industrial, commercial, and public sources of wastewater.
    Congress recognized that regulating only those sources that 
discharge effluent directly into the nation's waters would not be 
sufficient to achieve the CWA's goals. Consequently, the CWA requires 
EPA to promulgate nationally applicable pretreatment standards which 
restrict pollutant discharges for those who discharge wastewater 
indirectly through sewers flowing to publicly-owned treatment works 
(POTWs) (Section 307(b) and (c), 33 U.S.C. 1317(b) and (c)). National 
pretreatment standards are established for those pollutants in 
wastewater from indirect dischargers which may pass through or 
interfere with POTW operations. Generally, pretreatment standards are 
designed to ensure that wastewater from direct and indirect industrial 
dischargers are subject to similar levels of treatment. In addition, 
POTWs are required to implement local treatment limits applicable to 
their industrial indirect dischargers to satisfy any local requirements 
(40 CFR 403.5).
    Direct dischargers must comply with effluent limitations in 
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (``NPDES'') permits; 
indirect dischargers must comply with pretreatment standards. These 
limitations and standards are established by regulation for categories 
of industrial dischargers and are based on the degree of control that 
can be achieved using various levels of pollution control technology.
1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)--
Section 304(b)(1) of the CWA
    In the guidelines for an industry category, EPA defines BPT 
effluent limits for conventional, priority,<SUP>1</SUP> and non-
conventional pollutants. In specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number of 
factors. EPA first considers the cost of achieving effluent reductions 
in relation to the effluent reduction benefits. The Agency also 
considers the age of the equipment and facilities, the processes 
employed and any required process changes, engineering aspects of the 
control technologies, non-water quality environmental impacts 
(including energy requirements), and such other factors as the Agency 
deems appropriate (CWA 304(b)(1)(B)). Traditionally, EPA establishes 
BPT effluent limitations based on the average of the best performances 
of facilities within the industry of various ages, sizes, processes or 
other common characteristics. Where existing performance is uniformly 
inadequate, EPA may require higher levels of control than currently in 
place in an industrial category if the Agency determines that the 
technology can be practically applied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In the initial stages of EPA CWA regulation, EPA efforts 
emphasized the achievement of BPT limitations for control of the 
``classical'' pollutants (e.g., TSS pH, BOD<INF>5</INF>). However, 
nothing on the face of the statue explicitly restricted BPT 
limitation to such pollutants. Following passage of the Clean Water 
Act of 1997 withits requirement for point sources to achieve best 
available technology limitations to control discharges of toxic 
pollutants, EPA shifted its focus to address the listed priority 
toxic pollutants under the guidelines program. BPT guidelines 
continue to include limitations to address all pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)--Section 
304(b)(4) of the CWA
    The 1977 amendments to the CWA required EPA to identify effluent 
reduction levels for conventional pollutants associated with BCT 
technology for discharges from existing industrial point sources. BCT 
is not an additional limitation, but replaces Best Available Technology 
(BAT) for control of conventional pollutants. In addition to other 
factors specified in Section 304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires that EPA 
establish BCT limitations after consideration of a two part ``cost-
reasonableness'' test. EPA explained its methodology for the 
development of BCT limitations in July 1986 (51 FR 24974).
    Section 304(a)(4) designates the following as conventional 
pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD<INF>5</INF>), total 
suspended solids (TSS), fecal coliform, pH, and any additional 
pollutants defined by the Administrator as conventional. The 
Administrator designated oil and grease as an additional conventional 
pollutant on July 30, 1979 (44 FR 44501).
3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)--Section 
304(b)(2) of the CWA
    In general, BAT effluent limitations guidelines represent the best 
existing economically achievable performance of direct discharging 
plants in the industrial subcategory or category. The factors 
considered in assessing BAT include the cost and economic impact of 
achieving BAT effluent reductions, the age of equipment and facilities 
involved, the processes employed, engineering aspects of the control 
technology, potential process changes, non-water quality impacts 
(including energy requirements), and such factors as the Administrator 
deems appropriate. The Agency retains considerable discretion in 
assigning the weight to be accorded to these factors. An additional 
statutory factor considered in setting BAT is economic achievability. 
Generally, the achievability is determined on the basis of the total 
cost to the industrial subcategory and the overall effect of the rule 
on the industry's financial health. BAT limitations may be based upon 
effluent reductions attainable through changes in a facility's 
processes and operations. As with BPT, where existing performance is 
uniformly inadequate, BAT may be based upon technology transferred from 
a different subcategory within an industry or from another industrial 
category. BAT may be based upon process changes or internal controls, 
even when these technologies are not common industry practice.

[[Page 34689]]

4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)--Section 306 of the CWA
    NSPS reflect effluent reductions that are achievable based on the 
best available demonstrated control technology (BDAT). New facilities 
have the opportunity to install the best and most efficient production 
processes and wastewater treatment technologies. As a result, NSPS 
should represent the greatest degree of effluent reduction attainable 
through the application of the best available demonstrated control 
technology for all pollutants (i.e., conventional, nonconventional, and 
priority pollutants). In determining the BADT, EPA is directed to take 
into consideration the cost of achieving the effluent reduction and any 
non-water quality environmental impacts and energy requirements.
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)--Section 307(b) 
of the CWA
    PSES are designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants that pass 
through, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the 
operation of publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs). The CWA authorizes 
EPA to establish pretreatment standards for pollutants that pass 
through POTWs or interfere with treatment processes at POTWs. 
Pretreatment standards are technology-based and 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. Those regulations contain a definition of pass-
through that addresses localized rather than national instances of 
pass-through and establish pretreatment standards that apply to all 
non-domestic dischargers. See 52 FR 1586, January 14, 1987.
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)--Section 307(b) of the 
CWA
    Like PSES, PSNS are designed to prevent the discharges of 
pollutants that pass through, interfere with, or are otherwise 
incompatible with the operation of POTWs. PSNS are to be issued at the 
same time as NSPS. New indirect dischargers have the opportunity to 
incorporate into their plants the best available demonstrated 
technologies. The Agency considers the same factors in promulgating 
PSNS as it considers in promulgating NSPS.

B. Section 304(m) Requirements

    Section 304(m) of the CWA, added by the Water Quality Act of 1987, 
requires EPA to establish schedules for (1) reviewing and revising 
existing effluent limitations guidelines and standards (``effluent 
guidelines'') and (2) promulgating new effluent guidelines. On January 
2, 1990, EPA published an Effluent Guidelines Plan (55 FR 80) that 
established schedules for developing new and revised effluent 
guidelines for several industry categories. One of the industries for 
which the Agency established a schedule was the Transportation 
Equipment Cleaning Industry.
    In 1992, EPA entered into a Consent Decree requiring proposal and 
final agency action of effluent limitations guidelines and standards 
final rule for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning Industry (NRDC v. 
Browner D.D.C. 89-2980). In December of 1997, the Court modified the 
decree revising the deadlines for proposal to May 15, 1998 and a 
deadline of June 15, 2000 for final action.

C. Pollution Prevention Act

    The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA) (42 U.S.C. 13101 et 
seq., Pub. L. 101-508, November 5, 1990) ``declares it to be the 
national policy of the United States that pollution should be prevented 
or reduced whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be prevented should 
be recycled in an environmentally safe manner, whenever feasible; 
pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled should be treated in an 
environmentally safe manner whenever feasible; and disposal or release 
into the environment should be employed only as a last resort * * *'' 
(Sec. 6602; 42 U.S.C. 13101 (b)). In short, preventing pollution before 
it is created is preferable to trying to manage, treat or dispose of it 
after it is created. The PPA directs the Agency to, among other things, 
``review regulations of the Agency prior and subsequent to their 
proposal to determine their effect on source reduction'' (Sec. 6604; 42 
U.S.C. 13103(b)(2)). This effluent guideline was reviewed for its 
incorporation of pollution prevention.
    According to the PPA, source reduction reduces the generation and 
release of hazardous substances, pollutants, wastes, contaminants, or 
residuals at the source, usually within a process. The term source 
reduction ``include[s] equipment or technology modifications, process 
or procedure modifications, reformulation or redesign of products, 
substitution of raw materials, and improvements in housekeeping, 
maintenance, training or inventory control. The term ``source 
reduction'' does not include any practice which alters the physical, 
chemical, or biological characteristics or the volume of a hazardous 
substance, pollutant, or contaminant through a process or activity 
which itself is not integral to or necessary for the production of a 
product or the providing of a service.'' 42 U.S.C. 13102(5). In effect, 
source reduction means reducing the amount of a pollutant that enters a 
waste stream or that is otherwise released into the environment prior 
to out-of-process recycling, treatment, or disposal.
    EPA has evaluated pollution prevention related activities involving 
the management of heels (residual material) in the Transportation 
Equipment Cleaning (TEC) Industry. During the data collection phase of 
the development of the proposed rule, a number of potential pollution 
prevention practices and technology applications were identified. 
Discussion of the pollution prevention technologies and practices and 
their uses with respect to this proposed rule are contained in Section 
VI of this preamble and in the Technical Development Document.

III. Scope of the Proposed Regulation

    EPA is today proposing effluent limitations guidelines and 
pretreatment standards for wastewater discharges from facilities 
engaged in cleaning the interiors of tanks including, but not limited 
to: tank trucks; rail tank cars; intermodal tank containers; inland 
tank barges; and ocean/sea tankers used to transport commodities that 
come into direct contact with the tank or container interior. 
Facilities which do not engage in cleaning the interior of tanks are 
not considered within the scope of this proposal.
    EPA is proposing to subcategorize the TEC point source category 
into 11 subcategories based on types of cargos carried and 
transportation mode. The subcategories proposed for the TEC point 
source category are set forth below. Further details and definitions of 
EPA's subcategorization approach are in Section VI of this notice.
    <bullet> Subcategory A: Truck/Chemical;
    <bullet> Subcategory B: Rail/Chemical;
    <bullet> Subcategory C: Barge/Chemical & Petroleum;
    <bullet> Subcategory D: Truck/Petroleum;
    <bullet> Subcategory E: Rail/Petroleum;
    <bullet> Subcategory F: Truck/Food;
    <bullet> Subcategory G: Rail/Food;
    <bullet> Subcategory H: Barge/Food;
    <bullet> Subcategory I: Truck/Hopper;
    <bullet> Subcategory J: Rail/Hopper; and
    <bullet> Subcategory K: Barge/Hopper.
    EPA is proposing to establish effluent limitations for existing 
facilities and new sources discharging wastewater

[[Page 34690]]

directly to surface waters in the following subcategories: Truck/
Chemical, Rail/Chemical, Barge/Chemical & Petroleum, Truck/Food, Rail/
Food and Barge/Food.
    EPA is proposing to establish pretreatment standards for existing 
facilities and new sources discharging wastewater to POTWs in the 
Truck/Chemical and Rail/Chemical Subcategories. Additionally, EPA is 
proposing to establish effluent limitations for new sources discharging 
wastewater to POTWs in the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. The 
following table presents the regulatory approach proposed in today's 
notice.

                                 Table 1.--Subcategories Proposed for Regulation                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 BPT or                                         
                          Subcategory                              BCT       BAT      NSPS      PSES      PSNS  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A: Truck/Chemical.............................................        X         X         X         X         X 
B: Rail/Chemical..............................................        X         X         X         X         X 
C: Barge/Chemical & Petroleum.................................        X         X         X   ........        X 
D: Truck/Petroleum............................................  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........
E: Rail/Petroleum.............................................  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........
F: Truck/Food.................................................        X   ........        X   ........  ........
G: Rail/Food..................................................        X   ........        X   ........  ........
H: Barge/Food.................................................        X   ........        X   ........  ........
I: Truck/Hopper...............................................  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........
J: Rail/Hopper................................................  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........
K: Barge/Hopper...............................................  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The wastewater flows covered by the proposed rule include all 
washwaters which have come into direct contact with the tank or 
container interior including pre-rinse cleaning solutions, chemical 
cleaning solutions, and final rinse solutions. Additionally, the rule 
would cover wastewater generated from washing vehicle exteriors, 
equipment and floor washings, and TEC contaminated wastewater at those 
facilities subject to the TEC guidelines and standards.
    EPA is proposing not to establish effluent limitations or 
pretreatment standards for existing or new facilities in the following 
subcategories: Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum. Initially, in its 
assessment of the industry, EPA analyzed the removals, benefits and 
costs of establishing guidelines for the Truck/Petroleum and Rail/
Petroleum Subcategories. EPA has determined that very few pounds of 
toxic pollutants are being discharged by existing facilities in the 
Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories. The pollutant loads 
and technology options analyzed for these subcategories are further 
discussed in Section VIII of today's notice. The low pollutant loadings 
associated with these subcategories are, in part, due to the small 
volumes of wastewater discharged by these facilities, which range from 
900 to a maximum of 175,000 gallons per year. Based on this analysis, 
EPA preliminarily concluded that there is no need to develop nationally 
applicable regulations for these subcategories. Rather, direct 
dischargers will remain subject to effluent limitations established on 
a case by case basis using best professional judgement, and indirect 
dischargers may be subject to local pretreatment limits as necessary to 
prevent pass-through or interference.
    EPA recognizes the limitations of currently available data and the 
impact of assumptions on the subsequent conclusions, especially due to 
the lack of available data on raw wastewater characteristics on the 
Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories, as described in 
Section VII of this notice. EPA solicits data and comments which may 
support or refute the Agency's conclusion that wastewater generated in 
the petroleum subcategories does not contain significant toxic 
loadings. EPA is also concerned about the difficulty of determining 
whether particular cargos fall into the chemical or petroleum 
subcategories. As explained below, and in EPA's proposed 
subcategorization approach, EPA is soliciting comment on an alternative 
subcategorization approach that would combine the petroleum and 
chemical subcategories.
    EPA realizes that much of the TEC industry is characterized by each 
facility accepting and cleaning a wide range of commodities and cargos 
which may vary on a daily, seasonal, or yearly basis. EPA raises the 
issue that it may be difficult to determine the limits appropriate to a 
particular facility due to the changing nature of the cargos being 
accepted by a facility. In this notice, EPA has provided definitions of 
each subcategory and each type of cargo. EPA believes it has 
established definitions that are most applicable to the industry, and 
has subsequently modeled wastewater treatment performance and developed 
effluent limitations applicable to each subcategory. However, EPA also 
acknowledges that there may be some difficulties associated with 
implementing this rule as proposed. Specifically, EPA is concerned that 
there may be difficulties associated with the determination of whether 
a facility is cleaning transportation equipment that contained 
``petroleum'' or ``chemical'' commodities. EPA recognizes that there 
are many products, especially petrochemical products, being transported 
by the industry which may not clearly be defined as a ``chemical'' or a 
``petroleum'' product. Additionally, according to the proposed 
subcategorization approach, there may be significant overlap of the two 
subcategories.
    EPA notes from its data collection activities that 92 percent of 
not previously regulated facilities classified in the Rail/Chemical 
Subcategory also accept commodities characterized as ``petroleum,'' and 
that 52 percent of facilities classified in Truck/Chemical Subcategory 
also accept commodities characterized as ``petroleum.'' EPA solicits 
comment on the difficulty of defining petroleum and chemical products 
from a regulatory standpoint.
    Because of potential difficulty in defining petroleum and chemical 
products, in order to ease implementation of this rule, EPA considered 
establishing one set of effluent limitations for each mode of 
transportation (e.g., truck, rail, barge) which cleans chemical and/or 
petroleum cargos. The rationale for the proposed subcategories is 
further discussed in Section VI of this notice. EPA is soliciting 
comment on potential applicability issues associated with the proposed 
subcategorization, and on the feasibility of establishing one set of 
effluent limitations for facilities

[[Page 34691]]

accepting chemical and/or petroleum products.
    EPA's assessment of the industry indicates, however, that there is 
little overlap of cleaning facilities among transportation modes. EPA's 
survey demonstrated that TEC facilities are almost exclusively involved 
in cleaning equipment from only one mode of transportation: either 
highway, railway, waterway, or ocean-going. The one exception is 
intermodal containers. Intermodal containers are completely enclosed 
storage vessels which may be loaded onto flat beds for either truck or 
rail transport, or onto ship decks for water transport, and are 
approximately the same size as tank trucks. EPA found that these 
containers are almost exclusively cleaned at facilities which clean 
tank trucks. Based on EPA's survey of the industry, intermodals 
typically account for one to 10 percent of the tanks cleaned at 
individual tank truck facilities, although at one facility intermodals 
accounted for up to 94 percent of the tanks cleaned. Therefore, EPA 
proposes that wastewater generated from cleaning intermodal tanks be 
handled according to the regulations established for the truck 
transportation subcategories.
    EPA is proposing to establish effluent limitations for existing and 
new facilities discharging directly to surface waters in the following 
subcategories: Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/Food. However, EPA is 
proposing not to establish pretreatment standards for facilities 
discharging to POTWs in the following subcategories: Truck/Food, Rail/
Food, and Barge/Food Subcategories. EPA is proposing effluent 
limitations for the food subcategories to control discharges of 
conventional pollutants which may adversely affect waterways when 
discharged directly to surface waters. However, because few priority 
toxic pollutants were found in food wastewaters and POTWs have the 
ability to treat conventional pollutants, EPA concluded that it was 
unnecessary to propose pretreatment limits for the food subcategories.
    EPA is also proposing not to establish effluent limitations or 
pretreatment standards for existing or new facilities in the remaining 
subcategories: Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper and Barge/Hopper. Closed-top 
hopper trucks, rails, and barges are generally used to transport dry 
bulk materials such as coal, grain, and fertilizers. Raw wastewater 
generated from cleaning the interiors of hoppers was found to contain 
very few priority toxic pollutants at treatable levels. This is likely 
due to the fact that the residual materials (heels) from dry bulk goods 
are easily removed prior to washing and that relatively little 
wastewater is generated from cleaning the interiors of hopper tanks due 
to the dry nature of bulk materials transported. This results in low 
pollutant loadings present in the wastewater discharges from hopper 
tank cleaning. Based on the low pollutant loads associated with 
wastewater discharge from the hopper subcategories, the Agency 
concluded that it need not establish nationally-applicable effluent 
limitations for these subcategories. Rather, direct dischargers will 
remain subject to effluent limitations established on a case by case 
basis using best professional judgement, and indirect dischargers may 
be subject to local pretreatment limits as necessary to prevent pass-
through or interference. EPA solicits comments on the appropriateness 
of not regulating hopper facilities. EPA also solicits data on 
pollutant levels in wastewater from hopper facilities.
    The proposed regulation would not apply to wastewaters generated 
from cleaning the interiors of drums or intermediate bulk containers 
(IBCs). In 1989, EPA conducted an analysis on the pollutant loadings 
associated with the drum reconditioning industry. Drum reconditioning 
operations generate wastewater from cleaning the interiors of drums 
before the drum is reconditioned, scrapped, or recycled. The 
Preliminary Data Summary for the Drum Reconditioning Industry (EPA 440/
1-89/101 September 1989) estimated that there were 450 facilities which 
accepted approximately 50 million drums in 1985. These drums contained 
approximately 124 million pounds of residue. This study of the industry 
concluded that wastewater generated from drum reconditioning operations 
did not merit national regulation at that time because of the low 
pollutant loads associated with this industry. Since this study was 
conducted, the reconditioning industry has grown to include other forms 
of transportation containers which were not initially considered in 
EPA's study, namely IBCs. IBCs are portable containers with 450 liters 
(119 gallons) to 3,000 liters (793 gallons) capacity. In comparison, 
drums typically have 208 liters (55 gallons) capacity. Facilities 
cleaning IBCs generate wastewater from cleaning the interior of the IBC 
prior to re-using the container. Based on data collected in EPA's 
questionnaire, there are approximately 173 TEC facilities which accept 
IBCs for cleaning. The Association of Container Reconditioners 
estimates that there are approximately 600,000 IBCs manufactured each 
year. By comparison, they estimate that there are over 40 million drums 
manufactured and recycled each year.
    Although EPA does not have data on the pollutant loadings 
associated with the cleaning of IBCs, EPA has concluded that IBCs are 
used by industries as an interchangeable replacement for drums and are 
therefore used for the storage and transport of cargos similar to 
drums. Because of this, EPA expects that wastewater generated from 
cleaning the interiors of IBCs may be similar to the wastewater 
generated from cleaning the interiors of drums. For this reason, EPA is 
proposing not to regulate wastewater generated from cleaning IBCs. EPA 
is soliciting comment and data on the pollutant loads associated with 
IBC cleaning wastewater, and on the initial decision not to include IBC 
wastewater within the scope of this guideline.
    The focus of this proposed rule is on transportation equipment 
cleaning facilities that function independently of other industrial 
activities that generate wastewater. This proposal would therefore not 
apply to wastewater discharges from transportation equipment cleaning 
operations located at industrial facilities regulated under other Clean 
Water Act effluent guidelines, provided that the facility cleans only 
tanks containing cargos or commodities generated or used on-site, or by 
a facility under the same corporate structure.
    EPA has identified TEC wastewaters at facilities subject to 
guidelines which include Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic 
Fibers (OCPSF) (40 CFR part 414); Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT) 
(proposed 40 CFR part 437, 60 FR 5464, January 27,1995); Dairy products 
processing point source category (40 CFR part 405); Inorganic chemicals 
manufacturing point source category (40 CFR part 415); Petroleum 
refining point source category (40 CFR part 415); Industrial Waste 
Combusters (proposed 40 CFR part 444, 63 FR 6325, February 6, 1998 ); 
and Metal Products and Machinery (MP&M) (new regulation to be proposed 
in 2000). Most such facilities commingle tank cleaning wastewater with 
wastewater from other processes for treatment. For example, the Organic 
Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) (40 CFR part 414) 
effluent guidelines specifically list tank car washing as a covered 
process wastewater.
    The promulgated and proposed regulations for these industries 
typically include on-site washwaters. The general regulatory definition 
of process wastewater includes water that comes in contact with raw 
materials (40 CFR 401.11(q)), which would include wastewater generated 
from cleaning the

[[Page 34692]]

interiors of tanks containing those raw materials. For those facilities 
where on-site washwaters are not specifically covered by the applicable 
guideline, EPA believes that facilities will commingle and treat 
washwaters with other process wastewater because an industrial facility 
will clean tanks that have transported commodities similar in nature to 
the products produced at that facility. Therefore, the wastewater 
generated from cleaning the tank interiors will contain contaminants 
similar in treatability to process wastewater at that facility.
    Not previously regulated facilities are those facilities whose 
major process wastewater streams are not already covered or proposed to 
be covered by other Clean Water Act effluent guidelines. In order to 
prevent an industrial facility from accepting tank cargos which may 
generate wastewater inconsistent with treatment in place at the 
facility, EPA proposes that the exclusion for industrial facilities be 
allowed only if that facility is cleaning tanks containing materials 
which have been generated at, or used by, that facility. This would 
prevent an industrial facility that accepts tanks for commercial 
cleaning purposes from being excluded from the TEC guideline.
    The rule also does not apply to facilities that are commercial 
treaters of wastewater that only clean tanks and containers as a part 
of the off-loading process of the wastes. The categorical limitations 
and standards to be established for the Centralized Waste Treatment 
Category and codified at 40 CFR part 429, would specifically cover tank 
washings at CWT facilities (60 FR 5464.) EPA currently intends to 
repropose CWT limitations and standards in 1998 and take final action 
in 1999.
    Although EPA believes that it has clearly defined what operations 
are intended to be covered by this regulation, EPA expects that there 
are some facilities engaged in operations which may be difficult to 
define, especially with regard to repair and maintenance. An example of 
a facility which would be regulated under the TEC effluent guidelines 
would be a site which only engages in the cleaning of the interiors of 
railcars after the transportation of chemicals. The site would clearly 
be considered an affected facility under the TEC effluent guidelines. 
An example of a site engaged in operations which could potentially 
overlap with other effluent guidelines and cause confusion for 
permitting authorities would be a facility which cleans the interiors 
of railcars prior to performing maintenance and rebuilding operations 
on the railcar.
    EPA is currently developing effluent limitations guidelines and 
standards for the Metal Products and Machinery (MP&M) industry. The 
MP&M category applies to industrial sites engaged in the manufacturing, 
maintaining or rebuilding of finished metal parts, products or 
machines. This regulation will apply to process wastewater discharges 
from sites performing manufacturing, rebuilding or maintenance on a 
metal part, product or machine to be used in one of the following 
industrial sectors: Aerospace; Aircraft; Electronic Equipment; 
Hardware; Mobile Industrial Equipment; Ordnance; Stationary Industrial 
Equipment; Bus and Truck; Household Equipment; Instruments; Motor 
Vehicle; Office Machine; Printed Wiring Boards; Job Shops; Precious 
Metals; Railroad; and Ships and Boats.
    Typical MP&M unit operations which may overlap with TEC operations 
include abrasive blasting, acid and alkaline cleaning, chemical 
conversion coating, corrosion preventive coating, and associated 
rinsing.
    There may be instances where facilities which predominately engage 
in cleaning operations perform ancillary MP&M operations on the barges, 
railcars, or tankers they are cleaning as a part of their TEC 
operations. EPA proposes that the process wastestreams from those 
ancillary MP&M activities be regulated solely by the TEC effluent 
guideline. Likewise, facilities which are predominately engaged in MP&M 
operations and clean barges, railcars, or tankers as part of those 
activities are proposed to be regulated by the MP&M guideline and are 
excluded from this guideline.
    EPA is soliciting comment from any industrial site which has the 
potential to be covered by TEC and MP&M but is uncertain as to their 
appropriate classification. Such facilities may supply information 
detailing what operations they are performing, and the volume and 
nature of wastewater generated from those operations. The Agency does 
recognize that the approach listed above requires the permitting 
authority to decide whether a facility is predominately engaged in 
either TEC or MP&M operations. The general pretreament regulations do 
set forth a procedure by which an industrial user may request that EPA 
or the State, as appropriate, provide a written certification as to 
whether the industrial user falls within a particular pretreatment 
subcategory (40 CFR 403.6) EPA is also soliciting comment from 
permitting authorities as to whether the approach outlined above will 
result in easier, or more difficult, implementation of the TEC and MP&M 
regulations, and on alternative applicability approaches.
    EPA also has considered establishing a minimum flow level for 
defining the scope of the regulation in order to ensure appropriate 
regulatory requirements for small businesses. EPA focused its analysis 
on the Truck/Chemical, Rail/Chemical and Barge/Chemical & Petroleum 
Subcategories because of the large population of facilities potentially 
affected by this proposal. The Agency's analysis found that 54 small 
facilities (about 7.8 percent of all regulated facilities) in the 
Truck/Chemical Subcategory have a wastewater flow of 8,000 gallons or 
less per day. These 54 small facilities (18.7 percent of the total 
facilities in the subcategory) discharge 56,900 toxic pounds or 14 
percent of the total discharge for the subcategory at the 8,000 gallons 
per day flow level. The Agency notes that the discharge of pollutants 
from small facilities constitutes a proportional amount of the 
pollutant loadings discharged in the subcategory. The Agency has also 
looked at 2,000, 4,000, and 6,000 gallons per day flow levels for this 
subcategory, in addition to conducting a similar analysis for the 
Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/Food Subcategories.
    In each case where EPA examined a potential flow cut off, the 
pollutant loadings discharged by smaller facilities were proportional 
to the loadings discharged by the subcategory as a whole. EPA concluded 
that there was no obvious breakpoint that could be used to establish an 
exclusion for small facilities that would not also exclude a 
proportional amount of pollutants discharged to the nation's waterways. 
For comparison, in the MP&M effluent guideline, EPA proposed a flow 
exclusion for small facilities. In this case, EPA demonstrated that 80 
percent of the total industry loadings were discharged by only 20 
percent of the MP&M facilities. EPA concluded that a minimum flow level 
was reasonable because excluding 80 percent of the facilities in the 
industry only excluded 20 percent of the pollutant loadings. However, 
in the case of the TEC industry, EPA has identified no similar 
rationale for providing such a low flow exclusion for small facilities. 
EPA is therefore not proposing to establish a minimum regulatory flow 
level for the TEC point source category.
    At the request of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel, EPA 
also estimated the effects of excluding all small businesses, defined 
as those with revenues under $5 million annually.

[[Page 34693]]

This would eliminate an estimated 191 of 692 facilities (28%) from 
coverage by the proposed rule, while eliminating 20 to 25 percent of 
the baseline toxic loadings. Thus, as with the flow based facility 
exclusion discussed above, this option would remove roughly a 
proportionate amount of both loadings and facilities from coverage. EPA 
is therefore not proposing to establish an exclusion for small 
businesses, but is soliciting comment on this option, or on any 
alternative approaches that the Agency may use to minimize impacts on 
small businesses.

IV. Profile of the Transportation Equipment Cleaning Industry

A. Transportation Equipment Cleaning Facilities

    The TEC industry includes facilities that generate wastewater from 
cleaning the interiors of tank trucks, closed-top hopper trucks, rail 
tank cars, closed-top hopper rail cars, intermodal tank containers, 
inland tank barges, closed-top hopper barges, ocean/sea tankers, and 
other similar tanks or containers used to transport cargos or 
commodities that come into direct contact with the tank or container 
interior. Transportation equipment cleaning is performed in order to 
prevent cross-contamination between products or commodities being 
transported in the tanks, containers, or hoppers, and to prepare 
transportation equipment for repair and maintenance activities such as 
welding. The cleaning activity is a necessary part of the 
transportation process.
    Based upon responses to EPA's 1994 Detailed Questionnaire for the 
Transportation Equipment Cleaning Industry (see discussion in Section 
V.B of this notice), the Agency estimates that there are approximately 
2,405 TEC facilities in the United States. This includes approximately 
1,166 previously regulated TEC facilities and 1,239 not previously 
regulated TEC facilities. Of the TEC facilities not previously 
regulated, EPA estimates that 692 facilities discharge to either a POTW 
or to surface waters. The remaining 547 facilities are considered zero 
discharging.
    TEC facilities are located in at least 37 states and in all 10 EPA 
regions. By state, the largest number of facilities are in Illinois. By 
EPA region, the largest concentration of facilities is in Region V 
(Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin). Most TEC 
facilities are located in the industrial portions of the United States.
    The TEC industry consists of facilities that vary in size from one-
or two-person shops to large corporations that operate many facilities 
nationwide. The TEC industry shows a correspondingly wide range of 
annual number of tanks cleaned by facilities, from less than 10 tanks 
per year to more than 10,000 tanks per year.
    Tank cleaning may be performed as a commercial activity or as an 
in-house cost of doing business. Additionally, the tanks being cleaned 
may be owned by the facilities performing cleaning or may be owned by 
their customers. Overall, the TEC industry is characterized by a large 
number of facilities that clean relatively few tanks and a small number 
of facilities that clean a relatively large number of tanks.
    The TEC industry consists of distinct transportation sectors: the 
trucking sector, the rail sector, and the barge shipping sector. Each 
one of these sectors may have different technical and economic 
characteristics. The transportation industry transports a wide variety 
of commodities, and TEC facilities therefore clean tanks and containers 
with residues (heels) from a broad spectrum of commodities such as 
food-grade products, petroleum-based commodities, organic chemicals, 
inorganic chemicals, soaps and detergents, latex and resins, hazardous 
wastes, and dry bulk commodities. TEC facilities also vary greatly in 
the level of wastewater treatment that they currently have in place. 
Treatment at existing TEC facilities ranges from no treatment to 
advanced tertiary treatment. The majority of TEC facilities discharging 
to surface waters currently employ primary treatment such as oil water 
separation or gravity separation followed by biological treatment. 
Indirect discharging facilities typically employ some form of primary 
treatment, such as oil water separation, gravity separation, dissolved 
air flotation, or coagulation and flocculation. A relatively small 
number of direct and indirect currently facilities currently employ 
advanced tertiary treatment such as activated carbon adsorption.
    In 1994, approximately 2,440,000 tanks and containers were cleaned 
in the U.S by not previously regulated TEC facilities. Of all tanks 
cleaned commercially, tank trucks account for approximately 87 percent, 
intermediate bulk containers account for three percent, closed-top 
hopper trucks account for three percent, intermodal tank containers 
account for three percent, and rail tank cars account for two percent. 
The remaining tank types each account for less than one percent of all 
tanks cleaned. Approximately 52 percent of TEC facilities clean a 
variety of cargo types. Approximately 31 percent clean only food grade 
products, beverages, and animal and vegetable oils (food grade 
facilities), approximately eight percent clean only petroleum and coal 
products (petroleum facilities), and approximately two percent clean 
only dry bulk cargos.
    The majority of TEC facilities discharge their wastewater 
indirectly to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW). EPA estimates 
that there are 669 indirect discharging TEC facilities. A smaller 
number, approximately 23, discharge wastewater directly to surface 
waters of the United States.
    EPA estimates that there are approximately 547 facilities which are 
considered zero or alternative dischargers and do not discharge 
wastewater directly to surface waters or indirectly to a POTW. Methods 
of zero or alternative discharge in use by the TEC industry include 
applying wastewater to land, hauling wastewater off-site to other 
treatment works (e.g., Centralized Waste Treatment Works (CWT) or 
hazardous waste Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs)), 
deep well injecting wastewater, sending wastewater to an on-site 
evaporation pond or mat, or employing total recycle/reuse of 
wastewater.

B. Transportation Equipment Cleaning Processes

    Interior cleaning of cargo tanks and containers is conducted for 
two primary reasons: to prevent contamination between cargos and to 
facilitate internal inspection and repair. An additional purpose of 
tank cleaning is to render the tank interior nonexplosive and 
nonflammable to provide a safe environment for manual cleaning and for 
tank repairs that require ``hot work'' (e.g., welding or cutting).
    Although different types of tanks are cleaned in various manners, 
the basic cleaning process for each tank is similar. A typical tank 
cleaning process is as follows:

    <bullet> Identify the cargo last transported in the tank;
    <bullet> Determine the next cargo to be transported;
    <bullet> Drain the tank heel (residual cargo) and, if necessary, 
segregate the heel for off-site disposal;
    <bullet> Rinse the tank (pre-rinse);
    <bullet> Wash the tank using one or more cleaning methods and 
solutions;
    <bullet> Rinse the tank; and
    <bullet> Dry the tank.

    The cleaning facility determines the cargo last transported in the 
tank to: (1) Assess the facility's ability to clean the tank 
efficiently; (2) determine the appropriate cleaning sequence and

[[Page 34694]]

cleaning solutions; (3) evaluate whether the residue cleaned from the 
tank will be compatible with the facility's wastewater treatment 
system; and (4) establish an appropriate level of health and safety 
protection for the employees who will clean the tank. The next cargo to 
be transported in the tank is identified to determine if the available 
level of cleaning at the facility is adequate to prevent contamination 
of the next cargo. The facility may decide to not clean a tank based on 
any of the preceding concerns.
    Once a tank has been accepted for cleaning, the facility checks the 
volume of heel (residual cargo) in the tank and determines an 
appropriate heel disposal method. Any water-soluble heels that are 
compatible with the facility's treatment system and the conditions of 
the facility's wastewater discharge permit are usually combined with 
other wastewater for treatment and discharge at the facility. 
Incompatible heels are segregated into drums or tanks for disposal or 
re-use by alternative means, which may include re-use onsite, return to 
consignee, sale to a reclamation facility, landfilling, or 
incineration. The TEC facility may re-use heels such as soaps, 
detergents, solvents, acids, or alkalis as tank cleaning solutions or 
as neutralizers for future heels and for wastewater treatment.
    Cleaning processes vary among facilities depending on available 
cleaning equipment, the cargos last transported in the tanks to be 
cleaned, and the state of the product last transported in the tank. 
Some residuals require only a water rinse (e.g., sugar), while others 
require a detergent or strong caustic solution followed by a final 
water rinse (e.g., latex or resins). Hardened or caked-on products 
sometimes require extended processing time or special cleaning 
equipment. Typical cleaning equipment includes low- or high-pressure 
spinner nozzles or hand-held wands and nozzles. Spinner nozzles, which 
are operated through the main tank hatch, are designed to rotate in an 
overlapping spray pattern that cleans the entire interior of the tank. 
Operating cycles range from rinse bursts to 20 minutes or longer 
caustic washes. Washing with hand-held wands and nozzles achieves the 
same result as with high-pressure spinner nozzles, but requires 
facility personnel to manually direct the wash solution across the 
interior surface of the tank. After cleaning, tanks are usually dried 
and inspected.
    Section 4.0 of the Technical Development Document contains a more 
detailed description of the TEC industry and the unique cleaning 
processes used for different types of tanks and cargos.

C. Regulatory History for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning 
Industry

    In 1986, EPA published the Domestic Sewage Study ``Report to 
Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous Wastes to Publicly Owned 
Treatment Works'' (EPA-503/SW-86-004, February 1986), which identified 
TEC facilities as potentially contributing large amounts of hazardous 
wastes to POTWs.
    In response to the Domestic Sewage Study, EPA conducted a sampling 
program to obtain and analyze wastewater and wastewater treatment 
sludge samples at eight TEC facilities. During this program, EPA 
sampled one aircraft, three tank truck, two rail tank car, and two tank 
barge cleaning facilities. Raw TEC wastewater samples and, where 
appropriate, treated effluent and sludge samples were collected at each 
facility. In addition, EPA's Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure 
was used to obtain extracts of sludge samples for analysis. The samples 
were analyzed for analytes in the 1987 Industrial Technology Division 
List of Analytes. This list contains conventional pollutants and EPA's 
priority toxic pollutants (excluding fecal coliform bacteria and 
asbestos) as well as 285 other organic and inorganic nonconventional 
pollutants or pollutant characteristics. These additional pollutants 
were derived from other EPA lists, including the Superfund Hazardous 
Substance List, RCRA Appendix VIII and Appendix IX, and the list of 
analytes proposed to be added to RCRA Appendix VII by the Michigan 
Petition (49 FR 49793).
    EPA also investigated the size of the TEC industry by identifying 
TEC facilities from several sources, including trade publications, Dun 
& Bradstreet, EPA's Permit Compliance System, trade associations, state 
regulatory agencies, and the U.S. Coast Guard. Using the wastewater 
sampling data and industry size data, EPA estimated the total discharge 
of pollutants from the TEC industry and performed an environmental 
impact analysis.
    In 1989, EPA published the ``Preliminary Data Summary for the 
Transportation Equipment Cleaning Industry'' (EPA 440/1-89/104, 1989) 
which summarized the findings of the 1986-87 study and forms the basis 
for EPA's decision to develop effluent guidelines specifically for the 
TEC point source category. A description of EPA's data gathering 
efforts on the TEC industry since completion of the 1986-1987 study is 
provided in Section V below.

V. Summary of Data Collection Activities

    EPA collected data necessary to develop effluent limitations 
guidelines and standards for the TEC point source category from many 
sources, including questionnaires and EPA's sampling program. This 
section of the preamble summarizes these data-collection activities, 
which are further discussed in Section 3.0 of the Technical Development 
Document.

A. Preliminary Data Summary

    Prior to 1992, EPA conducted two studies of the TEC industry. The 
first study was performed during the 1973-1974 period for the 
Transportation Industry Point Source Category. Information was obtained 
from only a few TEC facilities and was limited to conventional 
pollutants. The study was not specific to TEC processes and wastewaters 
and did not result in any regulations for the TEC industry. The second 
study was performed during the 1986-87 period in response to the 
Domestic Sewage Study (DSS), which found that TEC facilities discharged 
high levels of conventional, toxic, and nonconventional pollutants in 
raw and treated wastewaters. The study focused on characterizing raw 
wastewater at eight TEC facilities, and, where appropriate, treated 
effluent and sludge samples. The second study also included a 
preliminary investigation to determine the size of the TEC industry by 
identifying TEC facilities. The resulting TEC wastewater sampling data 
and industry size data were used to estimate the total discharge of 
priority toxic pollutants from the TEC point source category and to 
perform an environmental impacts analysis. The results of the study 
were published in the Preliminary Data Summary for the Transportation 
Equipment Cleaning Industry in September of 1989 (EPA 44/1-89/104), 
which formed the basis for EPA's decision to develop effluent 
guidelines specifically for the TEC industry.

B. Development of the TECI Site Identification Database

    The first phase of data collection for development of effluent 
limitation guidelines for the TEC industry entailed a comprehensive 
search to identify facilities that potentially perform TEC operations. 
EPA identified all potential segments within the TEC industry and then 
attempted to identify all facilities or a statistical sample of all 
facilities that potentially perform TEC operations

[[Page 34695]]

within each industry segment. The TEC industry is characterized by 
industry segments based on tank type cleaned and business operational 
structure. Tank types initially considered within the potential scope 
of the TEC industry include tank trucks, closed-top hopper tank trucks, 
intermodal tank containers, intermediate bulk containers, rail tank 
cars, closed-top hopper rail cars, inland tank barges, closed-top 
hopper barges, ocean/sea tankers, and other similar tanks (excluding 
drums). Business operational structures include independents, carriers, 
shippers, and builders/leasers.
    EPA was unaware of any single source or set of sources that 
specifically identify facilities that perform TEC operations. Likewise, 
there is no single Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code or set 
of SIC codes that specifically identify facilities that perform TEC 
operations. Therefore, EPA performed an exhaustive search to identify 
all available sources listing facilities that potentially perform TEC 
operations. These sources included transportation industry directories, 
Dun & Bradstreet's Information Services, several Agency databases, 
state and local authorities, trade journals, and trade associations. 
Some sources specifically identified facilities that perform TEC 
operations. Other sources identified potential TEC facilities by one or 
more of the following criteria: (1) They own, operate, or maintain 
transportation equipment; (2) they own, operate, or maintain equipment 
used by the transportation segments applicable to the TEC industry; or 
(3) they report under an SIC code that includes facilities that have 
the potential to own, operate, or maintain transportation equipment.
    Listings of facilities that potentially perform TEC operations were 
entered into the TECI Site Identification Database. The database 
contains information for 7,940 facilities that represent a total 
potential industry population of 30,280 facilities (for some sources, 
only a portion (i.e., a statistical sample) of the total available 
records were received and entered into the database). This database 
formed the basis of EPA's statistical sample frame for subsequent data-
gathering activities.

C. Survey Questionnaires

    Industry responses to questionnaires administered by EPA under the 
authority of Section 308 of the Clean Water Act were a major source of 
information and data used in developing the proposed TEC industry 
effluent limitations guidelines and standards. EPA administered two 
questionnaires to the TEC industry--the 1993 screener questionnaire and 
the 1994 detailed questionnaire.
1. 1993 Transportation Equipment Cleaning Industry Screener 
Questionnaire
    EPA developed a screener questionnaire to distribute to a 
statistical sample of all facilities that potentially perform TEC 
operations. The objectives of the questionnaire were to: (1) Identify 
facilities that perform TEC operations; (2) evaluate TEC facilities 
based on wastewater, economic, and/or operational characteristics; (3) 
develop technical and economic profiles of the TEC industry; (4) select 
a statistical sample of screener respondents to receive a detailed 
questionnaire; and (5) select facilities for EPA's TEC industry 
engineering site visit and sampling program.
    EPA developed the screener questionnaire for the TEC industry based 
on experience with previous screener questionnaires from other point 
source categories. The Agency requested site-specific 1992 calendar 
year information in the four-page screener questionnaire. Information 
requested included facility name, address, contact person, owner, 
number of employees, annual revenues, and operational structure (e.g., 
carrier, independent). Also included were questions concerning TEC 
operations such as whether the facility performs TEC operations, 
generates TEC process wastewater, discharge information (type and daily 
volume), number of tank interior cleanings performed by tank type, 
percentage of tank interior cleanings performed by cargo type, types of 
cleaning processes performed, and treatment technologies or disposal 
methods on-site.
    The screener questionnaire was sent to a stratified random sample 
of 3,240 facilities identified from the TECI Site Identification 
Database. The Agency did not mail screener questionnaires to all 7,940 
potential tank interior cleaning facilities in the TECI Site 
Identification Database; however, the Agency believed that a sample 
size of 3,240 would sufficiently represent the variety of technical and 
economic characteristics of the TEC industry and meet the objectives of 
the screener questionnaire while minimizing the burden to both industry 
and government. EPA used facility type (e.g., tank truck cleaning, rail 
tank car cleaning, tank barge cleaning, and transfer facilities) and 
level of assurance (i.e., the probability that the facility performs 
TEC operations) as criteria to select facilities to receive a screener 
questionnaire. These criteria were chosen to account for both the 
diverse nature of the TEC industry and the varying reliability of the 
sources used to develop the TECI Site Identification Database. 
Additional detail concerning selection of the statistical sample of 
facilities to receive a screener questionnaire is included in Section 
V.D of this preamble.
    EPA received responses from 730 of these facilities that indicated 
that they performed TEC operations and generated TEC wastewater (i.e., 
in scope responses). These facilities represent an estimated TEC 
industry population of 2,739 facilities. The distribution of estimated 
industry population by industry segment are as follows:

                     Table 2.--Population Estimates                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Estimated 
                                                                total   
                      Industry segment                        number of 
                                                              facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barge......................................................           72
Truck......................................................        2,432
Rail.......................................................          189
Transfer Stations..........................................           46
                                                            ------------
      Total................................................        2,739
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. 1994 Transportation Equipment Cleaning Industry Detailed 
Questionnaire
    EPA developed a detailed questionnaire for distribution to a 
statistical sample of facilities that perform TEC operations and 
generate TEC wastewater. The objectives of the questionnaire were to: 
(1) Develop an industry profile; (2) characterize TEC processes, 
industry production (i.e., number and type(s) of tanks cleaned), and 
water usage and wastewater treatment; (3) perform an industry 
subcategorization analysis; (4) develop pollutant loadings and 
reductions estimates; (5) develop compliance cost estimates; and (6) 
determine the impacts of the rulemaking on the TEC industry.
    The Agency developed the detailed questionnaire to collect 
information necessary to develop effluent limitations guidelines and 
standards for the TEC point source category. The detailed questionnaire 
included two parts: (1) Part A: Technical Information and (2) Part B: 
Financial and Economic Information. Technical information collected was 
specific to calendar year 1994. Financial and economic information 
collected was specific to calendar years 1992 through 1994. In part A, 
EPA requested information necessary to identify the facility and to 
determine wastewater discharge locations. It also requested information 
necessary to develop an industry profile, characterize TEC processes 
and

[[Page 34696]]

production, and perform an industry subcategorization analysis. 
Information regarding wastewater generation, wastewater recycle/reuse, 
treatment technologies currently in place, the availability of 
wastewater stream characterization data and/or treatability data, use 
of pollution prevention, and water conservation activities were also 
requested. In part B, EPA requested information necessary to identify 
the facility and facility's corporate hierarchy, to develop an industry 
economic profile, and to assess facility-level, business entity-level, 
and corporate parent-level economic impacts associated with TEC 
industry effluent guidelines.
    The Agency sent the Detailed Questionnaire to a stratified random 
sample of 275 facilities that perform TEC operations and generate TEC 
wastewater as identified from responses to the TECI screener 
questionnaire. The following four variables were considered (although 
not necessarily directly selected as basis for sample stratification) 
in selecting facilities to receive a detailed questionnaire: tank type, 
operational structure, number of employees, and treatment in place. 
Each of the potential detailed questionnaire recipients was classified 
based on these four variables. Facilities with multiple classifications 
were assigned a primary classification. The sampling strategy was 
designed to meet two objectives most effectively: (1) to ensure that at 
least one facility was sampled from most cells (i.e., combinations of 
the four variables listed above), and (2) to ensure the variance around 
the national estimates would not be grossly inflated in attempting to 
meet the first objective.
    EPA received responses from 176 of these facilities that were used 
in subsequent analyses. During review of the detailed questionnaire 
responses, EPA classified each facility into one of the following 
categories:
    (1) Direct or Indirect Discharge: TEC facilities that discharge 
wastewaters directly to surface waters or indirectly to a POTW that are 
not located at industrial facilities covered under existing effluent 
guidelines.
    (2) Zero or Alternative Discharge: TEC facilities that do not 
discharge wastewater to U.S. surface waters or to a POTW, including 
facilities that haul TEC wastewater off site to a Centralized Waste 
Treatment facility, practice total wastewater recycle/reuse, or land 
apply TEC wastewater.
    (3) Previously Regulated Facilities: Industrial facilities that are 
covered by existing or upcoming effluent guidelines which also generate 
transportation equipment cleaning wastewaters. TEC operations are a 
very small part of their overall operations. These include facilities 
subject to the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers 
Effluent Guidelines, Dairies Effluent Guidelines, Centralized Waste 
Treaters Effluent Guidelines, and Metals Products and Machinery 
Effluent Guidelines.

Table 3.--National Estimates of TEC Industry Population by Facility Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Estimated  
                                                             number of  
                      Facility type                        facilities in
                                                               total    
                                                            population  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct or Indirect Discharge............................             692
Zero Discharge..........................................             547
Previously regulated....................................           1,166
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table 4.--National Estimated TEC Industry Population by Subcategory for
               all TEC Facilities Not Previously Regulated              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Estimated  
                                                             number of  
                       Subcategory                         facilities in
                                                               total    
                                                           population <SUP>a 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truck/Chemical..........................................             288
Rail/Chemical...........................................              38
Barge/Chemical & Petroleum..............................              15
Truck/Food..............................................             173
Rail/Food...............................................              86
Barge/Food..............................................               2
Truck/Petroleum.........................................              34
Rail/Petroleum..........................................               3
Truck/Hopper............................................              34
Rail/Hopper.............................................               5
Barge/Hopper............................................              12
                                                         ---------------
    Total...............................................             692
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<SUP>a Differences occur due to rounding.                                    

    As evidenced by the data collection activities undertaken by EPA, 
the Agency has attempted to develop accurate population estimates for 
each subcategory. The Agency solicits comment and sources of data which 
may provide additional information on the population of affected 
facilities.

D. Development of National Population Estimates

    As discussed previously, EPA distributed screener questionnaires to 
a statistical sample of all facilities that potentially perform TEC 
operations. EPA then distributed detailed questionnaires to a 
statistical sample of facilities that perform TEC operations and 
generated TEC wastewater as identified by responses to the screener 
questionnaires. This section describes EPA's approach in developing 
national population estimates for the TEC industry based on these 
statistical samples. Section 3.0 of the Technical Development Document 
and the Statistical Support Document contained in the administrative 
record for this rule contain additional detail concerning development 
of national population estimates.
    EPA considered each source used to develop the TEC industry Site 
Identification Database to be a statistical ``stratum.'' EPA selected a 
simple random sample of facilities from each stratum to receive a 
screener questionnaire. Following this approach, each sampled facility 
can be used to characterize other facilities within the same stratum. 
For example, if a sampled facility falls within stratum ``A'' and the 
``weight'' of that stratum is five, the responses received from that 
facility represent a total of five facilities in the overall TEC 
industry population. Following receipt of the screener questionnaire 
responses (to account for non-respondents), EPA determined a weight 
associated with each stratum using the following equation:

Stratum Weight = N<INF>h</INF>/n<INF>h</INF>

Where:
N<INF>h</INF> = Total number of facilities in stratum.
n<INF>h</INF> = Number of facilities that responded to the screener 
questionnaire.

    Note that several screener questionnaire strata with similar 
weighting factors were collapsed into a single stratum, and assigned a 
conglomerated weighting factor for the entire collapsed stratum, to 
reduce the variability of the population estimates.
    The approach used to develop TEC industry population estimates 
based on the detailed questionnaire responses is similar to that used 
for the screener questionnaire, with two differences. One, EPA 
developed additional strata to ensure selection of adequate sample 
populations within the following four variables: tank type, operational 
structure, number of employees, and wastewater treatment in place. Two, 
the statistical methodology used to account for non-respondents was 
based on facility subcategory rather than stratum.

E. Site Visits and Wastewater Sampling Program

    EPA conducted 39 engineering site visits at 38 facilities from 1993 
through 1996 to collect information about TEC processes, water use 
practices, pollution prevention practices, wastewater treatment 
technologies, and waste disposal methods. These facilities were also 
visited to evaluate them for potential future sampling. In general, EPA 
visited facilities that encompass

[[Page 34697]]

the range of TEC facilities, including tank type cleaned, cargo 
cleaned, operational structure, discharge status, and wastewater 
treatment in place.
    EPA conducted 20 sampling episodes at 18 facilities (two facilities 
were sampled twice) from 1994 through 1996. Sampling episodes were 
conducted to: (1) Characterize the pollutants in the wastewater being 
discharged directly to surface waters and indirectly to POTWs; and (2) 
generate pollutant treatment system performance data from facilities 
with well-operated wastewater treatment systems. The Agency used the 
same general criteria to select facilities for sampling as those used 
to select facilities for site visits. Of these sampling episodes, 12 
were conducted to obtain untreated TEC process wastewater and treated 
final effluent characterization data from facilities representative of 
the variety of TEC facilities. Wastewater treatment sludge was also 
characterized at two of the 12 facilities to determine whether the 
sludge was hazardous. Each of these ``characterization'' sampling 
episodes comprised one sampling day.
    EPA conducted eight additional sampling episodes to obtain both 
untreated TEC process wastewater characterization data and to evaluate 
the effectiveness and variability of wastewater treatment units used to 
treat TEC wastewater. Of these eight sampling episodes, one was 
conducted for one day, two were conducted for three days each, four 
were conducted for four days each, and one was conducted for five days.
    At several facilities, sampled waste streams included TEC 
wastewater commingled with other wastewater sources including exterior 
cleaning wastewater, boiler wastewater, and contaminated storm water. 
At one facility, boiler condensate was sampled to characterize this 
waste stream. Waste stream samples were typically analyzed for volatile 
organics, semivolatile organics, organo-halide pesticides, organo-
phosphorus pesticides, phenoxy-acid herbicides, dioxins and furans, 
metals, and classical wet chemistry parameters. The analytes typically 
found in TEC wastewaters are discussed in Section VII of this preamble 
and in the Technical Development Document.

VI. Industry Subcategorization

    For today's proposal, EPA considered whether a single set of 
effluent limitations and standards should be established for this 
industry, or whether different limitations and standards were 
appropriate for subcategories within the industry. In reaching its 
decision that subcategorization is required, EPA considered various 
factors. The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires EPA, in developing effluent 
limitations, to assess several factors including manufacturing 
processes, products, the size and age of the facility, wastewater use, 
and wastewater characteristics. The TEC industry, however, is not 
typical of many of the other industries regulated under the CWA because 
it does not produce a product. Therefore, EPA developed additional 
factors that specifically address the characteristics of TEC 
operations. Similarly, several factors typically considered for 
subcategorization of manufacturing facilities were not considered 
applicable to this industry. The factors considered for 
subcategorization are listed below:
    (1) Cleaning processes (production processes);
    (2) Tank type cleaned;
    (3) Cargo type cleaned;
    (4) Water use practices;
    (5) Wastewater characteristics;
    (6) Facility age;
    (7) Facility size;
    (8) Geographical location;
    (9) Water pollution control technologies;
    (10) Treatment costs; and
    (11) Non-water quality impacts.

A. Factors Considered for Basis of Subcategorization

    EPA considered a number of potential subcategorization approaches 
for the TEC industry. EPA used information collected during 39 
engineering site visits, the 1993 screener questionnaire for the TEC 
industry, and the 1994 Detailed Questionnaire for the TEC industry to 
develop potential subcategorization approaches. EPA considered eleven 
factors in developing its subcategorization scheme for the TEC 
industry. A discussion of each is presented below.
1. Cleaning Processes
    EPA considered subcategorizing the TEC industry based on the 
cleaning process used. Cleaning processes vary among facilities 
depending on the type of tank cleaned and the type of cargo last 
transported in the tank. Cleaning can be performed using many types of 
cleaning equipment including low or high pressure spinner nozzles, 
hand-held wands and nozzles, steam cleaning equipment, or manual 
cleaning with scouring pads or shovels. Typical cleaning solutions 
include detergents, acids, caustics, solvents, or other chemical 
cleaning solutions. The cleaning process used depends greatly on the 
type of cargo last hauled in the tank. Certain residual material (e.g., 
sugar) only require a water rinse, while other residual materials 
(e.g., latexes or resins) require a detergent or strong caustic 
solution followed by a final water rinse. The state of the product last 
contained in the tank also affects the cleaning process. Hardened or 
caked-on products sometime require additional processing time, or may 
require manual cleaning. For each type of tank cleaned and cargo 
hauled, the selection of cleaning processes among available 
alternatives can affect the volume of wastewater generated and the 
constituents of that wastewater. Flow restriction and the availability 
of less harmful cleaning solutions as methods of pollution prevention 
and source control should be considered pollutant control technologies, 
rather than a defining production characteristic. EPA has decided that 
subcategorizing the TEC industry based on cleaning processes is not an 
appropriate means of subcategorization, and considered 
subcategorization based on either type of tank cleaned or type of cargo 
transported.
2. Tank Type Cleaned
    EPA considered subcategorizing the TEC industry based on the type 
of tank cleaned. Facilities responding to the TEC industry Detailed 
Questionnaire reported cleaning nine primary tank types. The tank types 
reported by respondents are: (1) Tank truck; (2) intermediate bulk 
container; (3) intermodal tank container; (4) closed-top hopper truck; 
(5) rail tank car; (6) ocean/sea tanker; (7) closed-top hopper barge; 
(8) closed-top hopper rail car; and (9) inland tank barge. Based on 
data obtained in the TEC industry Detailed Questionnaire, approximately 
87 percent of all tanks cleaned are tank trucks. Intermediate bulk 
containers, intermodal tank containers, and closed-top hopper trucks 
each account for three percent of all tanks cleaned. Rail tank cars 
comprise two percent and inland tank barges, ocean/sea tankers, closed-
top hopper rail cars, and closed-top hopper barges each comprise less 
than one percent of all tanks cleaned. Seventy-four percent of all 
facilities responding to the TEC industry Detailed Questionnaire clean 
only one primary tank type. An additional 12 percent of facilities 
clean both tanks and closed-top hoppers within the same mode of 
transport. Only one percent of responding facilities clean tank types 
with multiple modes of transport and an additional 13 percent of 
responding facilities clean miscellaneous combinations of tank types 
within the same mode of transport.
    For each type of tank cleaned, the heel volume and availability of

[[Page 34698]]

wastewater flow minimization techniques vary, which may affect 
wastewater treatment efficiency.
    EPA has preliminarily concluded that subcategorizing the TEC 
industry based, in part, on the type of tank cleaned is an appropriate 
means of subcategorization due to these differences. Additionally, the 
vast majority of facilities clean tanks within the same mode of 
transport and are thus easily identified according to the tank type 
cleaned.
    3. Cargo Type Cleaned
    EPA considered subcategorizing the TEC industry based on the cargo 
type cleaned. Respondents to the TEC industry Detailed Questionnaire 
reporting cleaning tanks which transported 15 general cargo types. The 
reported cargo types are listed below:
    <bullet> Group A--Food Grade Products, Beverages, and Animal and 
Vegetable Oils;
    <bullet> Group B--Petroleum and Coal Products;
    <bullet> Group C--Latex, Rubber and Resins;
    <bullet> Group D--Soaps and Detergents;
    <bullet> Group E--Biodegradable Organic Chemicals;
    <bullet> Group F--Refractory (Nonbiodegradable) Organic Chemicals;
    <bullet> Group
    <bullet> G--Inorganic Chemicals;
    <bullet> Group H--Agricultural Chemicals and Fertilizers;
    <bullet> Group I--Chemical Products;
    <bullet> Group J--Hazardous Waste (as defined by RCRA in 40 CFR 
Part 261);
    <bullet> Group K--Nonhazardous Waste;
    <bullet> Group L--Dry Bulk Cargos (i.e., hopper cars); and
    <bullet> Group M, N, and O--Other (Not Elsewhere Classified).

    Of all responding TEC facilities not previously regulated, 48 
percent clean only one cargo type while 52 percent clean a variety of 
cargo types. Of the facilities that reported cleaning only one cargo 
type, 65 percent reported cleaning food grade products, beverages, and 
animal and vegetable oils (Group A), 16 percent reported cleaning 
petroleum and coal products (Group B), and 10 percent reported cleaning 
``other cargos'' (Groups M, N and O). A review of the data for 
facilities that clean two or more cargos suggests that no apparent 
trend in cargo types cleaned, but rather a wide variety of combinations 
of ``chemical-type'' cargos.
    There are several reasons to consider subcategorization based on 
type of cargo. Facilities that clean tanks which contained only food 
grade products (Group A), petroleum grade products (Group B), or dry 
bulk goods (Group L) represent distinct and relatively large segments 
of the TEC industry that differ significantly from facilities that 
clean tanks containing a wide variety of cargos. The type of cargo 
transported and the type of cleaning processes utilized influences 
wastewater characteristics. EPA therefore concluded that 
subcategorization of the TEC industry based, in part, on cargo type may 
be an appropriate means of subcategorization.
    EPA was not able to identify any other distinct segments of the TEC 
industry among the remaining groups which included Latex, Rubber and 
Resins (Group C), Soaps and Detergents (Group D), Biodegradable Organic 
Chemicals (Group E), Refractory (Nonbiodegradable) Organic Chemicals 
(Group F), Inorganic Chemicals (Group G), Agricultural Chemicals and 
Fertilizers (Group H), Chemical Products (Group I), Hazardous Waste 
(Group J), Nonhazardous Waste (Group K), and Groups M, N, and O 
consisting of cargos not elsewhere classified. EPA concluded that 
facilities which do not clean primarily food grade products (Group A), 
petroleum grade products (Group B), or dry bulk goods (Group L) are 
likely to clean a wide variety of cargos types consisting of various 
combination of cargos types products. EPA has therefore created a 
subcategory termed ``chemical'' for any facility that cleans a wide 
variety of cargos and commodities.
    EPA has then defined a ``chemical'' cargo as including Latex, 
Rubber and Resins, Soaps and Detergents, Biodegradable Organic 
Chemicals, Refractory (Nonbiodegradable) Organic Chemicals, Inorganic 
Chemicals, Agricultural Chemicals and Fertilizers, Chemical Products, 
Hazardous Waste, Nonhazardous Waste, and any other cargo not elsewhere 
classified. In summary, the ``chemical'' classification includes any 
cargo or commodity not defined as a food grade product, petroleum grade 
product, or dry bulk good. EPA has placed any facility in a Chemical 
Subcategory if 10 percent or more of the total tanks cleaned at that 
facility in an average year contained chemical cargos or commodities.
    EPA originally considered developing separate subcategories for 
barge chemical and barge petroleum facilities. However, based on raw 
wastewater characterization data collected in support of this proposed 
rule, EPA concluded that the wastewater characteristics and 
treatability of wastewaters generated from barge chemical and barge 
petroleum facilities were similar, and thus it was reasonable to 
combine these subcategories. As mentioned previously in Section III, 
EPA is soliciting comments and data that would address whether the 
Truck/Chemical and Truck/Petroleum Subcategories should be combined; 
and whether the Rail/Chemical and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories should 
also be combined.
    As described in Section VII of this notice, Wastewater Use and 
Characterization, the data collected from the Truck/Chemical and Truck/
Petroleum Subcategories, and the Rail/Chemical and Rail/Petroleum 
Subcategories did not conclusively support combining these 
subcategories. However, sampling data obtained from the Centralized 
Waste Treatment Industry was used to characterize TEC wastewater for 
the Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories. Therefore, the 
Agency is soliciting comment and data on this preliminary conclusion 
that the Truck/Chemical and Truck/Petroleum Subcategories; and Rail/
Chemical and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories, should not be combined.
    Additionally, while the Agency has proposed definitions for 
``petroleum'' and ``chemical'' cargos, the Agency realizes that there 
may be cargos, especially various ``petrochemical'' cargos, which may 
not obviously be categorized as one type or the other. The 
determination of whether a facility is accepting ``petroleum'' or 
``chemical'' cargos may be critical, due to the fact that the Agency 
has not proposed regulation for the petroleum subcategory. The Agency 
is concerned that this determination may be difficult and burdensome 
for the permitting authority and the affected facility. The Agency 
solicits comment from permitting authorities and affected facilities on 
the implementation issues surrounding the proposed subcategorization 
approach, especially with regard to the chemical and petroleum 
subcategories.
    In order to address these concerns, the Agency has considered 
combining the petroleum and chemical subcategories and establishing one 
set of effluent limitations for facilities accepting chemical or 
petroleum cargos. EPA solicits comment on this alternative approach.
    As part of today's proposal, the Agency calculated pollutant 
loadings for each option in each subcategory, as described in section 
VIII of this notice. The loadings calculations were used as a parameter 
for evaluating technology options in each subcategory. The Agency notes 
that a substantial amount of the toxic pounds-equivalent of pollutants 
removed in several subcategories are due to the removals of

[[Page 34699]]

a few pesticides found in the raw wastewater at one or two facilities. 
Specifically, about 90% of the toxic removals estimated for 288 
indirect dischargers in the truck chemical subcategory are accounted 
for by 6 pesticides (Azinphos Ethyl, Coumaphos, Disulfoton, EPN, 4,4'-
DDT, and Dieldrin--note that the latter three have been banned for a 
number of years); and about 80% of the toxic removals estimated for the 
38 indirect dischargers in the rail chemical subcategory are accounted 
for by 3 pesticides (Dieldrin, Simazine, and Strobane). Pesticides are 
fairly toxic and generally have high toxic weighting factors. 
Relatively small removals in terms of loadings can result in 
significant reductions in toxic impacts. Because most of the projected 
toxic removals for indirect dischargers in the truck and rail chemical 
subcategories come from a few pesticides, the Agency solicits comment 
on an alternative regulatory approach that would establish separate 
subcategories for such facilities which accept tanks containing 
pesticide-containing cargos for cleaning.
    This approach was discussed at some length by the Small Business 
Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel in its consideration of options that might 
provide relief to small businesses, and was specifically endorsed by 
SBA. If the Agency were to pursue this approach, it might decide to 
establish a set of effluent limitations guidelines for a variety of 
pesticides for any facility that accepts, or potentially accepts, 
cargos which have transported pesticides. The Agency is concerned, 
however, that it may be difficult to define a subcategory for 
pesticide-containing cargos, because the exact source of pesticides 
found in TEC wastewater samples has often been difficult to establish. 
Furthermore, if the Agency were to set limits for pesticides, it would 
need to require monitoring for pesticides, which is generally more 
expensive than monitoring for the parameters regulated under the 
current approach. (Note that although pesticides are among the 
pollutants of concern, the Agency is not currently proposing to 
establish limits for pesticides; rather the Agency is establishing 
limits for other pollutants of concern, which it believes will also 
ensure that treatment adequate to control pesticides is adopted.) Thus, 
the Agency does not know how many of the estimated 326 indirect 
dischargers in the truck chemical and rail chemical subcategories would 
actually benefit from such an approach, and how many might incur higher 
monitoring costs because they clean some tanks with pesticide residues. 
EPA requests comment on this issue. EPA would specifically be 
interested to know whether indirect dischargers in these two 
subcategories believe such an approach would be workable, and whether 
there is a significant number of such facilities that do not handle any 
tanks that might contain pesticide residues. For those facilities that 
do handle tanks containing pesticide residues, EPA would like to know 
what percentage of tanks cleaned might contain such residues. EPA might 
use this information to define a subcategory for facilities with more 
than a certain percentage of such tanks, in the same way that it is 
currently defining the chemical subcategories as including facilities 
for which more than 10% of tanks cleaned had chemical cargos.
    This approach may also result in the Agency pursuing a less 
stringent regulatory technology option for those facilities which do 
not accept pesticide containing cargos. The SBAR Panel recommended that 
EPA request comment on whether the remaining loadings of non-pesticide 
chemicals for indirect dischargers in the truck and rail subcategories 
warrant regulation. The Agency is thus soliciting comment on the 
loading reduction estimates, cost-effectiveness and benefits to the 
environment and POTWs of non-pesticide chemical removals. Note that in 
these subcategories in today's notice, EPA is not proposing effluent 
limitations guidelines and standards for any pesticide, nor is it 
proposing to establish a subcategory for pesticide cargos. Concern has 
also been expressed about the representativeness of the samples on 
which the pesticide removal estimated are based. Because pesticides are 
highly toxic and thus of particular concern, the Agency modified its 
screening criteria for including samples in which pesticides were 
detected in its loadings and removals analysis. In general, in order to 
ensure that detections are representative of the industry and present 
at treatable concentrations, contaminants are only included in the 
analysis if they show up in samples from at least two facilities at 
concentrations of 5 times the minimum detection level or greater, and 
are at least 50% removed by the proposed treatment. In contrast, all 
pesticides that were detected even once, at any level, were included in 
the analysis. Most of the pesticides accounting for the bulk of 
estimated toxic removals from indirect dischargers in the truck and 
rail chemical subcategories would not have been included in the 
analysis under the standard screening criteria, either because they 
were detected at only one facility or because they were only detected 
at close to the minimum detection level, or both. EPA believes, 
however, that the modified screening criteria for pesticides are 
appropriate for several reasons. First of all, as already noted, 
pesticides are highly toxic and thus of particular concern. Second, a 
relatively small amount of sampling data is available for this 
industry. In the truck chemical subcategory, for example, only ten 
samples of raw wastewater were analyzed, so that even a single detect 
represents 10% of samples, which EPA believes is a significant 
fraction. Finally, wastes from TEC facilities are highly variable, so 
that one might expect that many of the contaminants that are 
potentially of concern would only show up in a single sample, and 
others might not show up in any samples at all. For these reasons, EPA 
believes that its modified screening criteria for pesticides are 
appropriate, its loadings and removals analysis is based on the best 
available data, and the regulatory limits it has proposed for indirect 
dischargers in these subcategories, based partly on this analysis, is 
also appropriate. However, the Agency requests comments on this issue, 
and any data commenters may be able to provide on the loadings of 
pesticides, or any other contaminant, and TEC facilities.
4. Water Use Practices
    TEC facilities use water for cleaning and rinsing as well as for a 
number of ancillary purposes such as hydrotesting, air pollution 
control, and process cooling water. Water use varies based on a number 
of factors including type of tank cleaned, type of cleaning solution 
utilized, type of cargo last contained in the tank, type of cargo to be 
transported, and tank capacity. Facilities which clean predominantly 
tank trucks typically use significant volumes of water for exterior 
cleaning, whereas facilities which clean rail and barge tanks 
frequently do little exterior washing. Facilities which clean rail 
tanks frequently use large volumes of water for tank hydrotesting, 
whereas tank truck cleaning facilities generate substantially less 
hydrotesting wastewater. Based on these variations in water use 
practices among different types of facilities, EPA concluded that the 
most appropriate method of subcategorization that encompasses water use 
practices is subcategorization based on the type of tank cleaned and 
type of cargo cleaned at a facility.
5. Wastewater Characteristics
    The volumes and pollutant concentrations contained in TEC tank

[[Page 34700]]

interior cleaning wastewater show a large degree of variation among 
different types of facilities. Wastewater volumes vary greatly based on 
a number of factors including those cited above. Likewise, the 
concentration of pollutants present in tank interior cleaning 
wastewater can vary depending on the type of cargo last hauled, the 
tank size, the cleaning process utilized and the amount of water used 
per cleaning operation. Since all of these factors, with the exception 
of type of tank cleaned and type of cargo cleaned, have been rejected, 
EPA has concluded that the most appropriate method of subcategorization 
that encompasses wastewater characteristics is subcategorization based 
on the type of tank cleaned and type of cargo cleaned at a facility.
6. Facility Age
    EPA evaluated the age of facilities as a possible means of 
subcategorization. EPA evaluated the treatment technologies in place as 
related to the year in which the facility first conducted TEC 
operations. Based on this evaluation, the Agency concluded that there 
is little difference in the treatment technologies in use by older 
facilities (defined as beginning TEC operations before 1980) as 
compared to those of newer facilities (defined as beginning TEC 
operations in or after 1980). EPA has tentatively concluded that 
subcategorization based on age of facilities is not an appropriate 
means of subcategorization.
7. Facility Size
    EPA considered subcategorization of the TEC industry on the basis 
of facility size. Four parameters were identified as relative measures 
of facility size: number of employees, number of tanks cleaned, 
wastewater flow and revenue. EPA found that facilities of varying sizes 
generate similar wastewaters and use similar treatment technologies 
within the proposed subcategorization approach. EPA is not proposing to 
subcategorize the industry based on facility size.
8. Geographical Location
    EPA evaluated the distribution of TEC facilities based on 
geographic location. In general, TEC facilities tend to be located 
within the industrialized regions of the country, with relatively high 
concentrations in the area between Houston and New Orleans and within 
specific urban areas such as Los Angeles, Chicago, and St. Louis. The 
major concentrations of rail, truck, and barge cleaning facilities are 
along the major thoroughfares by rail, road, and inland waterways, 
respectively. There are no apparent trends of geographic distribution 
of TEC facilities as related to wastewater characteristics. Based on 
these analyses, geographic location is not an appropriate means of 
subcategorization.
9. Water Pollution Control Technologies
    There are a number of water pollution control technologies in use 
in the TEC industry. This variety of technologies results from the wide 
range of pollutants present in TEC wastewater. As discussed previously, 
the pollutants present in TEC wastewater are based on factors such as 
the tank type cleaned and the cargos last contained in the tanks. EPA 
did not consider subcategorization of the industry based solely on the 
water pollution control technologies in use as a reasonable method of 
subcategorization. These control technologies are appropriately 
considered in evaluation technology options and determining effluent 
limitations.
10. Treatment Costs
    Treatment costs are dependent upon facility water pollution control 
technologies and facility wastewater flow rates and facility size. 
These costs vary with the specific treatment technologies and waste 
disposal methods employed, and therefore do not apply uniformly across 
a particular segment of the industry. EPA has tentatively determined 
that subcategorization of the TEC industry based solely on treatment 
costs is not an appropriate means of subcategorization.
11. Non-Water Quality Impacts
    Non-water quality impacts of TEC operations include, among others, 
impacts from transporting wastes, impacts from disposal of solid 
wastes, and impacts due to emissions of volatile organics to the air. 
These impacts vary with the specific treatment technologies and waste 
disposal methods employed, and therefore do not apply uniformly across 
a particular segment of the industry. EPA has concluded that 
subcategorization of the TEC industry based on non-water quality 
impacts is not an appropriate means of subcategorization.

B. Selection of Subcategorization Approach

    Based on its evaluation of above factors, EPA determined that 
subcategorization of the TEC industry is necessary and that different 
effluent limitations and pretreatment standards should be developed for 
subcategories of the industry. EPA concluded that the most appropriate 
basis for subcategorization of the industry be based on tank type and 
cargo type cleaned.
    EPA solicits comment on the appropriateness of this 
subcategorization approach. As mentioned previously, EPA believes it 
has developed a subcategorization approach which addresses the 
complexities inherent in this industry. Of particular concern to the 
Agency is the potential difficulty associated with implementing this 
rule due to potentially overlapping subcategories. EPA solicits comment 
regarding the proposed subcategorization and on other subcategorization 
approaches which may be appropriate.
    EPA realizes that there may be some overlap between transportation 
sectors, although this is not a great concern because 99 percent of the 
facilities surveyed cleaned tanks belonging to only one transportation 
sector.
    EPA also realizes that determining the applicable subcategory of a 
facility may be somewhat complex, given that many facilities accept a 
wide range of cargos and commodities which may vary on a daily, 
monthly, seasonal, or yearly basis.
    EPA is proposing that the definition of each subcategory include a 
production cutoff. In developing this subcategorization approach, EPA 
has attempted to strike a balance between several divergent factors. On 
the one hand, EPA's data collection activities indicate that the 
wastewater generated from cleaning certain cargos and tank types do not 
discharge significant quantities of toxic pollutants. This includes 
wastewater generated from cleaning tank trucks, rail tank cars, and 
barges containing food cargos; closed top hopper trucks, rail cars, and 
barges containing dry bulk goods; and rail tank cars and tank trucks 
containing petroleum cargos. On the other hand, EPA has identified 
wastewaters that contain toxic pollutants in significant quantities 
from tank trucks and rail tank cars which transport chemical cargos, 
and barges which transport chemical and petroleum cargos.
    EPA is proposing to establish effluent limitations guidelines and 
pretreatment standards for toxic parameters in the Truck/Chemical, 
Rail/Chemical, and Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategories. In its 
subcategorization approach, EPA has attempted to establish guidelines 
and pretreatment standards for toxic parameters for those facilities 
that generate wastewater containing toxic pollutants. However, EPA also 
realizes that a facility may generate wastewater from a variety of 
cargos which do not all belong to one

[[Page 34701]]

classification of food, petroleum, chemical, or dry bulk goods.
    In order to address these concerns, EPA has attempted to classify a 
facility into one subcategory by establishing a hierarchy of 
applicability as follows: if 10 percent or more of the tanks cleaned on 
a yearly basis at a tank truck or rail car facility contain chemical 
cargos, then that facility is placed in the Truck/Chemical or Rail/
Chemical Subcategory, and subject to the effluent limitations and 
pretreatment standards proposed for the Truck/Chemical or Rail/Chemical 
Subcategory. For a barge facility, if 10 percent or more of the tanks 
cleaned on a yearly basis contain chemical or petroleum cargos, then 
that facility is placed in the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory 
and is subject to the effluent limitations proposed for the Barge/
Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory.
    If a truck or rail facility does not clean more than 10 percent of 
tanks containing chemical cargos, but does clean more than 10 percent 
of tanks containing food grade cargos on a yearly basis, then that 
facility is placed in the Truck/Food or Rail/Food Subcategory. There 
are no effluent limitations proposed for indirect discharging Truck/
Food or Rail/Food facilities, but EPA is proposing effluent limitations 
for conventional pollutants for direct discharging Truck/Food and Rail/
Food facilities.
    Similarly, if a barge facility does not clean more than 10 percent 
of tanks containing chemical and/or petroleum cargos, but does clean 
more than 10 percent of tanks containing food grade cargos on a yearly 
basis, then that facility is placed in the Barge/Food Subcategory. 
There are no effluent limitations proposed for indirect discharging 
Barge/Food facilities, but EPA is proposing effluent limitations for 
conventional pollutants for direct discharging Barge/Food facilities.
    Remaining rail and truck facilities which clean more than 80 
percent of tanks containing petroleum cargos on a yearly basis have 
been placed in the Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories. 
Facilities which clean hopper tanks have been placed in the Truck/
Hopper, Rail/Hopper, or Barge/Hopper Subcategories. EPA is not 
proposing to regulate wastewater discharged from the Truck/Petroleum 
and Rail/Petroleum, and Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/Hopper 
Subcategories.
    EPA is not proposing to regulate toxic parameters for facilities 
that clean tanks that have transported only petroleum, food, or dry 
bulk cargos, with the exception of barge facilities that clean tanks 
containing petroleum cargos.
    The Agency believes that this proposed subcategorization approach 
would allow a facility in a subcategory which is not subject to 
regulation of toxic parameters the flexibility to accept a variety of 
cargos without necessarily needing to be re-classified in a different 
subcategory, and therefore, be subject to a different set of effluent 
limitations. By establishing such a production cutoff, EPA believes 
that the toxic characteristics of the wastewater will not vary 
considerably from facilities that perform 80 to 100 percent of its 
operations within the confines of one subcategory. In this manner, EPA 
believes that a facility within one subcategory will be allowed the 
flexibility to clean transportation equipment that contained different 
types of cargos without discharging substantial quantities of toxic 
pollutants. EPA solicits comment on the hierarchy of applicability that 
EPA is proposing as the basis for subcategorization.
    From the possible combinations of tank types and cargos last 
hauled, EPA proposes subcategorization of the TEC industry into 11 
subcategories. The tank type classifications include: (1) tank trucks 
and intermodal tank containers (2) rail tank cars (3) inland tank 
barges and ocean/sea tankers (4) closed-top hopper trucks (5) closed-
top hopper rail cars and (6) closed-top hopper barges. A description of 
each of these tank type classifications is presented in Appendix A of 
this notice. Containers defined as drums or Intermediate Bulk 
Containers (IBCs) are proposed not to be covered by this guideline.
    The cargo type classifications used as a basis for 
subcategorization include: (1) petroleum; (2) food grade; (3) dry bulk; 
and (4) chemical. A description of the cargo type classifications is 
provided below.

Petroleum

    Petroleum cargos include the products of the fractionation or 
straight distillation of crude oil, redistillation of unfinished 
petroleum derivatives, cracking, or other refining processes. Petroleum 
cargos also include products obtained from the refining or processing 
of natural gas and coal. Specific examples of petroleum products 
include but are not limited to: asphalt; benzene; coal tar; crude oil; 
cutting oil; ethyl benzene; diesel fuel; fuel additives; fuel oils; 
gasoline; greases; heavy, medium, and light oils; hydraulic fluids, jet 
fuel; kerosene; liquid petroleum gases (LPG) including butane and 
propane; lubrication oils; mineral spirits; naphtha; olefin, paraffin, 
and other waxes; tall oil; tar; toluene; xylene; and waste oil.

Food Grade

    ``Food grade'' cargos include edible and non-edible food grade 
products such as corn syrup, sugar, juice, soybean oil, beverages, and 
animal and vegetable oils.

Dry Bulk

    The dry bulk classification includes closed-top hoppers that 
transport dry bulk products such as fertilizers, grain, and coal.

Chemical

    Chemical cargos are defined to include but are not limited to the 
following cargos: latex, rubber, plastics, plasticizers, resins, soaps, 
detergents, surfactants, agricultural chemicals and pesticides, 
hazardous waste, organic chemicals including: alcohols, aldehydes, 
formaldehydes, phenols, peroxides, organic salts, amines, amides, other 
nitrogen compounds, other aromatic compounds, aliphatic organic 
chemicals, glycols, glycerines, and organic polymers; refractory 
organic compounds including: ketones, nitriles, organo-metallic 
compounds containing chromium, cadmium, mercury, copper, zinc; and 
inorganic chemicals including: aluminum sulfate, ammonia, ammonium 
nitrate, ammonium sulfate, and bleach. In the development of this 
regulation, EPA has considered any cargo not specifically defined as 
food, petroleum, or dry bulk good as a ``chemical'' cargo.
    Based on tank type and cargo type classifications described above, 
EPA is proposing to subcategorize the TEC industry into the following 
11 subcategories. A detailed explanation of each of these subcategories 
is provided below:

Subcategory A: Truck/Chemical

    Subcategory A would apply to TEC facilities that clean tank trucks 
and intermodal tank containers where 10 percent or more of the total 
tanks cleaned at that facility in an average year contained chemical 
cargos.

Subcategory B: Rail/Chemical

    Subcategory B would apply to TEC facilities that clean rail tank 
cars where 10 percent or more of the total tanks cleaned at that 
facility in an average year contained chemical cargos.

Subcategory C: Barge/Chemical & Petroleum

    Subcategory C would apply to TEC facilities that clean tank barges 
or

[[Page 34702]]

ocean/sea tankers where 10 percent or more of the total tanks cleaned 
at that facility in an average year contained chemical and/or petroleum 
cargos.

Subcategory D: Truck/Petroleum

    Subcategory D would apply to TEC facilities that clean tank trucks 
and intermodal tank containers where 80 percent or more of the total 
tanks cleaned at that facility in an average year contained petroleum 
cargos, so long as that facility is not in Subcategory A: Truck/
Chemical or Subcategory F: Truck/Food.

Subcategory E: Rail/Petroleum

    Subcategory E would apply to TEC facilities that clean rail tank 
cars where 80 percent or more of the total tanks cleaned at that 
facility in an average year contained petroleum cargos, so long as that 
facility is not in Subcategoy B: Rail/Chemical or Subcategory G: Rail/
Food.

Subcategory F: Truck/Food

    Subcategory F would apply to TEC facilities that clean tank trucks 
and intermodal tank containers where 10 percent or more of the total 
tanks cleaned at that facility in an average year contained food grade 
cargos, so long as that facility does not clean 10 percent or more of 
tanks containing chemical cargos. If 10 percent or more of the total 
tanks cleaned at that facility in an average year contained chemical 
cargos, then that facility is in Subcategoy A: Truck/Chemical.

Subcategory G: Rail/Food

    Subcategory G would apply to TEC facilities that clean rail tank 
cars where 10 percent or more of the total tanks cleaned at that 
facility in an average year contained food grade cargos, so long as 
that facility does not clean 10 percent or more of tanks containing 
chemical cargos. If 10 percent or more of the total tanks cleaned at 
that facility in an average year contained chemical cargos, then that 
facility is in Subcategoy B: Rail/Chemical.

Subcategory H: Barge/Food

    Subcategory H would apply to TEC facilities that clean tank barges 
or ocean/sea tankers where 10 percent or more of the total tanks 
cleaned at that facility in an average year contained food grade 
cargos, so long as that facility does not clean 10 percent or more of 
tanks containing chemical cargos. If 10 percent or more of the total 
tanks cleaned at that facility in an average year contained chemical 
and/or petroleum cargos, then that facility is in Subcategory C: Barge 
Chemical & Petroleum.

Subcategory I: Truck/Hopper

    Subcategory I would apply to TEC facilities that clean closed-top 
hopper trucks which transport dry bulk commodities.

Subcategory J: Rail/Hopper

    Subcategory J would apply to TEC facilities that clean closed-top 
hopper rail cars which transport dry bulk commodities.

Subcategory K: Barge/Hopper

    Subcategory K would apply to TEC facilities that clean closed-top 
hopper barges which transport dry bulk commodities.

VII. Wastewater Generation and Characteristics

    Wastewater generated by the industry includes water and steam used 
to clean the tank interiors, prerinse solutions, chemical cleaning 
solutions, final rinse solutions, tank exterior washing wastewater, 
boiler blowdown, tank hydrotesting wastewater, safety equipment 
cleaning rinsate, and TEC-contaminated storm water. Of the facilities 
that discharge TEC wastewater, the majority (97 percent) discharge 
their wastewater to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). The 
majority of the barge facilities (77 percent) discharge directly to 
U.S. surface waters.
    Primary sources of pollutants in TEC wastewater include heels and 
cleaning solutions. Heel is residual cargo remaining in a tank or 
container following unloading, delivery, or discharge of the 
transported cargo and is the primary source of pollutants in TEC 
wastewater. Water-soluble heels that are compatible with the facility's 
wastewater treatment system and the conditions of the facility's 
wastewater discharge permit are often combined with other wastewater 
for treatment and discharge at the facility. Incompatible heels are 
drained and segregated into drums or tanks for disposal or reuse by 
alternate means, which may include reuse onsite, return to consignee, 
sale to a reclamation facility, land filling, or incineration. However, 
even when the heel is drained, residual cargo adheres to the tank or 
container interior, and is removed by tank cleaning operations and 
ultimately discharged in TEC wastewater.
    Pollutants contained in heels are dependent upon the constituents 
contained in the cargos transported. Based on responses to the Detailed 
Questionnaire, tank truck cleaning facilities reported cleaning at 
least 429 unique cargos, rail tank car cleaning facilities reported 
cleaning at least 159 unique cargos, and tank barge cleaning facilities 
reported cleaning at least 111 unique cargos.
    Cleaning solutions are another primary source of pollutants in TEC 
wastewater. TEC facilities commonly use the following four types of 
chemical cleaning solutions: (1) acid solution; (2) caustic solution; 
(3) detergent solution; and (4) presolve solution. Acid solutions 
typically comprise hydrofluoric and/or phosphoric acid and water. Acid 
solutions are also used as metal brighteners on aluminum and stainless 
steel tank exteriors. Caustic solutions typically comprise sodium 
hydroxide and water. The most common components of detergent solutions 
are sodium metasilicate and phosphate-based surfactants. Some 
facilities use off-the-shelf brands of detergent solutions such as 
Tide<Register>, Arm & Hammer<Register>, and Pine Power<Register>. 
Often, concentrated detergents (``boosters''), such as glycol ethers 
and esters, are added to acid and caustic solutions to improve their 
effectiveness. Presolve solutions usually consist of diesel fuel, 
kerosene, or other petroleum-based solvent. Other miscellaneous 
cleaning solutions used by the TEC industry include passivation agents 
(oxidation inhibitors), odor controllers such as citrus oils, and 
sanitizers.
    Some TEC facilities commingle spent cleaning solutions with TEC 
wastewater, while other facilities dispose of spent cleaning solutions 
off site. However, even when spent cleaning solutions are not 
discharged with TEC wastewater, residual cleaning solution adheres to 
the tank or container interior and is removed during tank rinses and 
ultimately discharged in TEC wastewater.
    TEC operations or control technologies that minimize the amount of 
heel remaining in the tank prior to starting TEC operations or that 
reduce the use or toxicity of chemical cleaning solutions significantly 
reduce the pollutant loading in TEC wastewater. EPA estimates, based on 
data collected during EPA's sampling program, that facilities 
implementing heel and cleaning solution pollution prevention practices 
generate one half to an order of magnitude less wastewater pollutant 
loadings than facilities that do not implement these practices.
    EPA conducted 20 sampling episodes at 18 facilities representative 
of the variety of facilities in the TEC industry (2 facilities were 
sampled twice). As part of this sampling program, EPA routinely 
analyzed wastewater samples for conventional, priority toxic, and

[[Page 34703]]

nonconventional pollutants. Raw wastewater streams sampled typically 
comprised TEC wastewater commingled with tank exterior cleaning 
wastewater, TEC-contaminated storm water, tank hydrotesting wastewater, 
and other wastewater streams. Additional details concerning EPA's 
sampling program, including the types of facilities sampled, are 
provided in Section V.E.
    EPA detected 330 of 478 pollutants analyzed for in TEC wastewaters. 
Ninety of the 126 priority toxic pollutants analyzed were detected. 
Detected pollutants vary by subcategory and include the conventional 
pollutants oil and grease (analyzed as hexane extractable materials 
(HEM)), 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD<INF>5</INF>), total 
suspended solids (TSS), and pH; certain priority toxic pollutants; and 
certain nonconventional pollutants.
    In its analysis of the industry, EPA sampled one facility in the 
Truck/Petroleum Subcategory. This facility treated only final rinse 
wastewater on-site. Initial rinses and other TEC wastewaters were 
contract hauled for off-site treatment and were therefore not included 
in the sampling performed by EPA. There was no additional data provided 
by the industry on raw TEC wastewater characteristics. EPA therefore 
reviewed other sources of raw wastewater characterization data in order 
to determine whether data could be transferred from other sources to 
characterize TEC wastewater for the Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum 
Subcategories. One facility sampled in support of the Centralized Waste 
Treatment effluent guideline accepted only oily wastewater for 
treatment. The wastewater consisted of wastewater contaminated with 
lube oils and other petroleum products. Additionally, the sources of 
oily wastewater which comprised the sampled wastestream closely matched 
the types of commodities cleaned by the sampled TEC facility. 
Therefore, the sampling data obtained from the Centralized Waste 
Treatment Industry was used to characterize TEC wastewater for the 
Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories in addition to the TEC 
sampled facility.
    Listed below are pollutants identified in all TEC raw wastewater 
characterization samples collected and analyzed by EPA for each 
subcategory or subcategory grouping. These pollutants have been found 
in raw wastewater but have not necessarily been identified as 
pollutants of concern for the industry. See Section 6.0 of the 
Technical Development Document for a more comprehensive summary of the 
specific pollutants detected and the mean and range of pollutant 
concentrations by subcategory.

Truck/Chemical Subcategory

    <bullet> Conventional pollutants: BOD<INF>5</INF>, TSS, Oil and 
Grease, and pH;
    <bullet> Priority toxic pollutants: methylene chloride, copper, 
nickel, and zinc; and
    <bullet> Nonconventional pollutants: acetone, benzoic acid, 
aluminum, barium, boron, calcium, iron, magnesium, manganese, 
molybdenum, phosphorus, potassium, sodium, strontium, sulfur, titanium, 
octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, adsorbable organic halides (AOX), ammonia 
as nitrogen, chemical oxygen demand (COD), chloride, fluoride, nitrate/
nitrite, surfactants (MBAS), total dissolved solids (TDS), total 
organic carbon (TOC), total phosphorus, and volatile residue.

Rail/Chemical Subcategory

    <bullet> Conventional pollutants: BOD<INF>5</INF>, TSS, Oil and 
Grease, and pH;
    <bullet> Priority toxic pollutants: toluene, arsenic, chromium, 
copper, nickel, zinc, tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and 
tetrachlorodibenzofuran.
    <bullet> Nonconventional pollutants: n-eicosane, n-octadecane, 
aluminum, barium, boron, calcium, cobalt, iron, magnesium, manganese, 
phosphorus, potassium, silicon, sodium, strontium, sulfur, titanium, 
AOX, ammonia as nitrogen, COD, chloride, fluoride, silica-gel hexane 
extractable material (SGT-HEM), MBAS, TDS, TOC, total phenols, total 
phosphorus, and volatile residue.

Barge/Chemical and Petroleum Subcategory

    <bullet> Conventional pollutants: BOD<INF>5</INF>, TSS, Oil and 
Grease, and pH;
    <bullet> Priority toxic pollutants: benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, 
naphthalene, copper, nickel, zinc, tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and 
tetrachlorodibenzofuran.
    <bullet> Nonconventional pollutants: acetone, o-+ p-xylene, 2-
methylnaphthalene, n-docosane, n-dodecane, n-eicosane, n-hexadecane, n-
octadecane, n-tetradecane, styrene, malathion, parathion (ethyl), 
aluminum, barium, boron, calcium, hexavalent chromium, iron, magnesium, 
manganese, potassium, sodium, strontium, sulfur, AOX, ammonia as 
nitrogen, COD, chloride, fluoride, nitrate/nitrite, SGT-HEM, MBAS, TOC, 
total phenols, total phosphorus, and total sulfide.

Food Grade Subcategories

    <bullet> Conventional pollutants: BOD<INF>5</INF>, TSS, and pH;
    <bullet> Priority toxic pollutants: none; and
    <bullet> Nonconventional pollutants: aluminum, barium, calcium, 
europium, iron, magnesium, manganese, neodymium, niobium, silicon, 
sodium, strontium, ammonia as nitrogen, COD, chloride, fluoride, MBAS, 
TDS, TOC, total phenols, total phosphorus, total sulfide, and volatile 
residue.

Petroleum Subcategories

    <bullet> Conventional pollutants: BOD<INF>5</INF>, Oil and Grease, 
TSS, and pH;
    <bullet> Priority toxic pollutants: bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, and 
zinc; and
    <bullet> Nonconventional pollutants: acetone, n-eicosane, n-
octacosane, n-octadecane, n-tetradecane, aluminum, barium, boron, 
calcium, holmium, iron, magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, phosphorus, 
potassium, silicon, sodium, strontium, sulfur, tantalum, ammonia as 
nitrogen, COD, chloride, fluoride, TDS, TOC, and total phosphorus.

Hopper Subcategories

    <bullet> Conventional pollutants: BOD5, TSS, and pH;
    <bullet> Priority toxic pollutants: bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, 
arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, silver, and 
zinc; and
    <bullet> Nonconventional pollutants: aluminum, calcium, iron, 
magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, sodium, sulfur, ammonia as nitrogen, 
COD, chloride, fluoride, TDS, TOC, and total phosphorus.

VIII. Development of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards

A. Description of Available Technologies

    There are three major approaches currently used by the TEC industry 
to improve effluent quality: (1) cleaning process technology changes 
and controls to prevent or reduce the generation of wastewater 
pollutants; (2) flow reduction technologies to increase pollutant 
concentrations and the efficiency of treatment system pollutant 
removal; and (3) end-of-pipe wastewater treatment technologies to 
remove pollutants from TEC wastewater prior to discharge. These 
approaches and specific available technologies within these approaches 
are described in the following subsections.
1. Pollution Prevention Controls
    EPA has defined pollution prevention as source reduction and other 
practices that reduce or eliminate the formation of pollutants. Source 
reduction includes any practices that reduce the amount of any 
hazardous substance or pollutant entering any waste stream or otherwise 
released into the environment, or any practices that reduce the hazards 
to public health and the environment associated with the release of 
such

[[Page 34704]]

pollutants. The principal pollution prevention controls applicable to 
the TEC industry are the use of dedicated tanks, heel reduction 
techniques, and reduction in the amount or toxicity of chemical 
cleaning solutions.
    a. Use of dedicated tanks. Tanks dedicated to hauling a single 
cargo (e.g., gasoline) do not require, or require less frequent, tank 
cleaning between loads. Use of dedicated tanks eliminates the 
generation of tank cleaning wastewater and associated pollutant 
loading.
    b. Heel reduction. Heel (residual cargo remaining in tanks 
following unloading) is the primary source of pollutants in TEC 
wastewater. Heel reduction techniques include the following: (1) 
refusal to accept tanks with excess heel; (2) assessment of fees for 
excess heel; (3) use of steam in tank interiors to lower the viscosity 
of heels for improved draining; (4) manual use of squeegees to move 
heel toward valve openings; (5) cold or hot water prerinses to enhance 
heel removal; (6) heel recycle or reuse; and (7) heel disposal rather 
than commingling and discharging with TEC wastewater.
    c. Reduction in the amount and toxicity of chemical cleaning 
solutions. Chemical cleaning solutions are the second major source of 
pollutants in TEC wastewater. Chemical cleaning solution reduction 
techniques include the following: (1) recirculation and reuse of 
solutions; (2) use of prerinses to extend cleaning solution 
effectiveness; (3) increased use of steam cleaning and other cleaning 
processes that do not include chemical cleaning solutions; (4) solution 
disposal rather than being commingled and discharged with TEC 
wastewater; and (5) substitution with less toxic cleaning solutions.
2. Flow Reduction Technologies
    Flow reduction technologies applicable to the TEC industry reduce 
the amount of fresh water required for tank cleaning through cleaning 
process modifications and/or recycle and reuse of process wastewaters 
to TEC or other processes. Flow reduction technologies applicable to 
the TEC industry include the use of high-pressure/low-volume cleaning 
equipment, TEC water use monitoring, equipment monitoring programs, dry 
cleaning, cascading tank cleaning, and wastewater recycle and reuse.
    a. High-pressure/low-volume cleaning equipment. High-pressure (up 
to 1,000 psi) delivery of water washes, cleaning solutions, and rinses 
can clean as efficiently as low-pressure delivery while requiring 
significantly less volume of water or cleaning solutions.
    b. TEC water use monitoring. Careful monitoring of TEC water use 
can ensure that the minimum adequate amount of water is used to clean 
tank interiors. Visual inspection may be used to determine an 
appropriate duration and amount of water required for cleaning. 
Alternatively, cleaning personnel can use predetermined cleaning times 
and amounts of water to clean specific tank type and cargo type 
combinations based on experience.
    c. Equipment monitoring program. Preventative maintenance and 
periodic inspection of cleaning equipment such as pumps, hoses, 
nozzles, and water and cleaning solution storage tanks can 
significantly reduce fresh water requirements by eliminating water 
waste.
    d. Cleaning without use of water. Cleaning personnel may enter the 
tank to shovel or sweep dry-bulk cargos or mop or squeegee liquid 
cargos. Mechanical devices are also used to vibrate hoppers to improve 
heel removal. Depending on the effectiveness of these dry cleaning 
processes, the need for subsequent tank cleaning with water may be 
eliminated. At a minimum, these techniques will reduce the amount of 
water and cleaning solutions required to clean the tank interior.
    e. Cascade tank cleaning. ``Cascade'' tank cleaning processes 
involve the use of fresh water for final tank rinses with recycle and 
reuse of final rinse wastewater in initial rinses. This technique uses 
water at least twice prior to discharge or disposal.
    f. Wastewater recycle and reuse. Water recycle and reuse techniques 
reduce or eliminate the need for fresh process water. Wastewater 
streams most commonly recycled and reused in TEC processes include tank 
interior cleaning wastewater, hydrotesting wastewater, uncontaminated 
storm water, and non-contact cooling water. These water sources 
typically do not require extensive treatment prior to recycle and 
reuse. Tank interior cleaning wastewater generated by cleaning tanks 
used to transport petroleum products can be recycled and reused in TEC 
processes after treatment by oil/water separation and activated carbon 
treatment. Wastewater generated by cleaning tanks that last transported 
chemical products generally requires more extensive treatment prior to 
recycle and reuse in TEC processes.
3. End-of-Pipe Wastewater Treatment Technologies
    End-of-pipe wastewater treatment includes physical, chemical, and 
biological processes that remove pollutants from TEC wastewater prior 
to discharge to a receiving stream or POTW. Typical end-of-pipe 
treatment currently used by the TEC industry includes pretreatment and 
primary treatment. Facilities that practice extensive water and 
wastewater recycle and reuse or that discharge TEC wastewater directly 
to surface waters may also operate biological and/or advanced treatment 
units. Use of treatment technologies by the TEC industry is presented 
as the percentage of direct or indirect discharging facilities that use 
the technologies.
    a. Oil/water separation. Approximately 36 percent of TEC facilities 
use oil/water separation to remove oil and grease. The most common type 
of oil/water separator used by TEC facilities is an oil skimmer. 
Coalescing and corrugated plate separators are also used.
    b. Gravity settling. Gravity settling or sedimentation removes 
suspended solids from TEC process wastewater. Approximately 57 percent 
of TEC facilities use gravity settling.
    c. Equalization. Equalization provides wastewater retention time to 
homogenize wastewater to control fluctuations in flow and pollutant 
characteristics, reduce the size and cost of subsequent treatment 
units, and improve the efficiency of subsequent treatment units. 
Approximately 42 percent of TEC facilities use equalization.
    d. pH adjustment. Many treatment technologies used by the TEC 
industry are sensitive to pH. For example, chemical precipitation 
requires a relatively high pH while biological treatment requires a 
neutral pH. In addition, pH adjustment may also be required to meet 
permit conditions for wastewater discharge. Approximately 44 percent of 
TEC facilities use pH adjustment.
    e. Grit removal. Grit removal involves the use of a settling 
chamber to remove heavy, suspended material from wastewater. This is 
typically used at the headworks of a treatment system to remove larger 
particles which may damage pumps or treatment equipment. Approximately 
four percent of TEC facilities use grit removal.
    f. Coagulation/Flocculation. Coagulation involves the addition of a 
``coagulant,'' such as an electrolyte or polymer, to destabilize 
colloidal and fine suspended matter. Flocculation involves the 
agglomeration of destabilized particles into flocs for subsequent 
removal by gravity settling in a clarifier. Approximately 24 percent of 
TEC facilities use coagulation/flocculation.

[[Page 34705]]

    g. Chemical precipitation/separation. Chemical precipitation 
removes dissolved pollutants from wastewater. Precipitation agents, 
such as polyaluminum chloride, ferric chloride, and lime, work by 
reacting with pollutant cations (e.g., metals) and some anions to 
convert them into an insoluble form for subsequent removal by gravity 
settling in a clarifier. The pH of the wastewater also affects how much 
pollutant mass is precipitated, as pollutants precipitate more 
efficiently at different pH ranges. Coagulation/flocculation may also 
be used to assist particle agglomeration and settling. Approximately 
six percent of TEC facilities use chemical precipitation/separation.
    h. Clarification. Approximately 23 percent of TEC facilities use 
clarification as either a pre- or post-treatment step to remove 
settleable solids, free oil and grease, and other floating material. 
Primary clarifiers remove settleable solids from raw wastewater or 
wastewater treated by coagulation/flocculation; secondary clarification 
is used in activated sludge systems to remove biomass. Clarifiers 
consist of settling tanks commonly equipped with a sludge scraper 
mounted on the floor of the clarifier to rake sludge into a sump for 
removal to sludge handling equipment. The bottom of the clarifier may 
be sloped to facilitate sludge removal.
    i. Filtration. Filtration removes solids from wastewater by passing 
the wastewater through a material that retains the solids on or within 
itself. A wide variety of filter types are used by the TEC industry 
including media filters (e.g., sand, gravel, charcoal), bag filters, 
and cartridge filters. Approximately 24 percent of TEC facilities use 
filtration technologies.
    j. Sludge dewatering. Sludge dewatering reduces sludge volume by 
decreasing its water content, thereby substantially reducing sludge 
disposal costs. Sludge dewatering technologies used by TEC facilities 
include sludge drying beds, filter presses, rotary vacuum filters, and 
centrifuges. Approximately 28 percent of TEC facilities use sludge 
dewatering.
    k. Dissolved air flotation. Dissolved air flotation devices 
introduce gas bubbles into wastewater which attach to suspended 
particles such as free and dispersed oil and grease, suspended solids, 
and some dissolved pollutants, causing them to float. Floating material 
is removed from the surface by rakes. Approximately 25 percent of TEC 
facilities use dissolved air flotation.
    l. Biological oxidation. Biological oxidation involves the 
biological conversion of dissolved and colloidal organics into biomass, 
gases, and other end products. Activated sludge systems, consisting of 
an aeration basin, a secondary clarifier, and a sludge recycle line, 
are the most commonly used biological oxidation systems in the TEC 
industry. Aerated stabilization basins and anaerobic technologies are 
also used. Approximately nine percent of TEC facilities use biological 
oxidation.
    m. Chemical oxidation. Chemical oxidation involves the addition of 
oxidants such as hydrogen peroxide to chemically oxidize toxic 
pollutants to form less toxic constituents. Approximately two percent 
of TEC facilities use chemical oxidation.
    n. Activated carbon adsorption. Activated carbon removes pollutants 
from wastewater by physical and chemical forces that bind the 
constituents to the carbon surface. In general, pollutants with low 
water solubility, high molecular weight, and those containing certain 
chemical structures such as aromatic functional groups are most 
amenable to treatment by activated carbon adsorption. Less than one 
percent of TEC facilities use activated carbon adsorption.
    o. Membrane filtration. Membrane filtration uses a pressure-driven, 
semipermeable membrane to separate suspended, colloidal, and dissolved 
solutes from wastewater. The size of pores in the membrane is selected 
based on the type of contaminant to be removed. Types of membrane 
filtration technologies used by the TEC industry include 
microfiltration, ultrafiltration, and reverse osmosis. A relatively 
large pore size is used to remove precipitates or suspended materials, 
whereas a relatively small pore size is used to remove inorganic salts 
or organic molecules. Less than one percent of TEC facilities use 
membrane filtration.

B. Technology Options Considered for Basis of Regulation

    This section explains how EPA selected the effluent limitations and 
standards proposed today for each of the TEC subcategories proposed for 
regulation. To determine the technology basis and performance level for 
the proposed regulations, EPA developed a database consisting of daily 
influent and effluent data collected during EPA's wastewater sampling 
program. This database is used to support the BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, 
PSES, and PSNS effluent limitations and standards.
    The effluent limitations and pretreatment standards EPA is 
proposing to establish today are based on well-designed, well-operated 
treatment systems. Below is a summary of the technology bases for the 
proposed effluent limitations and pretreatment standards in each 
subcategory. When final guidelines are promulgated, a facility is free 
to use any combination of wastewater treatment technologies and 
pollution prevention strategies at the facility so long as the 
numerical discharge limits are achieved.
    In developing the regulatory options for proposing limitations and 
pretreatment standards for the TEC industry, EPA utilized technology 
bases from the wastewater treatment technologies and the pollution 
prevention technologies described in Section VIII.A.
    EPA incorporated the utilization of two common practices into the 
technology options for all subcategories. The first is good heel 
removal and management practices which prevent pollutants from entering 
waste streams. These practices may reduce wastewater treatment system 
capital and annual costs due to reduced wastewater pollutant loadings 
and may provide a potential to recover/reuse valuable product. The 
majority of TEC facilities currently operate good heel removal and 
management practices. Because of the many benefits of these practices, 
and a demonstrated trend in the TEC industry to implement these 
practices, EPA believes that the TEC industry will have universally 
implemented good heel removal and management practices prior to 
implementation of TEC effluent guidelines.
    The second common element is good water conservation practices 
which reduce the amount of wastewater generated. Good water 
conservation will improve wastewater treatment performance efficiency, 
reduce wastewater treatment system capital and annual costs, and reduce 
water usage and sewer fees. EPA considered good water conservation 
practices to be represented by the median tank interior cleaning 
wastewater volume discharged per tank cleaning (including commingled 
non-TEC wastewater streams not easily segregated) for each subcategory. 
This volume is referred to as the ``regulatory flow'' for each 
subcategory. For the 50 percent of facilities not currently meeting the 
regulatory flow, a flow reduction technology was costed. Flow reduction 
technologies include operator training, new spinners, and new cleaning 
systems.
    In assessing the costs and loads for each regulatory option, EPA 
considered the treatment in place at each facility potentially affected 
by the regulation. In cases where the facility had treatment in place, 
that facility was ``given credit''

[[Page 34706]]

for each treatment unit currently in place that was a part of EPA's 
proposed treatment option. That facility was then assumed not to incur 
additional costs for the installation of that particular unit. Often, a 
facility had in place a treatment unit that was similar, but not 
identical to, the treatment option proposed. In these cases, EPA 
evaluated the existing treatment and gave credit for similar treatment 
systems.
    The following subsections discuss the regulatory options that were 
considered for BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES and PSNS. The Agency solicits 
comment on alternative treatment technologies not considered by EPA 
which may attain similar treatment removal efficiencies but that may be 
less expensive to install and operate.
1. BPT Technology Options Considered and Selected
    a. Introduction. EPA today proposes BPT effluent limitations for 
the following subcategories for the TEC Point Source Category: Truck/
Chemical, Rail/Chemical, Barge/Chemical & Petroleum, and Truck/Food, 
Rail/Food, and Barge/Food. The BPT effluent limitations proposed today 
would control identified conventional, priority, and non-conventional 
pollutants when discharged from TEC facilities. For further discussion 
on the basis for the limitations and technologies selected see the 
Technical Development Document.
    As previously discussed, Section 304(b)(1)(A) of the CWA requires 
EPA to identify effluent reductions attainable through the application 
of ``best practicable control technology currently available for 
classes and categories of point sources.'' The Senate Report for the 
1972 amendments to the CWA explained how EPA must establish BPT 
effluent reduction levels. Generally, EPA determines BPT effluent 
levels based upon the average of the best existing performances by 
plants of various sizes, ages, and unit processes within each 
industrial category or subcategory. In industrial categories where 
present practices are uniformly inadequate, however, EPA may determine 
that BPT requires higher levels of control than any currently in place 
if the technology to achieve those levels can be practicably applied. 
See A Legislative History of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
Amendments of 1972, U.S. Senate Committee of Public Works, Serial No. 
93-1, January 1973, p. 1468.
    In addition, CWA Section 304(b)(1)(B) requires a cost assessment 
for BPT limitations. In determining the BPT limits, EPA must consider 
the total cost of treatment technologies in relation to the effluent 
reduction benefits achieved. This inquiry does not limit EPA's broad 
discretion to adopt BPT limitations that are achievable with available 
technology unless the required additional reductions are ``wholly out 
of proportion to the costs of achieving such marginal level of 
reduction.'' See Legislative History, op. cit. p. 170. Moreover, the 
inquiry does not require the Agency to quantify benefits in monetary 
terms. See e.g. American Iron and Steel Institute v. EPA, 526 F. 2d 
1027 (3rd Cir. 1975).
    In balancing costs against the benefits of effluent reduction, EPA 
considers the volume and nature of expected discharges after 
application of BPT, the general environmental effects of pollutants, 
and the cost and economic impacts of the required level of pollution 
control. In developing guidelines, the Act does not require or permit 
consideration of water quality problems attributable to particular 
point sources, or water quality improvements in particular bodies of 
water. Therefore, EPA has not considered these factors in developing 
the limitations being proposed today. See Weyerhaeuser Company v. 
Costle, 590 F.2d 1011 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
    EPA identified relatively few direct discharging facilities for 
most subcategories in the TEC industry as compared to the number of 
indirect discharging facilities. However, the Agency concluded that 
direct discharging facilities are similar to indirect discharging 
facilities in terms of types of tanks cleaned, types of commodities 
cleaned, water use, and wastewater characteristics. With respect to 
existing end-of-pipe wastewater treatment in place, direct discharging 
facilities typically operate biological treatment in addition to 
physical/chemical treatment technologies typically operated by indirect 
discharging facilities.
    b. Truck/Chemical Subcategory. The Agency's engineering assessment 
of BPT consisted of the following options:
    <bullet> Option I: Flow Reduction, Equalization, Oil/Water 
Separation, Chemical Oxidation, Neutralization, Coagulation, 
Clarification, Biological Treatment, and Sludge Dewatering. Option I 
demonstrated treatment efficiency of 57 percent or greater for all 
organic pollutants, 57 percent or greater for all metals, and 92 
percent or greater for all conventional pollutants present in Truck/
Chemical Subcategory wastewater. All existing Truck/Chemical 
Subcategory facilities received credit in EPA's costing model for 
equalization, coagulation/clarification, and biological treatment in-
place, sixty-six percent received credit for existing sludge 
dewatering, and no facilities received credit for existing oil/water 
separation. (Oil/water separation was characterized at an indirect 
discharge Truck/Chemical Subcategory facility).
    <bullet> Option II: Flow Reduction, Equalization, Oil/Water 
Separation, Chemical Oxidation, Neutralization, Coagulation, 
Clarification, Biological Treatment, Activated Carbon Adsorption, and 
Sludge Dewatering. Option II is equivalent to Option I with the 
addition of activated carbon adsorption for wastewater polishing 
following biological treatment. Option II removed 85 percent or greater 
of organics, 79 percent or greater of metals and 98 percent or greater 
of conventional pollutants present in Truck/Chemical Subcategory 
wastewater. All Truck/Chemical Subcategory facilities received credit 
for existing activated carbon adsorption treatment.
    EPA is proposing to establish BPT effluent limitations based on 
Option II for the Truck/Chemical Subcategory. Agency data indicate that 
a treatment train consisting of physical/chemical treatment for the 
removal of metals and toxics, biological treatment for the removal of 
decomposable organic material and activated carbon adsorption for 
removal of residual organics and toxics represents the average of the 
best treatment in the industry. As noted above, all existing direct 
discharging facilities in this subcategory currently employ 
equalization, coagulation/clarification, biological treatment and 
activated adsorption. Although no direct discharging facilities were 
given credit in EPA's costing model for a coelescing plate oil/water 
separator, this technology is common and demonstrated practice in the 
industry to improve the overall efficiency of the treatment system. EPA 
has included the use of oil/water separation in its cost estimates to 
the industry in order to ensure that the biological system performs 
optimally.
    EPA's decision to base BPT limitations on Option II treatment 
reflects primarily two factors: (1) the degree of effluent reductions 
attainable and (2) the total cost of the proposed treatment 
technologies in relation to the effluent reductions achieved.
    No basis could be found for identifying different BPT limitations 
based on age, size, process or other engineering factors. Neither the 
age nor the size of the TEC facility will directly affect the 
treatability of the TEC wastewaters. For Truck/Chemical

[[Page 34707]]

facilities, the most pertinent factors for establishing the limitations 
are costs of treatment and the level of effluent reductions obtainable.
    EPA estimates that implementation of Option II will cost $0.43 per 
pound of pollutants removed, and has found that cost to be reasonable. 
Finally, EPA also looked at the costs of all options to determine the 
economic impact that this proposal would have on the TEC industry. EPA 
anticipates that the economic impact, in terms of facility closures and 
employment losses, due to the controls established by BPT would be 
comparable to that estimated in EPA's assessment for indirect 
dischargers, which resulted in no facility closures or employment 
losses. EPA therefore projects that implementation of BPT Option II 
will result in no facility closures and no employment losses. 
Therefore, EPA has concluded that the total costs associated with the 
proposed BPT option are achievable and are reasonable as compared to 
the removals achieved by this option. Further discussion on the 
economic impact analysis can be found in Section X of today's notice.
    c. Rail/Chemical Subcategory. The Agency's engineering assessment 
of BPT consisted of the following options:
    <bullet> Option I: Flow Reduction, Oil/Water Separation, 
Equalization, Biological Treatment, and Sludge Dewatering. Option I 
removed 64 percent or greater of organic pollutants, 95 percent or 
greater of BOD<INF>5</INF>, and 98 percent or greater of oil and 
grease. All Rail/Chemical Subcategory facilities received credit in 
EPA's costing model for existing biological treatment and sludge 
dewatering. No Rail/Chemical Subcategory facilities received credit for 
existing oil/water separation treatment. (Oil/water separation was 
characterized at a zero discharge Rail/Chemical Subcategory facility 
that recycled/reused 100 percent of TEC wastewater.)
    <bullet> Option II: Flow Reduction, Oil/Water Separation, 
Equalization, Dissolved Air Flotation (with Flocculation and pH 
Adjustment), Biological Treatment and Sludge Dewatering. Option II is 
equivalent to Option I with the addition of Dissolved Air Flotation for 
the removal of oil and grease and the organic and metallic compounds 
contained in the oily fraction. Option II removed 81 percent or greater 
of organic pollutants, 84 percent or greater of metals, 99 percent or 
greater of oil and grease, and 92 percent or greater of TSS present in 
Rail/Chemical Subcategory wastewater. All Rail/Chemical Subcategory 
facilities received credit for existing equalization and pH adjustment. 
No Rail/Chemical Subcategory facilities received credit for existing 
dissolved air flotation. (Dissolved air flotation was characterized at 
a zero discharge Rail/Chemical Subcategory facility that recycled/
reused 100 percent of TEC wastewater.)
    <bullet> Option III: Flow Reduction, Oil/Water Separation, 
Equalization, Dissolved Air Flotation (with Flocculation and pH 
Adjustment), Biological Treatment, Organo-Clay/Activated Carbon 
Adsorption, and Sludge Dewatering. Option III is equivalent to Option 
II with the addition of an organo-clay/activated carbon adsorption 
system for wastewater polishing following biological treatment. Option 
III removed 84 percent or greater of organic pollutants, and 99 percent 
or greater of TSS present in Rail/Chemical Subcategory wastewater. No 
Rail/Chemical Subcategory facilities received credit in EPA's costing 
model for existing organo-clay/activated carbon adsorption treatment. 
(Organo-clay/activated carbon adsorption treatment was characterized at 
a zero discharge Rail/Chemical Subcategory facility that recycled/
reused 100 percent of TEC wastewater.)
    EPA is proposing to set BPT regulations for the Rail/Chemical 
Subcategory based on technology Option I. EPA's decision to base BPT 
limitations on Option I treatment reflects primarily two factors: (1) 
the degree of effluent reductions attainable and (2) the total cost of 
the proposed treatment technologies in relation to the effluent 
reductions achieved.
    No basis could be found for identifying different BPT limitations 
based on age, size, process or other engineering factors. Neither the 
age nor the size of the TEC facility will directly affect the 
treatability of the TEC wastewaters. For Rail/Chemical facilities, the 
most pertinent factors for establishing the limitations are costs of 
treatment and the level of effluent reductions obtainable.
    EPA has selected Option I based on the comparison of the three 
options in terms of total costs of achieving the effluent reductions, 
pounds of pollutant removals, economic impacts, and general 
environmental effects of the reduced pollutant discharges.
    EPA estimates that implementation of Option I will cost $103 
dollars per pound of pollutants removed. Although this projected cost 
per pound appears to be high, EPA has used a very conservative cost 
approach to project costs to the industry. The one facility in EPA's 
cost model is already projected to meet the proposed effluent 
limitations due to the low effluent levels achieved at this facility, 
which average 8 mg/l of BOD<INF>5</INF>. However, because EPA's 
proposed treatment technology includes oil/water separation, the cost 
model has assumed that this facility will incur additional costs to 
install this treatment. Additionally, EPA has given no credit to any 
facility for current monitoring practices. Therefore, EPA has assumed 
that all monitoring requirements will result in an increase in costs to 
the industry. In reality, this facility will likely not need to install 
additional treatment to meet the proposed limits, and some of the 
monitoring costs assumed by EPA will not be an additional cost burden 
to the industry.
    The technology proposed in Option I represents the average of the 
best performing facilities due to the prevalence of biological 
treatment and sludge dewatering. Although no direct discharging 
facilities were given credit in EPA's costing model for oil/water 
separation, this technology is common and demonstrated practice in the 
industry to improve the overall efficiency of the wastewater treatment 
system. EPA has included the use of oil/water separation in its cost 
estimates to the industry in order to ensure that the biological system 
performs optimally.
    Finally, EPA also looked at the costs of all options to determine 
the economic impact that this proposal would have on the TEC industry. 
EPA expects the financial and economic profile of the direct 
dischargers to be comparable to that of the estimated 38 indirect 
dischargers. EPA anticipates that the economic impact, in terms of 
facility closures and employment losses, due to the additional controls 
at BPT Option II and III levels would be comparable to that estimated 
in EPA's assessment for indirect discharges, potentially leading to six 
facility closures and the associated loss of over 400 employees. The 
annual cost per facility for BPT Option I is projected to be $12,900 
less than the technology evaluated for PSES which caused six facility 
closures. Therefore, EPA has concluded that the costs of BPT Option I 
are achievable and are reasonable as compared to the removals achieved 
by this option. Further discussion on the economic impact analysis can 
be found in Section X of today's notice.
    d. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. The Agency's engineering 
assessment of BPT consisted of the following options:
    <bullet> Option I: Flow Reduction, Oil/Water Separation, Dissolved 
Air Flotation, Filter Press, Biological Treatment, and Sludge 
Dewatering. Option I removed 81 percent or greater

[[Page 34708]]

of organic pollutants, 82 percent or greater of metals and 96 percent 
or greater of conventional pollutants present in Barge/Chemical & 
Petroleum wastewater.
    Approximately 79 percent of Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory 
facilities received credit in EPA's costing model for existing oil/
water separation, 21 percent for dissolved air flotation, 74 percent 
for biological treatment and 42 percent for sludge dewatering. Although 
at least one Barge/Chemical & Petroleum facility is known to have 
filter press treatment in place, no facilities received credit for 
filter press treatment in EPA's cost and pollutant removal estimates. 
(Filter press treatment was characterized at a direct discharging 
facility).
    <bullet> Option II: Flow Reduction, Oil/Water Separation, Dissolved 
Air Flotation, Filter Press, Biological Treatment, Reverse Osmosis, and 
Sludge Dewatering. Option II is equivalent to Option I with the 
addition of reverse osmosis for wastewater polishing following 
biological treatment. Option II removed 99 percent or greater of 
organic pollutants, 88 percent or greater of metals and 99 percent or 
greater of conventional pollutants present in Barge/Chemical & 
Petroleum wastewater. Although at least one Barge/Chemical & Petroleum 
facility is known to have reverse osmosis treatment in place, no 
facilities received credit for existing reverse osmosis in EPA's cost 
and pollutant removal estimates. (Reverse osmosis treatment was 
characterized at a direct discharging Barge/Chemical & Petroleum 
Subcategory facility.)
    EPA's decision to base BPT limitations on Option I treatment 
reflects primarily two factors: (1) the degree of effluent reductions 
attainable and (2) the total cost of the proposed treatment 
technologies in relation to the effluent reductions achieved.
    EPA estimates that implementation of Option I will cost $0.35 per 
pound of pollutants removed, and has found that cost to be reasonable. 
Additionally, the Agency concluded that reverse osmosis is not commonly 
used in the industry, and therefore Option II does not represent the 
average of the best treatment. Finally, EPA also looked at the costs of 
all options to determine the economic impact that this proposal would 
have on the TEC industry. EPA's assessment showed that implementation 
of BPT is projected to result in no facility closures and no employment 
losses. Therefore, EPA has concluded that the total costs associated 
with the proposed BPT option are achievable and are reasonable as 
compared to the removals achieved by this option. Further discussion on 
the economic impact analysis can be found in Section X of today's 
notice.
    e. Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/Food Subcategories. EPA 
considered the following BPT options for these subcategories:
    <bullet> Option I--Flow Reduction and Oil/Water Separation.
    <bullet> Option II--Flow Reduction, Oil/Water Separation, 
Equalization, Biological Treatment and Sludge Dewatering. Option II is 
equivalent to Option I with the addition of biological treatment for 
biological decomposition of organic constituents. (All facilities have 
biological treatment in place.)
    Based on screener survey results, EPA estimates that there are 19 
direct discharging facilities in the Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/
Food Subcategories. However, EPA's survey of the TEC industry did not 
initially identify any direct discharging facilities through the 
Detailed Questionnaire sample population.
    Because all types of facilities in the food subcategories accept 
similar types of cargos which generate similar types of wastewater in 
terms of treatability and toxicity, EPA has tentatively determined that 
the same BPT can be applied to all three (truck, rail and barge) food 
subcategories. The wastewater generated by the food subcategories 
contains high loadings of biodegradable organics, and few toxic 
pollutants. EPA conducted sampling at a direct discharging barge food-
grade facility which EPA believes to be representative of the entire 
population.
    Based on the data collected by EPA, raw wastewater contained 
significant levels of organic material in the raw wastewater, 
exhibiting an average BOD\5\ concentration of 3500 mg/l. Therefore, EPA 
concluded that some form of biological treatment is necessary to reduce 
potential impacts to receiving waters from direct-discharging 
facilities and EPA anticipated that all direct discharging facilities 
in these subcategories would have some form of biological treatment in 
place. All existing facilities which responded to the screener survey 
questionnaire indicated that they did, in fact, have a biological 
treatment system in place. Therefore, EPA proposes to establish BPT 
based on Option II for the Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/Food 
Subcategories
    EPA projects no additional pollutant removals and no additional 
costs to the industry based on EPA's selection of Option II because all 
facilities identified by EPA currently have the proposed technology in 
place.
    f. Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories. EPA did not 
develop or evaluate BPT Options for these subcategories for the 
following reasons: (1) All direct discharging facilities previously 
identified by the Agency are no longer in operation; (2) EPA is not 
aware of any new facilities that have recently begun operations; and 
(3) EPA currently believes permit writers can more appropriately 
control discharges from these facilities, if any, using best 
professional judgement.
    g. Truck/hopper, Rail/hopper, and Barge/hopper Subcategories. EPA 
is not proposing to establish BPT regulations for any of the hopper 
subcategories. EPA concluded that hopper facilities discharge very few 
pounds of conventional or toxic pollutants. This is based on EPA 
sampling data, which found very few priority toxic pollutants at 
treatable levels in raw wastewater. Additionally, very little 
wastewater is generated from cleaning the interiors of hopper tanks due 
to the dry nature of bulk materials transported. Therefore, nationally-
applicable regulations are unnecessary at this time and direct 
dischargers will remain subject to limitations established on a case by 
case basis using best professional judgement.
2. BCT Technology Options Considered and Selected
    In July 1986, EPA promulgated a methodology for establishing BCT 
effluent limitations. EPA evaluates the reasonableness of BCT candidate 
technologies--those that are technologically feasible--by applying a 
two-part cost test: (1) A POTW test; and (2) an industry cost-
effectiveness test.
    EPA first calculates the cost per pound of conventional pollutant 
removed by industrial dischargers in upgrading from BPT to a BCT 
candidate technology and then compares this cost to the cost per pound 
of conventional pollutants removed in upgrading POTWs from secondary 
treatment. The upgrade cost to industry must be less than the POTW 
benchmark of $0.25 per pound (in 1976 dollars).
    In the industry cost-effectiveness test, the ratio of the 
incremental BPT to BCT cost divided by the BPT cost for the industry 
must be less than 1.29 (i.e., the cost increase must be less than 29 
percent).
    In today's proposal, EPA is proposing to establish BCT effluent 
limitations guidelines equivalent to the BPT guidelines for the 
conventional pollutants for the following subcategories: Truck/
Chemical, Rail/Chemical, Barge/Chemical & Petroleum, Truck/Food, Rail/
Food, and Barge/Food. In developing BCT limits, EPA

[[Page 34709]]

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 BCT Cost Test. In 
each subcategory, EPA identified no technologies that can achieve 
greater removals of conventional pollutants than proposed for BPT that 
are also cost-reasonable under the BCT Cost Test, and accordingly EPA 
proposes BCT effluent limitations equal to the proposed BPT effluent 
limitations guidelines for all subcategories. The detailed results of 
EPA's assessment of candidate technologies, and the results of the cost 
test, are presented in the Technical Development Document.
3. BAT Technology Options Considered and Selected
    a. Truck/Chemical Subcategory. EPA has not identified any more 
stringent treatment technology option which it considered to represent 
BAT level of control applicable to Truck/Chemical facilities in this 
industry, and is therefore proposing that BAT be established equivalent 
to BPT for toxic and nonconventional pollutants. Further, EPA 
anticipates, based on the economic analysis for indirect dischargers, 
that implementing this level of control will result in no facility 
closures or employment losses. EPA found this Option to be economically 
achievable. Therefore, EPA is establishing BAT for the Truck/Chemical 
Subcategory equal to BPT for the priority and non-conventional 
pollutants.
    b. Rail/Chemical Subcategory. EPA evaluated BPT Options II and III 
as a basis for establishing BAT more stringent than the BPT level of 
control being proposed today. EPA anticipates that the financial and 
economic profile of the direct dischargers in this subcategory is 
similar to that of the estimated 38 indirect dischargers. EPA 
anticipates that the economic impact due to the additional controls at 
Option II and III levels would be comparable to that estimated in EPA's 
assessment for indirect discharges, potentially leading to six facility 
closures and the associated loss of over 400 employees. Although these 
options result in improved pollutant reductions, the cost of 
implementing the level of control associated with Options II and III 
are disproportionately high, making these options no longer 
economically achievable for this Subcategory as a whole. Option I is 
projected to result in no facility closures and no associated 
employment losses. Additionally, Option I was demonstrated to achieve a 
high level of pollutant control, treating all priority pollutants to 
very low levels, often at or near the analytical minimum level.
    Therefore, EPA is establishing BAT for the Rail/Chemical 
Subcategory equivalent to BPT for the priority and non-conventional 
pollutants.
    c. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. EPA evaluated BPT Option 
II as a basis for establishing BAT more stringent than the BPT level of 
control being proposed today. Although BPT Option II results in the 
removal of an estimated additional 167 toxic pounds equivalent of 
priority and non-conventional pollutants over Option I (a one percent 
increase in removals achieved by BPT), no additional water quality 
benefits are projected to result. At both Option I and Option II level 
of control, EPA predicts that there will remain three water quality 
excursions nationally. This excursion is caused by a TEC facility 
modeled to discharge treated effluent to a very low flow stream, and is 
therefore not projected to be eliminated by either treatment option.
    The Agency also concluded that reverse osmosis may not represent 
the best available treatment because cost-effective disposal methods 
for the concentrate (the wastewater containing the concentrated 
pollutants, compared to the permeate) may not be available for all 
facilities. Concentrate may account for 10 to 30 percent of the 
original wastewater flow, depending on the efficiency of the reverse 
osmosis system, and may result in significant disposal costs for large 
flow facilities.
    Additionally, Option I was demonstrated to achieve a high level of 
pollutant control, treating all priority pollutants to very low levels, 
often at or near the analytical minimum level. For these reasons, EPA 
has determined that BPT Option I represents the best available 
technology. BPT Option I is also economically achievable. Therefore, 
EPA is proposing BAT for the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory 
equivalent to BPT for the priority and non-conventional pollutants.
    d. Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/Food Subcategories. EPA has not 
identified any more stringent treatment technology option which it 
considered to represent BAT level of control applicable to Food 
Subcategory facilities in this industry. Based on EPA sampling data, 
EPA found that food grade facilities discharge very few pounds of toxic 
pollutants. Therefore, EPA is proposing not to establish BAT for the 
Food Subcategories.
    e. Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories. EPA did not 
develop or evaluate BAT Options for these subcategories for the 
following reasons: (1) All direct discharging facilities previously 
identified by the Agency are no longer in operation; (2) EPA is not 
aware of any new facilities that have recently begun operations; and 
(3) EPA currently believes permit writers can more appropriately 
control discharges from these facilities, if any, using best 
professional judgement.
    f. Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/Hopper Subcategories. EPA 
is not proposing to establish BAT regulations for any of the hopper 
subcategories. EPA concluded that hopper facilities discharge very few 
pounds of toxic pollutants. EPA estimates that nine hopper facilities 
discharge 21 pound equivalents per year to surface waters, or about two 
pound equivalents per year per facility. The loadings calculations are 
based on EPA sampling data, which found very few priority toxic 
pollutants at treatable levels in raw wastewater. Additionally, very 
little wastewater is generated from cleaning the interiors of hopper 
tanks due to the dry nature of bulk materials transported. Therefore, 
nationally-applicable regulations are unnecessary at this time and 
direct dischargers will remain subject to limitations established on a 
case by case basis using best professional judgement.
4. NSPS Technology Options Considered and Selected
    a. Introduction. As previously noted, under Section 306 of the Act, 
new industrial direct dischargers must comply with standards which 
reflect the greatest degree of effluent reduction achievable through 
application of the best available demonstrated control technologies. 
Congress envisioned that new sources could meet tighter controls than 
existing sources because of the opportunity to incorporate the most 
efficient processes and treatment systems into plant design. Therefore, 
Congress directed EPA, in establishing NSPS, to consider the best 
demonstrated process changes, in-plant controls, operating methods and 
end-of-pipe treatment technologies that reduce pollution to the maximum 
extent feasible.
    New direct discharging facilities have the opportunity to 
incorporate the best available demonstrated technologies, including 
process changes, in-plant controls, and end-of-pipe treatment 
technologies. The general approach followed by EPA for developing NSPS 
options was to evaluate the best demonstrated processes for control of 
priority toxic, nonconventional, and

[[Page 34710]]

conventional pollutants. Specifically, EPA evaluated the technologies 
used as the basis for BPT (BCT and BAT are equivalent to BPT). The 
Agency considered these options as a starting point when developing 
NSPS options because the technologies used to control pollutants at 
existing facilities are fully applicable to new facilities.
    b. Truck/Chemical Subcategory. EPA has not identified any more 
stringent treatment technology option which it considered to represent 
NSPS level of control applicable to Truck/Chemical facilities in this 
industry. Further, EPA has made a finding of no barrier to entry based 
upon the establishment of this level of control for new sources. 
Therefore, EPA is proposing that NSPS for the Truck/Chemical 
Subcategory be established equivalent to BPT for conventional, 
priority, and nonconventional pollutants.
    c. Rail/Chemical Subcategory. EPA evaluated BPT Options II and III 
as a basis for establishing NSPS more stringent than the BAT level of 
control being proposed today. The cost implications anticipated for new 
sources are not as severe as those projected for existing sources. By 
utilizing good heel removal and management practices which prevent 
pollutants from entering waste streams, and good water conservation 
practices in the design of new facilities, treatment unit size can be 
substantially reduced and treatment efficiencies improved. As a result, 
costs of achieving BPT Options II and III can be significantly reduced 
by new sources. BPT Options II and III technologies have been 
demonstrated at an existing zero discharge rail/chemical facility. EPA 
anticipates no barrier to entry for new sources employing these 
technologies at lower cost. Furthermore, based on an analysis of 
benefits for existing sources, significant environmental differences 
would be anticipated between Options I and II and Option III for new 
sources. Therefore, EPA is proposing to establish new source 
performance standards for the Rail/Chemical Subcategory based on BPT 
Option III. Option III consists of flow reduction, oil/water 
separation, equalization, dissolved air flotation (with flocculation 
and pH adjustment), biological treatment, organo-clay/activated carbon 
adsorption, and sludge dewatering.
    d. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. EPA evaluated BPT Option 
II as a basis for establishing NSPS more stringent than the BAT level 
of control being proposed today. EPA rejected BPT Option II as a basis 
for NSPS for the same reasons this additional technology was rejected 
for BAT. Even though the cost implications for new sources are not as 
severe as those projected for existing sources, the cost and economic 
implications of BPT Option II do bear upon the determination that 
reverse osmosis technology as inappropriate for consideration as part 
of the best available technology for the control of pollutants for this 
subcategory.
    Reverse osmosis was not considered to be the best available 
technology due to the small incremental removals achieved by this 
option, the lack of additional water quality benefits potentially 
achieved by this option, the potential issue of disposing the liquid 
concentrate created by treatment, and the high level of pollutant 
control achieved by the proposed BAT option.
    Therefore, EPA is proposing that NSPS for the Barge/Chemical & 
Petroleum Subcategory be established equivalent to BPT for 
conventional, priority, and nonconventional pollutants.
    e. Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/Food Subcategories. EPA has not 
identified any more stringent treatment technology option which it 
considered to represent NSPS level of control applicable to Food 
Subcategory facilities in this industry. Further, EPA has made a 
finding of no barrier to entry based upon the establishment of this 
level of control for new sources. Therefore, EPA is proposing that NSPS 
for the Food Subcategories be established equivalent to BPT for 
conventional pollutants.
    f. Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories. EPA did not 
develop or evaluate BAT Options for these subcategories for the 
following reasons: (1) all direct discharging facilities previously 
identified by the Agency are no longer in operation; (2) EPA is not 
aware of any new facilities that have recently begun operations; and 
(3) EPA currently believes permit writers can more appropriately 
control discharges from these facilities, if any, using best 
professional judgement. EPA is therefore proposing not to establish 
NSPS for the Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories.
    g. Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/Hopper Subcategories EPA is 
not proposing to establish NSPS regulations for any of the hopper 
subcategories. EPA concluded that hopper facilities discharge very few 
pounds of toxic pollutants, and contain very few priority toxic 
pollutants at treatable levels in raw wastewater. Additionally, very 
little wastewater is generated from cleaning the interiors of hopper 
tanks due to the dry nature of bulk materials transported. Therefore, 
nationally-applicable regulations are unnecessary at this time and 
direct dischargers will remain subject to limitations established on a 
case by case basis using best professional judgement.
5. PSES Technology Options Considered and Selected
    a. Introduction. Section 307(b) of the Act requires EPA to 
promulgate pretreatment standards to prevent pass-through of pollutants 
from POTWs to waters of the U.S. or to prevent pollutants from 
interfering with the operation of POTWs. After a thorough analysis of 
indirect discharging facilities in the EPA database, EPA has decided to 
propose PSES in several subcategories for the reasons explained in more 
detail below.
    b. Pass-Through Analysis. Before proposing pretreatment standards, 
the Agency examines whether the pollutants discharged by an industry 
pass through a POTW or interfere with the POTW . In determining whether 
pollutants pass through a POTW, the Agency compares the percentage of a 
pollutant removed by POTWs with the percentage of the pollutant removed 
by discharging facilities applying BAT. A pollutant is deemed to pass 
through the POTW when the average percentage removed nationwide by 
representative POTWs (those meeting secondary treatment requirements) 
is less than the percentage removed by facilities complying with BAT 
effluent limitations guidelines for that pollutant.
    This approach to the definition of pass-through satisfies two 
competing objectives set by Congress: (1) that wastewater treatment 
performance for indirect dischargers be equivalent to that for direct 
dischargers and (2) that the treatment capability and performance of 
the POTW 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 the POTW with the 
mass or concentration of pollutants discharged by a BAT facility, EPA 
compares the percentage of the pollutants removed by the proposed 
treatment system with the POTW removal. EPA takes this approach because 
a comparison of mass or concentration of pollutants in a POTW effluent 
with pollutants in a BAT facility's effluent would not take into 
account the mass of pollutants discharged to the POTW from non-
industrial sources nor the dilution of the pollutants in the POTW 
effluent to lower concentrations from the addition of large amounts of 
non-industrial wastewater.
    For past effluent guidelines, a study of 50 representative POTWs 
was used for

[[Page 34711]]

the pass-through analysis. Because the data collected for evaluating 
POTW removals included influent levels of pollutants that were close to 
the detection limit, the POTW data were edited to eliminate low 
influent concentration levels. For analytes that included a combination 
of high and low influent concentrations, the data was edited to 
eliminate all influent values, and corresponding effluent values, less 
than 10 times the minimum level. For analytes where no influent 
concentrations were greater than 10 times the minimum level, all 
influent values less than five times the minimum level and the 
corresponding effluent values were eliminated. For analytes where no 
influent concentration was greater than five times the minimum level, 
the data was edited to eliminate all influent concentrations, and 
corresponding effluent values, less than 20 ug/l. These editing rules 
were used to allow for the possibility that low POTW removal simply 
reflected the low influent levels.
    EPA then averaged the remaining influent data and the remaining 
effluent data from the 50 POTW database. The percent removals achieved 
for each pollutant was determined from these averaged influent and 
effluent levels. This percent removal was then compared to the percent 
removal for the BAT option treatment technology. Due to the large 
number of pollutants applicable for this industry, additional data from 
the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) database was used to 
augment the POTW database for the pollutants for which the 50 POTW 
Study did not cover. For a more detailed description of the pass-
through analysis, see the Technical Development Document.
    c. Truck/Chemical Subcategory. In the Agency's engineering 
assessment of the best available technology for pretreatment of 
wastewaters from the Truck/Chemical Subcategory, EPA considered two 
options comprised of technologies currently used by facilities in the 
Truck/Chemical Subcategory.
    <bullet> Option I--Flow Reduction, Equalization, Oil/Water 
Separation, Chemical Oxidation, Neutralization, Coagulation, 
Clarification, and Sludge Dewatering. Option I removed 57 percent or 
greater of organic pollutants and 57 percent or greater of metals. 
Approximately 56 percent of Truck/Chemical Subcategory facilities 
received credit in EPA's costing model for existing equalization, nine 
percent for oil/water separation, 27 percent for coagulation/
clarification, and 28 percent for sludge dewatering.
    <bullet> Option II--Flow Reduction, Equalization, Oil/Water 
Separation, Chemical Oxidation, Neutralization, Coagulation, 
Clarification, Activated Carbon Adsorption, and Sludge Dewatering. 
Option II is equivalent to Option I with the addition of activated 
carbon adsorption for wastewater polishing following clarification. 
Option II removed 80 percent or greater of organics and 79 percent of 
metals. No Truck/Chemical Subcategory facilities received credit for 
existing activated carbon adsorption treatment. (Activated carbon 
adsorption treatment was characterized at two indirect discharging 
Truck/Chemical Subcategory facilities that were not selected to receive 
a detailed questionnaire.)
    EPA is proposing to establish pretreatment standards based on 
Option II based on the additional removals achieved by this option. EPA 
has determined that Option II is economically achievable and results in 
no facility closures or projected employment losses. EPA notes that 
Option II removes 22,000 pound equivalents more than Option I. 
Additionally, the cost per pound equivalent removed is $114, which is 
within the range of other effluent guidelines promulgated by EPA.
    EPA conducted a pass-through analysis on the pollutants proposed to 
be regulated under BPT and BAT for Truck/Chemical facilities to 
determine if the Agency should establish pretreatment standards for any 
pollutant. (The pass-through analysis is not applicable to conventional 
parameters such as BOD<INF>5</INF> and TSS.) Several pollutants were 
determined to pass-through a POTW and are therefore proposed for PSES 
regulation in the Truck/Chemical Subcategory.
    d. Rail/Chemical Subcategory. In the Agency's engineering 
assessment of the best available technology for pretreatment of 
wastewaters from the Rail/Chemical Subcategory, EPA considered three 
options comprised of technologies currently used by facilities in the 
Rail/Chemical Subcategory.
    <bullet> Option I--Flow Reduction, Oil/Water Separation. 
Approximately 16 percent of Rail/Chemical Subcategory facilities 
received credit in EPA's costing model for existing oil/water 
separation.
    <bullet> Option II--Flow Reduction, Oil/Water Separation, 
Equalization, Dissolved Air Flotation (with Flocculation and pH 
Adjustment), and Sludge Dewatering. Approximately 61 percent of Rail/
Chemical Subcategory facilities received credit in EPA's costing model 
for existing equalization, 15 percent for dissolved air flotation, 30 
percent for pH adjustment, and 17 percent for sludge dewatering.
    <bullet> Option III--Flow Reduction, Oil/Water Separation, 
Equalization, Dissolved Air Flotation (with Flocculation and pH 
Adjustment), Organo-Clay/Activated Carbon Adsorption, and Sludge 
Dewatering. Option III is equivalent to Option II with the addition of 
an organo-clay/activated carbon adsorption system for wastewater 
polishing following the dissolved air flotation unit. No Rail/Chemical 
Subcategory facilities received credit for existing organo-clay/
activated carbon adsorption treatment. (Organo-clay/activated carbon 
adsorption treatment was characterized at a zero discharge Rail/
Chemical Subcategory facility that recycled/reused 100 percent of TEC 
wastewater.)
    Option I removed entrained oil and grease with incidental removal 
of 61 percent or greater of organic pollutants, Option II removed 72 
percent or greater of organic pollutants and 84 percent of metals, and 
Option III removed 84 percent or greater of organic pollutants.
    EPA is proposing to establish pretreatment standards for the Rail/
Chemical Subcategory based on Option I. EPA estimates that this option 
does not result in any facility closures or employment losses to the 
industry. Option II, however, was projected to result in six facility 
closures and is not economically achievable.
    The Small Business Advocacy Review Panel commented extensively on 
the difference in the proposed treatment options for indirect 
dischargers in the truck chemical and rail chemical subcategories and 
on the related costs and pollutant removals. Based on current data, the 
proposed option for the Truck/Chemical Subcategory is estimated to 
remove about 49 percent of toxic loading, at an average cost of about 
$70,000 per facility, while the proposed option for the Rail/Chemical 
Subcategory is estimated to remove about 59 percent of toxic loadings, 
at an average cost of $33,000 per facility. The panel recognized that a 
direct comparison of the costs and removals between the two types of 
facilities may not be appropriate, because facilities in the truck 
chemical subcategory may discharge a different mix of pollutants. 
Nonetheless, the Panel recommended that EPA give serious consideration 
to proposing treatment technology for the truck chemical subcategory 
closer to that proposed for the rail chemical subcategory. After 
serious consideration of the record, the Agency continues to believe 
that it is appropriate to propose the more stringent technology for

[[Page 34712]]

indirect dischargers in the truck chemical subcategory at this time.
    Intuitively, it is reasonable to assume that the characteristics 
and treatability of raw wastewater generated from the truck and rail 
sectors will be similar because similar types of commodities are 
generally transported by tank trucks and rail cars. However, wastewater 
volumes per tank are much larger for rail cars than for tank trucks 
(approximately 605 gallons compared to 2,091 gallons). This difference 
in wastewater flow volumes has a direct impact on the costs that must 
be incurred to install and maintain wastewater treatment due to the 
larger treatment system necessary.
    The difference in treatment technology selected for the rail and 
truck subcategories is primarily due to the economic characteristics of 
the rail facilities as compared to the chemical facilities. EPA's 
economic assessment of the industry found that there was a significant 
difference in the economic characteristics of the two subcategories. 
This resulted in the preliminary conclusion that the Rail/Chemical 
facilities were not able to absorb the cost of installing high levels 
of treatment without incurring significant economic impacts. The 
economic impacts associated with this option is described in Section X 
of this notice.
    Due to time constraints, the Agency has not had time to conduct an 
analysis of the cost and effectiveness of applying flow reduction and 
oil/water separation only to indirect dischargers in the truck chemical 
subcategory. However, the Agency intends to conduct such an analysis 
prior to promulgating the final rule. If it turns out that this 
technology is nearly as effective at removing toxic pollutants for 
facilities in the truck chemical subcategory as the currently proposed 
technology but at considerably lower cost, the Agency will consider 
basing the limits in the final rule on the alternate technology, or 
some technology closer to it. The Agency requests comment on this 
issue, as well as any data relating to the effectiveness of flow 
reduction and oil/water separation only for indirect dischargers in the 
truck chemical industry.
    EPA conducted a pass-through analysis on the pollutants proposed to 
be regulated under BPT and BAT for Rail/Chemical facilities to 
determine if the Agency should establish pretreatment standards for any 
pollutant. (The pass-through analysis is not applicable to conventional 
parameters such as BOD5 and TSS.) Several pollutants were determined to 
pass-through a POTW and are therefore proposed for PSES regulation in 
the Rail/Chemical Subcategory.
    e. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. In the Agency's survey 
of the industry, EPA identified only one facility discharging to a POTW 
in this subcategory. Therefore, EPA does not propose to establish PSES 
limitations for the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. EPA did, 
however, evaluate technologies for PSNS, as described in section 
VIII.B.6
    f. Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/Food Subcategories. In the 
Agency's engineering assessment of pretreatment of wastewaters for the 
Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/Food Subcategories, EPA considered the 
types and concentrations of pollutants found in raw wastewaters in this 
subcategory. As expected, food grade facilities did not discharge 
significant quantities of toxic pollutants to POTWs. In addition, 
conventional pollutants present in the wastewater were found at 
concentrations that are amenable to treatment at a POTW. As a result, 
EPA is proposing not to establish pretreatment standards for any of the 
Food Subcategories.
    g. Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories. In the 
Agency's engineering assessment of the best available technology for 
pretreatment of wastewaters from the Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum 
Subcategories, EPA considered two options comprised of technologies 
currently used by facilities in these subcategories.
    <bullet> Option I--Flow Reduction, Equalization, Oil/Water 
Separation, and Chemical Precipitation.
    <bullet> Option II--Flow Reduction, Equalization, Oil/Water 
Separation, and Activated Carbon Adsorption Followed by Total 
Wastewater Recycle/Reuse. Approximately 47 percent of Truck/Petroleum 
Subcategory facilities and 100 percent of Rail/Petroleum Subcategory 
facilities received credit in EPA's costing model for existing oil/
water separation. No Truck/Petroleum Subcategory or Rail/Petroleum 
Subcategory facilities received credit for existing equalization or 
activated carbon adsorption. Total recycle/reuse of TEC wastewater 
following treatment using activated carbon is practiced by an estimated 
seven petroleum subcategory facilities. (An additional estimated 22 
petroleum facilities practice 100 percent recycle/reuse of TEC 
wastewater following treatment by technologies different than Option 
II.)
    Due to the similarity of cargos cleaned at Rail/Petroleum and 
Truck/Petroleum facilities, EPA considered wastewater from Truck/
Petroleum facilities to be similar to that from Rail/Petroleum 
facilities. In evaluating these subcatogories for potential regulation, 
EPA conducted wastewater characterization sampling at one Truck/
Petroleum facility and combined this data with data transferred from 
the CWT effluent guideline to evaluate wastewater characteristics for 
the subcategory, as described in section VII of this notice.
    EPA estimates that there are 38 facilities in the Truck/Petroleum 
and Rail/Petroleum subcategories. EPA estimates that these facilities 
discharge a total of 28 pound equivalents to the nation's waterways, or 
less than one pound equivalent per facility. Additionally, EPA 
estimates that the total cost to the industry to implement PSES would 
be greater than $600,000 annually. The estimated costs to control the 
discharge of these small amounts of pound equivalents were not 
considered to be reasonable. Based on this analysis, EPA preliminarily 
concluded that there is no need to develop nationally applicable 
regulations for these subcategories due to the low levels of pollutants 
discharged by facilities in this subcategory.
    Based on these factors, EPA proposes not to establish pretreatment 
standards for the Truck/Petroleum or Rail/Petroleum Subcategories. EPA 
recognizes that limited data were collected which characterizes the 
pollutants present in wastewater from these facilities. As a result, 
the Agency solicits data which can either substantiate or refute its 
tentative conclusions regarding raw wastewater from Truck/Petroleum and 
Rail/Petroleum Subcategories, and also any data which characterizes 
pollutants present in wastewaters from these facilities.
    h. Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/Hopper Subcategories. In 
the Agency's engineering assessment of the best available technology 
for pretreatment of wastewaters from the Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and 
Barge/Hopper Subcategories, EPA considered one option comprised of 
technologies currently used by facilities in these subcategories.
    <bullet> Option I--Flow Reduction and Gravity Separation. EPA 
selected these technologies as Option I because they remove 69 percent 
or greater of metals present in Truck/Hopper Subcategory, Rail/Hopper 
Subcategory and Barge/Hopper Subcategory wastewaters. Approximately 84 
percent of Truck Hopper Subcategory facilities, 100 percent of Rail 
Hopper Subcategory facilities, and 100 percent of Barge

[[Page 34713]]

Hopper Subcategory facilities received credit for existing gravity 
separation.
    EPA conducted wastewater characterization sampling at one Barge/
Hopper facility. The Agency did not conduct sampling at any Rail/Hopper 
or Truck/Hopper facilities. The Agency believes that wastewater from 
all Hopper facilities are similar because the same types of cargos are 
hauled by each of the three segments.
    EPA estimates that there are 42 indirect discharging hopper 
facilities. EPA estimates that these facilities discharge a total of 
3.5 pound equivalents to the nation's waterways, or less than one pound 
equivalent per facility. Additionally, EPA estimates that the total 
cost to the industry to implement PSES would be greater than $350,000 
annually. The estimated costs to control the discharge of these small 
amounts of pound equivalents were not considered to be reasonable.
    EPA is not proposing to establish BAT limits for any priority 
pollutant in the hopper subcategories. EPA did, however, look at the 
levels of pollutants in raw wastewaters and concluded that none were 
present at levels that are expected to cause inhibition of the 
receiving POTW.
    Based on these factors, EPA proposes not to establish pretreatment 
standards for the Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, or Barge/Hopper 
Subcategories. EPA recognizes that limited data were collected which 
characterizes the pollutants present in wastewater from these 
facilities. As a result, the Agency solicits data which can either 
substantiate or refute its tentative conclusions regarding raw 
wastewater from hopper facilities, and also any data which 
characterizes pollutants present in wastewaters from these facilities.
6. PSNS Technology Options Considered and Selected
    a. Introduction. Section 307 of the Act requires EPA to promulgate 
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS). New indirect discharging 
facilities, like new direct discharging facilities, have the 
opportunity to incorporate the best available demonstrated technologies 
including: process changes, in-facility controls, and end-of-pipe 
treatment technologies.
    The general approach followed by EPA for developing PSNS options 
was to evaluate the best demonstrated processes for control of priority 
toxic and nonconventional pollutants. Specifically, EPA evaluated the 
technologies used as the basis for PSES. The Agency considered the PSES 
options as a starting point when developing PSNS options because the 
technologies used to control pollutants at existing facilities are 
fully applicable to new facilities. With respect to good heel removal 
and management practices, water conservation, and end-of-pipe 
wastewater treatment technologies, EPA has not identified any 
technologies or combinations of technologies that are demonstrated for 
new sources that are different from those used as the basis for the 
PSES options. Therefore, EPA has analyzed the same set of control 
technologies in selecting PSNS as were analyzed for PSES.
    b. Truck/Chemical Subcategory. In today's rule, EPA proposes to 
establish pretreatment standards for new sources in the Truck/Chemical 
Subcategory equivalent to the PSES standards. In developing PSNS 
limits, EPA considered whether there are technologies that achieve 
greater removals than proposed for PSES which would be appropriate for 
PSNS. In this subcategory, EPA identified no technology that can 
achieve greater removals than PSES. Therefore, EPA is proposing 
pretreatment standards for those pollutants which the Agency has 
determined to pass through a POTW equal to PSES.
    c. Rail/Chemical Subcategory. EPA evaluated PSES Options II and III 
as more stringent levels of control that may be appropriate for new 
indirect sources. The cost implications anticipated for new sources are 
not as severe as those projected for existing sources. By utilizing 
good heel removal and management practices which prevent pollutants 
from entering waste streams, and good water conservation practices in 
the design of new facilities, treatment unit size can be substantially 
reduced and treatment efficiencies improved. As a result, costs of 
achieving PSES Option II and III can be significantly reduced at new 
facilities. All of the technologies considered have been demonstrated 
at an existing zero discharge rail/chemical facility. EPA anticipates 
no barrier to entry for new sources employing these technologies at 
lower cost.
    Therefore, EPA is proposing PSNS for those pollutants which the 
Agency has determined to pass through a POTW based on PSES Option III. 
EPA is soliciting comment on whether or not it is appropriate to 
establish PSNS based on a more stringent regulatory control option than 
PSES.
    d. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. Although the Agency is 
not proposing to establish PSES for the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum 
Subcategory, EPA did evaluate best available technologies for PSNS.
    <bullet> Option I--Flow Reduction, Oil/Water Separation, Dissolved 
Air Flotation, and In-Line Filter Press. All Barge/Chemical & Petroleum 
Subcategory facilities received credit in EPA's costing model for 
existing oil/water separation and dissolved air flotation. No Barge/
Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory facilities received credit for 
existing in-line filter press treatment. (In-line filter press 
treatment was characterized at a direct discharging Barge/Chemical & 
Petroleum Subcategory facility.)
    <bullet> Option II--Flow Reduction, Oil/Water Separation, Dissolved 
Air Flotation, In-Line Filter Press, Biological Treatment, and Sludge 
Dewatering. Option II is equivalent to Option I with the addition of 
biological treatment for biological decomposition of organic 
constituents. No Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory facilities 
received credit for existing biological treatment or sludge dewatering. 
(Biological treatment was characterized at two direct discharging 
Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory facilities.)
    <bullet> Option III--Flow Reduction, Oil/Water Separation, 
Dissolved Air Flotation, In-Line Filter Press, Biological Treatment, 
Reverse Osmosis, and Sludge Dewatering. Option III is equivalent to 
Option II with the addition of reverse osmosis for wastewater polishing 
following biological treatment. No Barge/Chemical & Petroleum 
Subcategory facilities received credit for existing reverse osmosis 
treatment. (Reverse osmosis treatment was characterized at a direct 
discharging Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory facility.)
    Option I removed 55 percent or greater of organic pollutants and 61 
percent or greater of metals, Option II removed 82 percent or greater 
of organic pollutants and 82 percent or greater of metals, and Option 
III removed 99 percent or greater of organic pollutants and 89 percent 
or greater of metals present in Barge/Chemical & Petroleum wastewater.
    EPA is not proposing to establish PSNS based on Option III because 
reverse osmosis was not considered to be the best demonstrated 
technology due to the small incremental removals achieved by this 
option, the lack of additional water quality benefits potentially 
achieved by this option, the potential issue of disposing the liquid 
concentrate created by treatment, and the high level of pollutant 
control achieved by the proposed BAT option.
    EPA is proposing to establish PSNS based on Option II because of 
the removals achieved through this option.

[[Page 34714]]

The raw wastewater in this subcategory contains significant amounts of 
decomposable organic materials. These materials may not be treated as 
efficiently as the proposed technology option in a conventional POTW 
because a POTW may not be acclimated to this particular wastewater 
stream. In this instance, pretreatment based on biological treatment 
may be appropriate because the pollutant parameters that pass through, 
or which may be present at levels that cause interference, will receive 
additional treatment not achieved by the POTW. While EPA considers this 
to be the best treatment available that does not impose a significant 
barrier to entry, EPA is soliciting comment on the technology selected 
as the basis for regulation. Several pollutants were determined to 
pass-through a POTW and are therefore proposed for PSNS regulation in 
the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory.
    EPA has also considered establishing PSNS based on Option I. EPA 
believes that organic loadings in raw wastewater at barge chemical 
facilities may be present at levels which are amenable to biological 
treatment at POTW. However, EPA may not have sufficient data to support 
this assumption because EPA identified only one barge chemical facility 
currently discharging to a POTW. EPA solicits comments and data which 
would support or refute the assumption that a POTW may accept effluent, 
without causing pass-through or interference, treated by Option I that 
has not been treated biologically, as is proposed in Option II.
    e. Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/Food Subcategories. EPA has not 
identified any more stringent treatment technology option which it 
considered to represent PSNS level of control applicable to Food 
Subcategory facilities in this industry. In addition, conventional 
pollutants present in the wastewater were found at concentrations that 
are amenable to treatment at a POTW. As a result, EPA is proposing not 
to establish PSNS for any of the Food Subcategories.
    f. Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories. Based on the 
PSES analysis, EPA preliminarily concluded that there is no need to 
develop nationally applicable regulations for these subcategories due 
to the low levels of pollutants discharged by facilities in this 
subcategory.
    EPA proposes not to establish PSNS for the Truck/Petroleum or Rail/
Petroleum Subcategories.
    g. Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/Hopper Subcategories. Based 
on the PSES analysis, EPA preliminarily concluded that there is no need 
to develop nationally applicable regulations for these subcategories 
due to the low levels of pollutants discharged by facilities in this 
subcategory.
    EPA proposes not to establish PSNS for the Truck/Hopper, Rail/
Hopper, and Barge/Hopper Subcategories.

C. Development of Effluent Limitations

    EPA based the proposed effluent limitations and standards in 
today's notice on widely-recognized statistical procedures for 
calculating long-term averages and variability factors. The following 
presents a summary of the statistical methodology used in the 
calculation of effluent limitations.
    Effluent limitations for each subcategory are based on a 
combination of subcategory-specific regulatory flows, long-term average 
effluent values, and variability factors that account for variation in 
day-to-day treatment performance within a treatment plant. The long-
term averages are average effluent concentrations that have been 
achieved by well-operated treatment systems using the processes 
described in the above section (Technology Options Considered for Basis 
of Regulation). The variability factors are values that represent the 
ratio of a large value that would be expected to occur only rarely to 
the long-term average. The purpose of the variability factor is to 
allow for normal variation in effluent concentrations. A facility that 
designs and operates its treatment system to achieve a long-term 
average on a consistent basis should be able to comply with the daily 
and monthly limitations in the course of normal operations.
    The variability factors and long term averages were developed from 
a data base composed of individual measurements on treated effluent 
based on EPA sampling data. EPA sampling data reflects the performance 
of a system over a three to five day period, although not necessarily 
over consecutive days.
    The long-term average concentration of a pollutant for a treatment 
system was calculated based on either an arithmetic mean or the 
expected value of the distribution of the samples, depending on the 
number of total samples and the number of detected samples for that 
pollutant at that facility. A delta-lognormal distributional assumption 
was used for all subcategories except the Truck/Chemical subcategory 
where the arithmetic mean was used. The pollutant long-term average 
concentration for a treatment technology was the median of the long-
term averages from the sampled treatment systems within the subcategory 
using the proposed treatment technology.
    EPA calculated variability factors by fitting a statistical 
distribution to the sampling data. The distribution was based on an 
assumption that the furthest excursion from the long term average (LTA) 
that a well operated plant using the proposed technology option could 
be expected to make on a daily basis was a point below which 99 percent 
of the data for that facility falls, under the assumed distribution. 
The daily variability factor for each pollutant at each facility is the 
ratio of the estimated 99th percentile of the distribution of the daily 
pollutant concentration values divided by the expected value of the 
distribution of the daily values. The pollutant variability factor for 
a treatment technology was the mean of the pollutant variability 
factors from the facilities with that technology.
    There were several instances where variability factors could not be 
calculated directly from the TEC database because there were not at 
least two effluent values measured above the minimum detection level 
for a specific pollutant. In these cases, the sample size of the data 
is too small to allow distributional assumptions to be made. Therefore, 
in order to assume a variability factor for a pollutant, the Agency 
transferred variability factors from other pollutants that exhibit 
similar treatability characteristics within the treatment system.
    In order to do this, pollutants were grouped on the basis of their 
chemical structure and published data on relative treatability. The 
median pollutant variability factor for all pollutants within a group 
at that sampling episode was used to create a group-level variability 
factor. When group-level variability factors were not able to be 
calculated, groups that were similar were collected into analytical 
method fractions and the median group-level variability factor was 
calculated to create a fraction-level variability factor. Group-level 
variability factors were used when available, and fraction-level 
variability factors were used if group-level variability factors could 
not be calculated. For the sampling episodes in the Truck/Chemical 
Subcategory, there were not enough data to calculate variability 
factors at any level and therefore variability factors were transferred 
from similar treatment technologies sampled in the Rail/Chemical 
Subcategory.
    Limitations were based on actual concentrations of pollutants 
measured in wastewaters treated by the proposed

[[Page 34715]]

technologies where such data were available. Actual measured value data 
was available for pollutant parameters in all subcategories with the 
exception of pollutants regulated for direct dischargers in the Truck/
Chemical and Rail/Chemical Subcategories. Due to the small number of 
direct discharging facilities identified by EPA, all of EPA's sampling 
was conducted at indirect discharging facilities in these 
subcategories. In the case of BPT regulation for conventional, 
priority, and non-conventional pollutants, EPA concluded that 
establishing limits based on indirect discharging treatment systems was 
not appropriate because indirect discharging treatment systems are 
generally not operated for optimal control of pollutants which are 
amenable to treatment in a POTW. In other words, treatment systems at 
indirect discharging facilities generally do not require biological 
treatment to control organic pollutants because a POTW will control 
these pollutants. Therefore, in establishing limits for direct 
discharging facilities, EPA is proposing to establish BPT limitations 
based on the treatment performance demonstrated during the sampling of 
two direct discharging Barge/Chemical & Petroleum facilities that 
utilized biological treatment systems.
    For this industry, EPA is proposing to establish mass-based rather 
than concentration based limits. The limits are specified as grams per 
tank cleaned. EPA envisions that permit writers would use these limits, 
in combination with data on annual number of tanks cleaned and annual 
facility wastewater flow, to calculate facility-specific concentration 
based limits for wastewater flows leaving the treatment plant, and then 
incorporate these limits into the permit. EPA is proposing this 
approach because it is concerned that if it proposed concentration 
based limits directly, facilities might be able to comply with these 
limits be increasing their water usage rather than installing and 
properly operating appropriate treatment, thereby diluting rather than 
removing pollutants of concern. EPA is soliciting comment on the 
appropriateness of this approach and the burden on the permitting and 
pretreatment authorities. Based on comments received, EPA may decide to 
convert the mass based limits in the proposed regulation to 
concentration based limits for the final rule.
    The daily maximum limitation is calculated as the product of the 
pollutant long-term average concentration, the subcategory-specific 
regulatory flow, and the variability factor. The monthly maximum 
limitation is also calculated as the product of the pollutant long-term 
average, the subcategory-specific regulatory flow, and the variability 
factor, but the variability factor is based on the 95 percentile of the 
distribution of daily pollutant concentrations instead of the 99th 
percentile.
    By accounting for these reasonable excursions above the LTA, EPA's 
use of variability factors results in standards that are generally well 
above the actual LTAs. Thus if a facility operates its treatment system 
to meet the relevant LTA, EPA expects the plant to be able to meet the 
standards. Variability factors assure that normal fluctuations in a 
facility's treatment are accounted for in the limitations.
    The proposed limitations, as presented in today's notice, are 
provided as daily maximums and monthly averages for conventional 
pollutants. Monitoring was assumed to occur four times per month for 
conventional pollutants. Monitoring was assumed to occur once per month 
for all priority and nonconventional pollutants. This has the result 
that the daily maximums and monthly averages for priority and 
nonconventional pollutants are the same.
    Although the monitoring frequency necessary for a facility to 
demonstrate compliance is determined by the local permitting authority, 
EPA must assume a monitoring frequency in order to assess costs and to 
determine variability of the treatment system.
    Monitoring four times per month for conventional and classical 
pollutants is proposed to ensure that facility TEC processes and 
wastewater treatment systems are consistently and continuously operated 
to achieve the associated pollutant long term averages. Monitoring once 
per month for toxic pollutants is proposed to provide economic relief 
to regulated facilities while ensuring that facility TEC processes and 
wastewater treatment systems are designed and operated to control the 
discharge of toxic pollutants.
    EPA is proposing to establish effluent limitations for existing 
facilities and new sources discharging wastewater directly to surface 
waters in the following subcategories: Truck/Chemical, Rail/Chemical, 
Barge/Chemical & Petroleum, Truck/Food, Rail/Food and Barge/Food 
Subcategories.
    EPA is proposing to establish BPT, BCT, BAT and NSPS limitations 
for the Truck/Chemical Subcategory. EPA is proposing limitations for 
BOD<INF>5</INF> , TSS, Oil and Grease, Chromium, Zinc, COD, Bis (2-
ethylhexyl) pthalate, di-N-octyl phthalate, N-Dodecane, N-Hexadecane, 
Styrene, and 1,2-dichlorobenzene. For the Rail/Chemical Subcategory, 
EPA is proposing to establish BPT, BCT, BAT and NSPS limitations. EPA 
is proposing to regulate BOD<INF>5</INF>, TSS, Oil and Grease, COD, N-
Dodecane, N-Hexadecane, N-Tetradecane, Anthracene, Pyrene, 
Fluoranthene, and Phenanthrene. For the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum 
Subcategory, EPA is proposing to establish BPT, BCT, BAT and NSPS 
limitations. EPA is proposing to regulate BOD<INF>5</INF>, TSS, Oil and 
Grease, COD, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Nickel, Zinc, 1-
Methylphenanthrene, Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate, Di-N-Octyl Phthalate, 
N-Decane, N-Docesane, N-Dodecane, N-Eicosane, N-Octadecane, N-
Tetracosane, N-Tetradecane, P-Cymene, and Pyrene.
    Additionally, EPA is proposing to establish BPT, BCT, and NSPS 
limitations for the Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/Food Subcategories 
for BOD<INF>5</INF>, TSS, Oil and Grease.
    The analytical method for Oil and Grease and Total Petroleum 
Hydrocarbons (TPH) is currently being revised to allow for the use of 
normal hexane in place of freon 113, a chlorofluorocarbon (CFC). Method 
1664 (Hexane Extractable Material) will replace the current Oil and 
Grease Method 413.1 found in 40 CFR 136. In anticipation of 
promulgation of method 1664, data collected by EPA in support of the 
TECI effluent guideline utilized method 1664. Therefore, all effluent 
limitations proposed for Oil and Grease and TPH in this effluent 
guideline are to be measured by Method 1664.
    Regulated facilities can meet the proposed limitations through the 
use of any combination of physical, chemical or biological treatment, 
or implementation of pollution prevention strategies (good heel removal 
and water conservation). Additional information on the development of 
effluent limitations and the technology options considered for 
regulation is included in Section VIII.A and VIII.B of this proposed 
rule.
    EPA based its decision to select specific pollutants to establish 
effluent limitations on a rigorous evaluation of available sampling 
data. This evaluation included factors such as the concentration and 
frequency of detection of the pollutants in the industry raw 
wastewater, the relative toxicity of pollutants as defined by their 
toxic weighting factors, the treatability of the pollutants in the 
modeled treatment systems, and the potential of the pollutants to pass 
through or interfere with POTW operations. Particular attention has 
been given to priority pollutants which have been

[[Page 34716]]

detected at treatable levels. Due to the inherent variability of TEC 
wastewater, EPA does not have sufficient analytical data to establish 
effluent limitations for each specific pollutant which may be present 
in the industry wastewater on any given day. EPA has therefore 
attempted to select several pollutants which have been detected 
frequently at sampled facilities, which are a possible indicator of the 
presence of similar pollutants, and whose control through some 
combination of physical, chemical and biological treatment will be 
indicative of a well-operated treatment system capable of removing a 
wide range of pollutants.
    EPA determined the regulatory flows to be used in the calculation 
of mass based limits from information provided in the Detailed 
Questionnaire. EPA analyzed the average wastewater flow generated per 
tank on a facility by facility basis by dividing the annual wastewater 
volume by the number of tanks cleaned at that facility. The regulatory 
flow for each subcategory was then determined by taking the median of 
the average flow per tank values of each facility in the subcategory. 
Because each facility in the TEC database represents a statistical 
population of facilities, EPA used the bootstrap method to account for 
the facility survey weights in order to determine the median 
subcategory flow. A more detailed explanation of the bootstrap method 
and the calculation of regulatory flow can be found in the 
``Statistical Support Document of Proposed Effluent Limitations 
Guidelines and Standards for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning 
Category''.
    The pollutants for which limits are proposed include volatile 
organics, semi-volatile organics, metals, and classical pollutants. EPA 
does not propose to establish effluent limitations for any pesticides 
or herbicides for two reasons. One, the cost associated with monitoring 
for these parameters is very high; and two, EPA's sampling data that 
has shown that the discharge concentrations of pesticides and 
herbicides are generally treated by the proposed technology options. 
EPA also does not propose to establish effluent limitations for 
dioxins/furans, although 2,3,7,8 TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF were detected in 
samples collected at several barge and rail facilities. Based on an 
evaluation of the sampling data from facilities where dioxins were 
detected, EPA has determined that the detection of 2,3,7,8 TCDD and 
2,3,7,8-TCDF were isolated, site-specific instances, and as a general 
rule dioxins should not be detected in wastewaters from this segment of 
the industry. Therefore, effluent limitations for dioxins are not 
proposed for inclusion in this regulation.
    Although the wastewater treatment systems sampled by EPA to 
establish effluent limitations are not designed specifically for metals 
control, EPA believes that establishing numeric limitations for metals 
based on these technologies is still appropriate. Based on an 
evaluation of TECI wastewater characterization and treatment 
performance data, EPA has concluded that metals present in TECI 
wastewater are predominantly associated with solids as opposed to being 
in solution. Since the modeled treatment systems used to establish 
effluent limitations are designed for solids removal, EPA believes that 
incidental removals of metals will occur, and therefore effluent 
limitations for certain metals are justified.
    Finally, EPA conducted a pass-through analysis on the pollutants 
proposed to be regulated under BPT and BAT to determine if the Agency 
should establish pretreatment standards for any pollutant. (The pass-
through analysis is not applicable to conventional parameters such as 
BOD<INF>5</INF> and TSS.) EPA is proposing pretreatment standards for 
those pollutants which the Agency has determined to pass through a 
POTW.
    EPA is proposing to establish pretreatment standards for existing 
facilities and new sources discharging wastewater to POTWs in the 
following subcategories: Truck/Chemical and Rail/Chemical 
Subcategories. Additionally, EPA is proposing to establish pretreatment 
standards for new sources discharging wastewater to POTWs in the Barge/
Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory.
    Based on the pass-through analysis, EPA is proposing to set PSES 
and PSNS standards in the Truck/Chemical Subcategory for Chromium, 
Zinc, COD, Bis (2-ethylhexyl) pthalate, di-N-octyl phthalate, N-
Dodecane, N-Hexadecane, Styrene, and 1,2-dichlorobenzene. Based on the 
pass-through analysis, EPA is proposing to set PSES and PSNS standards 
in the Rail/Chemical Subcategory for SGT-HEM, COD, N-Hexadecane, N-
Tetradecane, and Fluoranthene. Based on the pass-through analysis, EPA 
is proposing to set PSNS standards in the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum 
Subcategory for SGT-HEM, COD, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Nickel, 
Zinc, 1-Methylphenanthrene, Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate, Di-N-Octyl 
Phthalate, N-Decane, N-Docesane, N-Dodecane, N-Eicosane, N-Octadecane, 
N-Tetracosane, N-Tetradecane, P-Cymene, and Pyrene.
    EPA solicits comments on the appropriateness of the pollutants 
selected for regulation, including the decision to establish effluent 
limitations for metals using modeled treatment systems not specifically 
designed for metals control. The Agency also solicits data which will 
support or refute the ability of TEC facilities to meet the proposed 
effluent limitations using the modeled treatment systems.

IX. Costs and Pollutant Reductions Achieved by Regulatory 
Alternatives

A. Methodology for Estimating Costs

    EPA estimated industry-wide compliance costs and pollutant loadings 
associated with the effluent limitations and standards proposed today 
using data collected through survey responses, site visits, and 
sampling episodes. Cost estimates for each regulatory option are 
summarized in Section X of today's notice, and in more detail in the 
Technical Development Document.
    EPA developed industry-wide costs and loads based on 176 facility 
responses to the Detailed Questionnaire. The statistical methodology 
for this selection is further explained in the Statistical Support 
Document. EPA calculated costs and loads for questionnaire recipients 
and then modeled the national population by using statistically 
calculated survey weights.
    EPA evaluated each of the 176 Detailed Questionnaire recipients to 
determine if the facility would be subject to the proposed limitations 
and standards and would therefore incur costs as a result of the 
proposed regulation. Eighty-three facilities were not modeled to incur 
costs because:
    <bullet> 34 facilities were located at industrial sites subject to 
other Clean Water Act final or proposed categorical standards and thus 
would not be subject to the limitations and standards under the 
proposed approach for this guideline.
    <bullet> 49 facilities indicated that they were zero or alternative 
dischargers (i.e., did not discharge their TEC generated wastewaters 
either directly or indirectly to a surface water).
    Each of the 93 Detailed Questionnaire recipients, plus four direct 
discharging facilities which did not receive the questionnaire, were 
assessed to determine TEC operations, wastewater characteristics, daily 
flow rates (process flow rates), operating schedules, tank cleaning 
production (i.e., number of tanks cleaned), and wastewater treatment 
technologies currently in place at the site.

[[Page 34717]]

    Facilities that did not have the proposed technology option already 
in-place were projected to incur costs as a result of compliance with 
this guideline. A facility which did not have the technology in-place 
was costed for installing and maintaining the technology.
    A computer cost model based on vendor quotes and validated through 
Questionnaire responses was used to estimate compliance costs for each 
of the technology options after taking into account treatment in place 
and wastewater flow rates for each facility. The computer cost model 
was programmed with technology-specific modules which calculated the 
costs for various combinations of technologies as required by the 
technology options and the facilities' wastewater characteristics. The 
model calculated the following costs for each facility:
    <bullet> Capital costs for installed technologies.
    <bullet> Operating and maintenance (O&M) costs for installed 
wastewater treatment technologies; including labor, electrical, and 
chemical usage costs.
    <bullet> Solids handling costs; including capital, O&M, and 
disposal.
    <bullet> Monitoring costs
    Additional cost factors were developed and applied to the capital 
costs in order to account for site work, interface piping, general 
contracting, engineering, buildings, site improvements, legal/
administrative fees, interest, contingency, and taxes and insurance. 
Other direct costs associated with compliance included retrofit costs 
associated with integrating the existing on-site treatment with new 
equipment and monitoring costs.
    The capital costs (equipment, retrofit and permit modification) 
were amortized over 16 years and added to the O&M costs (equipment and 
monitoring) to calculate the total annual costs incurred by each 
facility as a result of complying with this guideline. The costs 
associated with each of the 97 facilities in the cost analysis were 
then modeled to represent the national population by using 
statistically calculated survey weights.
    For many low-flow facilities, EPA concluded that contract hauling 
wastewater for off-site treatment was the most cost effective option. 
Where applicable, EPA calculated costs for hauling wastewater to a 
Centralized Waste Treatment facility for treatment in lieu of 
installing additional treatment on-site.
    All cost models, cost factors, and cost assumptions are presented 
in detail in the Technical Development Document. The Agency solicits 
comments on the cost models and the assumptions used to project the 
cost of compliance to the industry as a result of today's proposed 
regulation.

B. Methodology for Estimating Pollutant Reductions

    The proposed BPT, BCT, BAT, and PSES limitations will control the 
discharge of conventional, priority toxic, and nonconventional 
pollutants from TEC facilities. The Agency developed estimates of the 
post-compliance long-term average (LTA) production normalized mass 
loadings of pollutants that would be discharged from TEC facilities 
within each subcategory. These estimates were calculated using the 
long-term average effluent concentrations of specific pollutants 
achieved after implementation of the proposed BPT, BCT, BAT, and PSES 
technology bases in conjunction with the subcategory-specific 
regulatory flow per tank cleaned. Long-term average effluent 
concentrations were statistically derived using treatment performance 
data collected during EPA's sampling program. Development of these 
long-term average effluent concentrations is discussed in more detail 
in Section VIII of this preamble and in the Statistical Support 
Document. The subcategory-specific regulatory flows were statistically 
derived based on facility flow data provided in response to the 1994 
TEC industry Detailed Questionnaire. The Statistical Support Document 
also discusses development of subcategory-specific regulatory flows.
    BPT, BCT, BAT, and PSES pollutant reductions were first estimated 
on a site-specific basis for affected facilities that responded to the 
Detailed Questionnaire and for four additional affected facilities 
identified from responses to the Screener Questionnaire. Site-specific 
pollutant reductions were calculated as the difference between the 
site-specific baseline pollutant loadings (i.e., estimated pollutant 
loadings currently discharged) and the site-specific post-compliance 
pollutant loadings (i.e., estimated pollutant loadings discharged after 
implementation of the regulation). The site-specific pollutant 
reductions were then multiplied by statistically derived survey 
weighting (scaling) factors and summed to represent pollutant 
reductions for the entire TEC industry.
    Baseline pollutant loadings (in mass per day) represent the 
pollutant loading currently discharged by TEC facilities after 
accounting for removal of pollutants in untreated wastewater by 
treatment technologies currently in place. To estimate the site-
specific baseline pollutant loadings, EPA estimated the untreated 
pollutant loadings generated by TEC facilities based on data collected 
during EPA's TEC industry sampling program. For each facility sampled, 
data on the facility production (i.e., number of tanks cleaned per 
day), cargo types cleaned, TEC wastewater flow rate, operating hours 
per day, and operating days per year were collected. These data were 
then used in conjunction with the analytical data to calculate average 
untreated pollutant loadings per tank cleaned for each TEC industry 
subcategory. Although some facilities provided self-monitoring data in 
response to the Detailed Questionnaire, these data were not useable for 
the following reasons: (1) Respondents provided different types of data 
for a nonstandard set of pollutants, (2) the data represented samples 
collected at a variety of treatment system influent and effluent 
points, (3) the data were provided as an average estimated by the 
facility over one or more sampling days, and/or (4) analytical QA/QC 
data were not provided.
    EPA calculated the site-specific untreated pollutant loadings (in 
mass per day) by multiplying the subcategory-specific untreated 
pollutant loadings per tank cleaned estimates by the number of tanks 
cleaned at each facility. For facilities with production in multiple 
subcategories, estimated pollutant loadings from each subcategory were 
summed to estimate the site-specific untreated pollutant loadings. 
Additionally, for some facilities, loadings of pollutants in incidental 
waste streams loadings (such as bilge and ballast water) were estimated 
from other EPA program sampling data and other sources. These 
incidental stream pollutant loadings were also summed to estimate the 
site-specific untreated pollutant loadings.
    The site-specific untreated pollutant loadings were converted to 
untreated wastewater pollutant concentrations by dividing by the 
facility daily wastewater discharge flow rate (including TEC wastewater 
and commingled non-TEC wastewater streams not easily segregated) 
provided in responses to the Detailed Questionnaire. For each site, the 
untreated pollutant wastewater concentrations were then compared to the 
long-term average effluent concentrations achieved by the treatment 
technologies currently in place (if any). The lower of these 
concentrations represents the site-specific baseline effluent 
concentration. The site-specific baseline effluent concentrations were 
then multiplied by the facility daily wastewater discharge

[[Page 34718]]

flow rate (described above) to determine the site-specific baseline 
pollutant loadings.
    Post-compliance pollutant loadings (in mass per day) represent the 
estimated pollutant loadings that will be discharged after 
implementation of the regulation. For each site, the baseline pollutant 
effluent concentrations (described above) were compared to the long-
term average effluent concentrations achieved by the technology bases 
for BPT, BCT, BAT, or PSES. The lower of these concentrations 
represents the site-specific post-compliance effluent concentrations. 
The site-specific post-compliance pollutant effluent concentrations 
were then multiplied by the facility daily wastewater discharge flow 
rate to determine the site-specific post-compliance pollutant loadings.
    Finally, pollutant reductions were calculated at each facility as 
the difference between the baseline pollutant loadings and the post-
compliance pollutant loadings. The pollutant reductions were then 
multiplied by statistically derived survey weights and summed to 
represent pollutant reductions for the entire TEC point source 
category.

X. Economic Analysis

A. Introduction

    This section describes the costs, economic impacts, and benefits 
associated with today's proposal. The economic analysis uses the 
engineering cost estimates (described in Section IX.A.) to analyze the 
economic impacts of various technology options. EPA's economic 
assessment is summarized here; details are available in the ``Economic 
Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for 
the Transportation Equipment Cleaning Point Source Category,'' 
hereinafter referred to as the EA, which is included in the rulemaking 
record. The EA estimates the economic impacts of compliance costs on 
facilities, firms, employment, domestic and international markets, 
inflation, distribution, environmental justice, and transportation 
equipment cleaning customers. EPA also prepared an Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (SBREFA), which estimates the impacts of the proposal on small 
entities (details in the EA). In addition, a cost-effectiveness 
analysis of all technology options for eleven subcategories is 
presented in the ``Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Proposed Effluent 
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Transportation Equipment 
Cleaning Point Source Category,'' hereinafter referred to as the CE 
document.

B. Economic Impact Methodology

1. Introduction
    The TECI is a service industry with modest capital assets in 
comparison to manufacturing industries. Many of the businesses in this 
industry are single, stand alone facilities in which the facility, 
business entity, and firm are the same. There are some multi-facility 
firms or business entities that own several tank cleaning facilities; a 
small number of firms own a relatively large number of facilities. The 
TECI provides a service that is a ``derived demand'' for overall 
transportation services. As the demand for transportation services in 
general increases, the demand correspondingly increases for 
transportation equipment cleaning services.
    The EA consists of eight major components: (1) an assessment of the 
number of facilities that could be affected by this rule; (2) an 
estimate of the annual aggregate cost for these facilities to comply 
with the rule using facility-level capital and operating and 
maintenance (O&M) costs; (3) an evaluation, using a discounted cash 
flow (DCF) model, to analyze compliance cost impacts on each TECI 
facility's cash flow (closure analysis); (4) an evaluation, using a 
financial model, of compliance costs impacts on the financial health of 
facilities in the industry (financial stress analysis); (5) an 
evaluation of secondary impacts such as those on employment, markets, 
inflation, distribution, environmental justice and transportation 
equipment cleaning customers; (6) an assessment of the potential for 
impact on new sources (barrier-to-entry); (7) an analysis of the 
effects of compliance costs on small entities; and (8) a cost-benefit 
analysis.
    All costs reported in this notice are expressed in 1997 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 ``1994 Detailed Questionnaire for the 
Transportation Equipment Cleaning Industry, Part B--Financial and 
Economic Information,'' hereinafter referred to as the Detailed 
Questionnaire (the section 308 survey conducted in April 1995; see 
Section V.C.). Other sources include the Bureau of the Census, industry 
trade journals, preliminary surveys of the industry, and the ``U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency Tank and Container Cleaning Screener 
Questionnaire.'' All costs were inflated to 1997 dollars using the 
Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index.
2. Methodology Overview
    Central to the EA is the cost annualization model, which uses 
facility-specific capital, operating and maintenance (O&M), and 
monitoring costs data described in Section IX.A, to determine the total 
annualized compliance costs. The total annual costs described in 
Section IX.A (and in the Technical Development Document) are an 
approximation of the costs of the proposed rule. The refinements to 
annualization described below provide a more accurate basis for 
estimating financial impacts to each facility. This model uses these 
costs and facility specific costs of capital (discount rate), or if not 
available, the industry average costs of capital, over a 16-year 
analytic time frame to generate the annual cost of compliance for each 
technology. EPA chose the 16-year time frame for analysis based on the 
depreciable life for equipment of this type, 15 years according 
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rules, plus approximately one year for 
purchasing and installing the equipment. The model generates the 
annualized cost for each option for each facility in the survey, which 
is then used in the facility impact analyses, discussed below. The 
annualized compliance costs for each facility are totaled at the 
national level to provide aggregate annualized costs for each 
technology option.
    For each facility in the transportation equipment cleaning 
industry, EPA estimated the present value of baseline cash flow using 
three forecasting methods. EPA used three different scenarios to help 
address the uncertainty associated with predicting future income 
streams. The forecasts are based on the three years of financial data 
provided by each facility in the Detailed Questionnaire, assuming no-
real-growth. One forecasting method uses 1994 cash flow as the best 
predictor of future cash flow. The second method uses the average of 
1992, 1993, and 1994 cash flow as the expected cash flow for each year 
over the sixteen year project life. The third method uses the variation 
between 1992, 1993, and 1994 cash flow to mimic business cycle 
fluctuations in cash flow for the period (see EA, Appendix C for 
details on cash flow forecasting methods).
    EPA then calculated the present value of the stream of each 
facility's post-tax

[[Page 34719]]

compliance costs (including the initial capital purchase and each 
year's operating and maintenance costs) over the sixteen year project 
life using each of the three forecasting methods. The present value of 
compliance costs is adjusted downward by a cost pass through factor 
that is calculated from EPA's TECI market model (see the EA, Appendix 
B). The market model for the TECI, which quantifies the impact of the 
proposed effluent guideline on equilibrium price and quantity in each 
TECI subcategory of the proposed rule, shows that the facilities in the 
regulated subcategories will be able to pass some portion of the 
compliance costs of the proposed rule through to their customers. The 
market model calculates the percentage that can be passed through for 
each subcategory. The adjusted present value of compliance costs 
represents the estimated change in facility cash flow caused by the 
proposed regulation.
    For each of the subcategories in this industry, the estimated 
change in the present value of cash flow is subtracted from the 
projected present value of baseline facility cash flow to estimate the 
present value of post compliance cash flow. If the present value of 
post compliance cash flow is negative under two of the three 
forecasting methods, EPA considers the facility likely to close (i.e., 
liquidate) as a result of the regulation.
    In the firm financial stress analysis, EPA uses the annualized 
costs to estimate changes to the balance sheets and income statements 
for each firm. This analysis estimates changes in financial information 
of each firm such as earnings, assets, liabilities, and working capital 
at the firm level (accounting for multiple facilities, where 
applicable). These postcompliance financial figures are used in a 
computerized model of financial health on a firm-by-firm basis. The 
model uses an equation known as Altman's Z'', which was developed using 
empirical data to characterize the financial health of firms, 
specifically for service industries such as the TECI. This model 
calculates one value, using financial data from the Detailed 
Questionnaire, that can be compared to index numbers that define 
``good'' financial health, ``indeterminate'' financial health, and 
``poor'' financial health. All firms whose Altman's Z'' value changes 
such that the firm goes from a ``good'' or ``indeterminate'' baseline 
category to a ``poor'' postcompliance category are classified as likely 
to have significant difficulties raising the capital needed to comply 
with the proposed rule, which can indicate the likelihood of firm 
bankruptcy, or loss of financial independence. To complement the Altman 
Z'' financial analysis, EPA uses two financial ratios: the current 
ratio (compares current assets to current liabilities) and the times 
interest earned ratio (compares annual interest obligations to annual 
cash flow). In most of the firm analyses, the current ratio and the 
time interest earned ratio tend to verify the Altman Z'' results.
    In the employment analysis, EPA uses input-output analysis and 
market analysis. Using input-output analysis, EPA conducts a national-
level analysis for estimating employment changes (gains and losses) 
throughout the U.S. economy in all non-TECI sectors of the economy. In 
this analysis, EPA uses both compliance costs and employment losses 
driven by facility closures to determine a range of possible gross and 
net (losses minus gains) impacts at the national level. Using market 
analysis, EPA's estimates market-determined production losses to derive 
an estimate of direct, net employment losses in the transportation 
equipment cleaning industry alone. Market analysis is undertaken to 
determine losses within the transportation equipment cleaning industry 
alone; while closure losses can be considered the immediate impact of 
the proposed rule on the industry, production-driven losses might be 
greater or less than closure losses over time, as equilibrium in the 
market is attained. Furthermore, closure losses do not account for the 
fact that some portion of production might transfer wholly or in part 
to operating pollution control equipment, thus accounting for some 
employment gains within the industry.
    EPA investigates secondary impacts qualitatively and 
quantitatively. These impacts include impacts on international markets, 
impacts on substitutes for transportation equipment cleaning services, 
impacts on inflation, distributional impacts, and impacts on 
environmental justice. EPA also investigates the impact of the rule on 
domestic markets. The rule will affect domestic markets to the extent 
that zero discharge or excluded facilities have a competitive advantage 
over affected facilities.
    EPA also looks at impacts on customers. The Agency analyzed the 
increase in prices that could be anticipated on a postcompliance basis. 
For the long term price equilibrium, the Agency determined the change 
in the number of tanks that would be cleaned. The analysis indicates a 
very modest decrease in the number of tanks cleaned. In many instances, 
this will probably occur as a slight decrease in the frequency of tank 
cleanings. In other cases, some customers could decide to buy 
``dedicated'' tanks which would need infrequent or no cleaning.
    Another key analysis EPA performs is an analysis to determine 
impacts on new sources, which is primarily a ``barrier-to-entry'' 
analysis to determine whether the costs of the PSNS or NSPS would 
prevent a new source from entering the market. This analysis looks at 
whether new transportation equipment cleaning facilities would be at a 
competitive disadvantage compared to existing sources. Market effects 
and barrier-to-entry results associated with zero discharge and small 
facility exclusion (if any) also are qualitatively investigated.
    The EA also includes a cost-benefit analysis. This analysis looks 
at the social costs of the regulation measured as the pretax costs of 
compliance plus government administrative costs plus the costs of 
administering unemployment benefits (if any). Total social costs are 
compared to total social benefits in the analysis. See Section XI of 
this notice for a discussion of the benefit analysis.
    EPA solicits comment on the methodologies described above. In 
particular, the Agency requests comment on the assumptions used in the 
analyses. Details of the methodologies and assumptions are available in 
the EA and the CE documents.

C. Summary of Costs and Economic Impacts

1. Number of Facilities Incurring Costs
    EPA estimated that there are 1,239 facilities in the TEC industry 
not regulated under other effluent guidelines. Of these, 547 facilities 
are considered zero or alternative discharging facilities and are not 
expected to incur costs to comply with the TEC effluent guideline. EPA 
estimates that there are approximately 692 discharging facilities which 
may incur costs to comply with this proposal and upon which EPA 
conducted its analysis. Not all of these facilities are expected to 
incur costs because EPA is proposing not to regulate certain 
subcategories. Of the 1,239 facilities, 437 facilities meet the 
definition of small businesses. Of the 692 discharging facilities, 184 
facilities meet the definition of small businesses. EPA used the Small 
Business Administration's (SBA) definition of small for the SIC codes 
that cover the TECI to develop a small business definition proposal. 
About 40 percent of the TECI facilities

[[Page 34720]]

have an SIC code that uses $5 million in annual revenue as the 
criterion for a small business.
2. Total Costs and Impacts of the Proposed Rule
    a. Introduction. 
    The capital investment costs for all facilities total about $66 
million. Total annualized costs of the proposed regulation for all 
facilities are estimated to be about $23.1 million, which includes 
about $5 million of annualized capital costs and $18 million in annual 
operation and maintenance costs.
    The total annual costs are estimated using the capital investment, 
annual operation and maintenance costs, and monitoring costs. Capital 
costs are annualized by spreading them over the life of the project 
(much like a home mortgage). These annualized capital costs are then 
added to the annual operation and maintenance costs and to the 
monitoring costs. The result is the total annualized costs for each 
technology option.
    Table 5 summarizes the total annualized costs for direct and 
indirect discharger requirements. Table 6 presents additional detail on 
the costs for direct dischargers, and Table 7 presents a similar level 
of detail for indirect dischargers.

                  Table 5.--Costs of Proposed TEC Rule                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Posttax   
                                                            annualized  
                          Rule                             costs  ($1997
                                                             thousand)  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PSES....................................................         $21,470
BPT/BAT.................................................           1,630
                                                         ---------------
    Total...............................................          23,100
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.

            Table 6.--Costs of Implementing BPT, BCT, and BAT           
                 [In thousands of 1997 Posttax dollars]                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Total    
               Subcategory                 Total capital    annualized  
                                            investment         costs    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truck/Chemical..........................            $144             $80
Rail/Chemical...........................             122              40
Barge/Chemical & Petroleum..............           3,400           1,500
Truck/Food..............................               0               0
Rail/Food...............................               0               0
Barge/Food..............................               0               0
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                  Table 7.--Costs of Implementing PSES                  
                 [In thousands of 1997 Posttax dollars]                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Total    
               Subcategory                 Total capital    annualized  
                                            investment         costs    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truck/Chemical..........................         $57,700         $20,200
Rail/Chemical...........................          $4,700          $1,300
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When final guidelines are promulgated, a facility is free to use 
any combination of wastewater treatment technologies and pollution 
prevention strategies at the facility so long as the numerical 
discharge limits are achieved. In some cases, a facility might choose 
flow reduction or some combination of capital investment or additional 
operation and maintenance expenditures may be required. In its cost 
estimates, EPA has assumed that all of the facilities in the Truck/
Chemical and Rail/Chemical Subcategories and most in the Barge/Chemical 
& Petroleum Subcategories will need to make capital improvements or 
perhaps modify operation and maintenance practices. For the Food 
subcategories, all existing facilities which responded to the screener 
survey questionnaire indicated that they currently have in place the 
technology that the Agency has identified as the basis for limitations. 
Therefore, the Agency believes that they will incur no costs to comply. 
(See Section VIII.B)
    b. Impacts From PSES. EPA estimates that the total compliance costs 
for PSES will be approximately $21.5 million per year. These costs 
include compliance with PSES for the Truck/Chemical and Rail/Chemical 
Subcategories. Total annual compliance costs for the Truck/Chemical 
Subcategory are based on technology Option II; for Rail/Chemical, on 
technology Option I.
    EPA estimates that the proposed technology options would result in 
no facility closures. However, EPA predicts that the proposed PSES may 
cause some financial stress on 29 facilities and could affect the 
capability of these facilities to raise capital needed to purchase and 
install pollution control equipment. All of these facilities are in the 
Truck/Chemical Subcategory and most are in-house facilities. This 
impact does not mean that these facilities will close; all of these 
facilities are economically viable and are thus considered likely to be 
of interest to other firms for acquisition and operation. They may also 
be successful at improving their financial health and become attractive 
to lenders in the future.
    Within non-TEC industries, EPA's economic analysis indicates that 
some industries that provide materials and equipment to the TEC 
industry may experience revenue increases as a result of the proposed 
regulation. However, some of these industries could incur revenue 
losses. EPA's economic analysis indicates that the proposed regulation 
would result in net losses of about 300 to 500 jobs in these industries 
(i.e., non-TEC industries). These impacts were estimated using the 
input-output methodology. Details of this analysis are available in the 
EA.
    Within the TEC industry itself, EPA determined that many 
financially healthy facilities might actually experience gains in 
production (and thus gains in output and employment). Financially 
healthy facilities in the local market area might expand to take over

[[Page 34721]]

a portion of production from a facility having financial difficulties. 
In addition, some employment gains are anticipated for installation and 
operation of wastewater treatment facilities.
    EPA determined that most facility financial stress will result in a 
maximum change in a community's unemployment rate of no more than 0.5 
percent. Because the methodology assumes that all of the community 
impacts would occur in one State, the more probable impact is 
considerably lower. Thus, the community impact from the transportation 
equipment cleaning industry regulation is estimated to be negligible. 
EPA solicits comments on whether this approach is overly conservative.
    EPA expects the proposed rule to have a minimal impact on 
international markets. Domestic markets might initially be slightly 
affected by the rule, because tank cleaning facilities will absorb a 
portion of the compliance costs and will pass a portion of the costs 
through to their customers. For the portion of compliance costs passed 
through to cleaning facilities' customers, EPA's market model estimates 
that prices will increase from about 2.1 percent to about 5.7 percent. 
Output, or the number of tanks cleaned, will decrease from about 0.1 
percent to about 1.1 percent. Because tank cleaning is an essential 
service and is a very small part of total transportation services 
costs, customers may not be as sensitive to tank cleaning prices as 
they are to larger cost elements. Customers may accept marginally 
higher tank cleaning prices if the whole industry is subject to higher 
costs. An individual facility would have difficulty independently 
increasing prices in the absence of industry wide price increases.
    EPA expects the proposed rule to have minimal impacts on inflation, 
insignificant distributional effects, and no major impacts on 
environmental justice.
    EPA also investigated the likelihood that customers might use 
methods other than installing additional on-site wastewater treatment 
in order to comply with the proposed regulations. Substitution 
possibilities, of operating on-site facilities or purchasing dedicated 
tanks, are associated with potential negative impacts on customers that 
might deter them from choosing these potential substitutes. On-site 
tank cleaning capabilities require capital investment, operation and 
maintenance, and monitoring costs. The decision to build an on-site 
tank cleaning capability is more likely determined by non-pricing 
factors such as environmental liability, tank cleaning quality control, 
and internal management controls.
    EPA's analysis does not indicate that transportation service 
companies (i.e., TEC customers) would likely decide to build a tank 
cleaning facility as a result of EPA's proposal. Further, because of 
the high initial costs to install equipment on-site ($1.0 million to 
$2.0 million for a tank cleaning facility) and the small increase in 
price of transportation equipment cleaning services discussed earlier, 
on-site transportation equipment cleaning could require years before 
any cost savings might be realized. Also, EPA's market model provides a 
means for estimating price increases and reductions in quantity 
demanded for transportation equipment cleaning services at the higher 
price. This analysis shows a very small decrease in the number of tanks 
cleaned as a result of the proposed rule, from about 0.1 percent to 
about 1.1 percent of baseline production across the subcategories. 
Given the disincentives towards substitutes indicated above, EPA does 
not expect the proposed rule to cause many customers to substitute on-
site facilities for transportation equipment cleaning services or to 
substitute dedicated tanks. The small reduction in production is more 
likely to occur from customers delaying cleaning (rather than cleaning 
tanks after delivery of every load) or dropping certain services such 
as handling toxic wastes heels. This decline in production is 
negligible compared to the approximate 10 to 20 percent per year 
revenue growth for the industry between 1992 and 1994, according to 
data in the Detailed Questionnaire.
    c. Impacts From BPT, BCT, BAT. As described in Section VIII.B of 
today's notice, EPA is proposing effluent limitations based on BPT, 
BCT, and BAT for the Truck/Chemical, Rail/Chemical, and Barge/Chemical 
& Petroleum Subcategories. The proposed limitations are the same for 
all levels of direct discharge requirements. The summary of costs and 
economic impacts is presented here for all levels. For BPT and BCT, 
additional information on cost and removal comparisons is presented in 
the Technical Development Document.
    EPA estimates that the total annual compliance costs for BPT, BCT, 
and BAT will be $1.6 million. This estimate includes BPT, BCT, and BAT 
costs for the Truck/Chemical, Rail/Chemical, and Barge/Chemical & 
Petroleum Subcategories. For the Food Subcategories, although EPA is 
proposing effluent limitations based on BPT and BCT, EPA projects no 
compliance costs because all facilities identified by EPA were 
determined to already have the proposed treatment technology in place. 
(See Section VIII.B). EPA based its analysis on Option II for the 
Truck/Chemical Subcategory, Option I for the Rail/Chemical Subcategory, 
and Option I for the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. EPA based 
its analysis for the Truck Food, Rail Food, and Barge Food 
Subcategories on Option II.
    As explained in Section X.b.1, EPA used economic and financial data 
obtained through the Detailed Questionnaire to evaluate economic 
impacts that would occur as a result of compliance with today's 
proposal. Certain segments of the TEC industry, especially in the 
Truck/Chemical and Rail/Chemical Subcategories, consist mainly of 
facilities discharging to a POTW. Due to the limited number of direct 
discharging facilities identified by EPA in these subcategories, EPA 
did not obtain detailed economic information from direct discharging 
facilities in the Truck/Chemical or Rail/Chemical Subcategories. EPA 
is, however, aware of at least three Truck/Chemical facilities and one 
Rail/Chemical facility that are discharging wastewater directly to 
surface waters.
    For the economic analysis in these subcategories, EPA relied on the 
economic data collected for the indirect discharging Truck/Chemical 
facilities and the indirect discharging Rail/Chemical facilities. EPA 
assumed that the economic profile of direct discharging facilities is 
similar to that of indirect discharging facilities. EPA believes this 
is a reasonable approach because the Agency does not believe there is 
any correlation between annual revenue or facility employment and the 
method that a facility chooses to discharge its wastewater. Rather, the 
decision on whether to discharge wastewater directly or indirectly is 
determined by such considerations as cost, proximity to a POTW, 
permitting requirements, and wastewater treatment technology options.
    EPA therefore assumed that the direct discharging Truck/Chemical 
and Rail/Chemical facilities were similar to indirect discharging 
facilities in terms of annual revenue, facility employment, and the 
number of tanks cleaned. Information on each of these indices was 
provided to EPA by the four direct discharging facilities in the 
Screener Questionnaire. EPA then identified facilities in the Detailed 
Questionnaire database which were similar to each of the direct 
dischargers in terms of revenue, employment, and tanks cleaned. EPA 
then simulated the

[[Page 34722]]

financial and economic profile for the direct discharging facilities 
based on data provided by similar indirect discharging facilities in 
the same subcategory. Based on this analysis, EPA determined that 
implementation of BPT would result in no facility closures, and thus no 
revenue losses or employment losses are expected to occur. The Agency 
solicits data and comment on the assumptions used for the economic 
achievability analysis for the Truck/Chemical and Rail/Chemical 
Subcategories.
    For the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, EPA estimated total 
annualized compliance costs for the 14 facilities based on responses to 
the Detailed Questionnaire. EPA has projected no facility closures, 
employment losses or revenue losses for these facilities.
    In addition to the costs of the effluent guideline discussed in 
this section, the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory may be subject 
to incremental costs under new Clean Air Act regulations. For these 
facilities, EPA has reviewed the economic analysis prepared for the 
1995 Clean Air Act (CAA) regulation (National Emission Standards for 
Shipbuilding and Ship Repair, 60 FR 64336). EPA identified only one 
Tank Barge and Petroleum facility that overlaps with the facilities 
covered by this CAA regulation. In the economic analysis for today's 
proposal, EPA includes a sensitivity analysis and assumed that all Tank 
Barge and Petroleum facilities that indicate that they perform repair, 
painting, or related activities will be subject to the CAA regulation. 
EPA's sensitivity analysis of the CAA incremental costs suggests little 
or no change in economic impacts for the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum 
facilities. EPA solicits comment on the relevance of CAA costs to 
comply with this proposal. EPA also solicits data on the magnitude of 
these costs and on the number of facilities affected by today's 
proposal which are in ozone non-attainment areas.
    d. Impacts From PSNS. As described in Section VIII.B, EPA is 
proposing PSNS equivalent to PSES for the Truck/Chemical and Barge/
Chemical & Petroleum Subcategories. For the Rail/Chemical Subcategory, 
EPA is proposing PSNS based on a more stringent technology control 
option than proposed for PSES. For Truck/Chemical, Option II was 
selected, for Rail/Chemical Option III was selected, and for Barge/
Chemical & Petroleum, Option II was selected.
    EPA assesses impacts on new indirect sources by determining whether 
the proposed rule would result in barrier-to-entry into the market. EPA 
has determined that overall impacts from the proposed TECI effluent 
guidelines on new sources would not be any more severe than those on 
existing sources. Generally, the costs faced by new sources will be the 
same as, or less than, those faced by existing sources. It is typically 
less expensive to incorporate pollution control equipment into the 
design at a new plant than it is to retrofit the same pollution control 
equipment in an existing plant; no demolition is required, and space 
constraints, which can add to costs if specifically designed equipment 
must be ordered, are not an issue in new construction.
    For the Truck/Chemical Subcategory, average facility assets are 
over $2.8 million. In its economic analysis, EPA determined that the 
average facility compliance capital costs for this subcategory would be 
$0.2 million. The ratio of average facility compliance capital costs to 
average facility assets would be approximately seven percent. EPA 
concluded that the capital costs to comply with the standards are 
modest in comparison to total facility costs and would not pose a 
barrier-to-entry.
    For the Rail/Chemical Subcategory, responses to the Detailed 
Questionnaire indicate that the average facility assets total about 
$6.4 million. For this subcategory, average facility compliance capital 
costs total about $0.1 million, or about two percent of average 
facility assets. EPA concluded that the average annual incremental 
facility costs are low in comparison to average facility assets and 
that PSNS would therefore not pose a barrier-to-entry.
    EPA also examined whether there would be barrier-to-entry for new 
sources. EPA investigated facilities in the Detailed Questionnaire that 
indicated they were new or relatively new at the time of the survey. 
Over a three year period (1992, 1993, 1994), according to the Detailed 
Questionnaire, about 60 facilities began transportation equipment 
cleaning operations, although it is not absolutely clear from the data 
whether these facilities were actually new dischargers or were existing 
dischargers acquired in that year by a different firm. Over the 3-year 
period, this amounts to about 20 new sources a year, or about three 
percent of the number of existing facilities. EPA believes that new 
sources are replacing production from closing facilities that exist in 
the market and are also adding modest additional tank cleaning capacity 
in the TECI.
    EPA concludes that new small facilities will not experience a 
barrier-to-entry to the transportation equipment cleaning industry.
    e. Impacts From NSPS. As described in Section VIII.B, EPA is 
proposing NSPS equivalent to BPT, BCT, and BAT for the Truck/Chemical 
and Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategories. For the Rail/Chemical 
Subcategory, EPA is proposing NSPS based on a more stringent technology 
control option than proposed for existing sources. EPA assesses impacts 
on new direct sources by determining whether the proposed rule would 
result in barrier-to-entry into the market.
    For the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, the average 
facility assets for a barge chemical cleaning facility are about $2.1 
million. The average compliance capital cost for the proposed 
regulation for a barge chemical cleaning facility is about $0.2 million 
or about 11 percent of average facility assets. This is a relatively 
small amount of average capital assets. This percentage is expected to 
be lower for new facilities, because they can include pollution control 
equipment in the design of new facilities.
    In an analysis of the Detailed Questionnaire, EPA determined that 
about 20 new tank cleaning businesses were established per year during 
1992, 1993, and 1994 timeframe. Although EPA has not determined the 
number of new facilities that are direct dischargers, the Agency 
assumes that the number of new direct discharging facilities is small. 
EPA concludes this, because the number of existing direct dischargers 
is small (based on screener data).
    Similar to PSNS, EPA concludes that no barrier-to-entry exists for 
new direct discharge sources to construct, operate, and maintain these 
technologies.
3. Economic Impacts of Accepted and Rejected Options
    The options selected as the basis for regulation are associated 
with no facility closures; 29 indirect discharge facilities are 
projected to experience some financial stress (but not close) and thus 
possibly lose their financial independence. A net direct total of no 
FTEs would be lost in the transportation equipment cleaning industry 
(direct, production-driven losses) with these options, and other 
secondary impacts (effects on trade, inflation, and customers) would be 
negligible.
    As discussed in section VIII, EPA considered several technology 
options for each subcategory. A summary of costs and impacts for all 
BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS options are shown in Table 8.

[[Page 34723]]



                Table 8.--Summary of Impacts for Proposed BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS Options                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Posttax                                         
                                                               annualized                                       
             Subcategory                      Option           costs  ($     Facility    Financial    Employment
                                                                  1997       closures      stress       losses  
                                                               thousands)                                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truck/Chemical (Direct).............  Option I..............          $78            0            0            0
                                      Option II (Proposed              78            0            0            0
                                       for BPT, BCT, BAT,                                                       
                                       NSPS).                                                                   
Truck/Chemical (Indirect)...........  Option I..............       13,200            0           22            0
                                      Option II (Proposed          20,206            0           29            0
                                       for PSES, PSNS).                                                         
Rail/Chemical (Direct)..............  Option I (Proposed for           39            0            0            0
                                       BPT, BCT, BAT).                                                          
                                      Option II.............           74            0            0            0
                                      Option III (Proposed             89            0            0            0
                                       for NSPS).                                                               
Rail/Chemical (Indirect)............  Option I (Proposed for        1,262            0            0            0
                                       PSES).                                                                   
                                      Option II.............        1,953            6            0          421
                                      Option III (Proposed          2,630            6            0          421
                                       for PSNS).                                                               
Barge/Chemical & Petroleum (Direct).  Option I (Proposed for        1,508            0            0            0
                                       BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS).                                                    
                                      Option II.............        1,774            0            0            0
Barge/Chemical & Petroleum            Option I..............          122            0            0            0
 (Indirect).                                                                                                    
                                      Option II (Proposed             187            0            0            0
                                       for PSNS).                                                               
                                      Option III............          215            0            0            0
Truck/Food (Direct).................  Option I..............                                                    
                                      Option II (Proposed                                                       
                                       for BPT, BCT, BAT,                                                       
                                       NSPS).                                                                   
Truck/Food (Indirect)...............  Option I..............        3,236            0           17            0
                                      Option II.............        8,022            8           17          153
Rail/Food (Direct)..................  Option I..............                                                    
                                      Option II (Proposed                                                       
                                       for BPT, BCT, BAT,                                                       
                                       NSPS).                                                                   
Rail/Food (Indirect)................  Option I..............        2,098            0            0            0
                                      Option II.............        6,218            0            0            0
Barge/Food (Direct).................  Option I..............                                                    
                                      Option II (Proposed                                                       
                                       for BPT, BCT, BAT,                                                       
                                       NSPS).                                                                   
Barge/Food (Indirect)...............  Option I..............           19            0            0            0
                                      Option II.............           41            0            0            0
Truck/Hopper (Indirect).............  Option I..............          334            5            0           38
Rail/Hopper (Indirect)..............  Option I..............           16            0            0            0
Barge/Hopper (Direct)...............  Option I..............          411            0            0            0
Barge/Hopper (Indirect).............  Option I..............           21            0            0            0
Truck/Petroleum (Indirect)..........  Option I..............          536            0            0            0
Rail/Petroleum (Indirect)...........  Option I..............           87            0            0            0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Small Business Analysis
    EPA estimated that there are 1,239 TEC facilities not regulated by 
other CWA effluent guidelines. Of these, 437 facilities meet the 
definition of small businesses. There are 692 TEC discharging 
facilities which may incur costs to comply with today's proposal. Of 
these, 184 facilities meet the definition of ``small'' under the Small 
Business Administration's (SBA) definition of $5 million in annual 
revenue for many of the SIC codes that cover the TECI. The 184 small 
facilities are about 27 percent of the discharging facilities in the 
industry. Not all of these facilities will be affected by today's 
proposal because EPA is not proposing effluent limitations for all 
subcategories.
    EPA's small business analysis satisfies the requirements of an 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (as required by the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act; see section XIII.B of today's notice) and also 
documents the Agency's findings of economic achievability for the small 
business segment of the regulated community. The small business 
analysis, in its entirety, is in Chapter VI of the EA.
    A key aspect of the small business analysis was an attempt to 
identify a means to minimize economic impacts for small businesses. 
Among the Agency's considerations was an exclusion for small 
facilities, where the exclusion could be based on criteria such as the 
number of tanks cleaned, gallons of wastewater generated per day, 
employment, or annual revenues. EPA evaluated alternative levels for 
each of these criteria as potential bases for excluding small 
businesses. For each potential exclusion, EPA considered the projected 
economic impacts, both in absolute terms and in relative terms (i.e., 
whether the impacts were higher, proportionately, for the small 
businesses). The economic impacts that EPA considered for small 
facilities include those described in section X.B.2, such as closures, 
and other impacts, such as a comparison of compliance cost to annual 
revenues. EPA projects no facility closures among small businesses. EPA 
projects that 14 small businesses will experience financial stress.
    For the preliminary comparison of costs to revenues, EPA relied on 
a conservative set of assumptions such as zero cost pass through. EPA 
relied on these results to determine whether there might be any 
potential need to prepare an IRFA. Subsequently, EPA also compared cost 
to revenue using other assumptions from the market model described in 
X.B.2. All of these results are presented in the IRFA. Using both sets 
of assumptions related to cost pass through, EPA estimates that either 
75 or 50 small businesses would incur costs

[[Page 34724]]

exceeding one percent of revenues, and either 64 or 17 small businesses 
would incur costs exceeding three percent of revenues.
    Small facilities are not concentrated in any one market area and 
the competitive advantages, if those facilities were excluded, might be 
limited. EPA's analysis shows that there is a very slight increase in 
tank cleaning prices as a result of the proposed rule. For example, the 
price per tank cleaned in the Truck/Chemical Subcategory would be 
expected to increase from $279 per tank cleaned to $295 per tank 
cleaned, a 5.7 percent increase. Based on an industry-wide market 
analysis that includes zero discharge facilities, with this increase in 
tank cleaning prices, the number of tanks cleaned in the Truck/Chemical 
Subcategory would decrease from about 770,000 tanks cleaned to about 
762,000 tanks cleaned, a 1.1 percent decrease in the number of tanks 
cleaned. Because tank cleaning is an essential service and is a very 
small component of transportation services, customers do not appear to 
be as sensitive to price changes as they would be to a service which is 
a larger component of overall transportation services; therefore, 
dischargers subject to the proposed rule would be able to compete with 
zero discharge facilities. The analysis suggests that an exclusion from 
the rule may provide small businesses with a modest comparative cost 
and price advantage over facilities subject to the regulation. However, 
that comparative cost advantage may be slight; overall price changes 
are projected to be modest and small facilities may not have the market 
power of larger facilities.
    The analysis of potential small business exclusions also includes a 
comparison of economic impacts and pollutant loadings; this type of 
comparison is especially helpful for identifying regulatory 
alternatives that would provide economic relief without removing a 
significant portion of the pollutant loading or other benefit of the 
rule. This analysis shows that small facilities contribute a 
proportional amount of the pollutant loads discharged into surface 
waters.
    EPA evaluated more than 20 potential small business exclusions, but 
has not identified an exclusion consistent with the CWA that minimizes 
the economic impacts while still preserving the benefits of the 
proposed rule. Hence, no small business exclusion is incorporated into 
today's proposal. EPA solicits comments on a small business exclusion 
that would minimize the impacts on those small firms for which 
projected compliance costs represent a significant share of costs or 
net income, or more generally, any regulatory alternative that would 
minimize the economic impacts on small businesses.

D. Cost-Benefit Analysis

    Table 9 presents a comparison of the costs and benefits of the 
proposed transportation equipment cleaning industry regulation. The 
proposed options are expected to have a total annual social cost of 
$37.5 million in 1997 dollars, which includes a $36.9 million in pretax 
compliance costs, $0.6 million in administrative costs, and almost zero 
costs for administering unemployment benefits. Annual benefits are 
expected to range from $2.7 million to $9.3 million in 1997 dollars, 
which includes $1.8 million to $6.2 million for recreational benefits 
and $0.9 million to $3.1 million associated with nonuse values 
benefits. The derivation of annual benefits is discussed in Section XI.

             Table 9.--Summary of the Cost-Benefit Analysis             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Costs and  
                        Category                           benefits  ($ 
                                                          1997 millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Costs                                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance Costs........................................           $36.9
Administrative Costs....................................             0.6
Administrative Costs of Unemployment....................       0.0-0.006
                                                         ---------------
      Total Social Costs................................            37.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Benefits                                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Human Health Benefits                                 
Recreational Benefits:                                                  
    Truck/Chemical......................................         1.6-5.6
    Barge/Chemical & Petroleum..........................         0.2-0.6
Nonuse Benefits.........................................         0.9-3.1
                                                         ---------------
      Total Monetized Benefits..........................         2.7-9.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are a number of additional use and nonuse benefits associated 
with the proposed standards that could not be monetized. The monetized 
recreational benefits were estimated only for fishing by recreational 
anglers, although there are other categories of recreational and other 
use benefits that could not be monetized. Examples of these additional 
benefits include: reduced noncancer health effects, enhanced water-
dependent recreation other than fishing, reduced POTW operating and 
maintenance costs, and reduced administrative costs at the local level 
to develop and defend individually derived local limits for 
transportation equipment cleaning facilities. There are also 
nonmonetized benefits that are nonuse values, such as benefits to 
wildlife, threatened or endangered species, and biodiversity benefits. 
Rather than attempt the difficult task of enumerating, quantifying, and 
monetizing these nonuse benefits, EPA calculated nonuse benefits as 50 
percent of the use value for recreational fishing. This value of 50 
percent is a reasonable approximation of the total nonuse value for a 
population compared to the total use value for that population. This 
approximation should be applied to the total use value for the affected 
population; in this case, all of the direct uses of the affected 
reaches (including fishing, hiking, and boating). However,

[[Page 34725]]

since this approximation was only applied to recreational fishing 
benefits for recreational anglers, it does not take into account non-
use values for non-anglers or for the uses other than fishing by 
anglers. Therefore, EPA has estimated only a portion of the nonuse 
benefits for the proposed standards.

E. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

    In addition to the foregoing analyses, EPA has conducted cost-
effectiveness analyses for the multiple options considered for each of 
the subcategories in the transportation equipment cleaning industry. 
The methodologies, details, and results of these analyses are presented 
in the report ``Cost Effectiveness Analysis for Proposed Effluent 
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Transportation Equipment 
Cleaning Industry Point Source Category,'' which is included in the 
rulemaking record. The CE analysis evaluates the relative efficiency of 
technology options in removing toxic pollutants. The costs evaluated 
include the pretax direct compliance costs, such as capital 
expenditures and O&M costs, which are annualized and compared to 
incremental and total pollutant removals.
    Cost-effectiveness results are expressed in terms of the 
incremental and average costs per ``pound equivalent'' (PE) removed. PE 
is a measure that addresses differences in the toxicity of pollutants 
removed. Total PEs are derived by taking the number of pounds of a 
pollutant removed and multiplying this number by a toxic weighting 
factor (TWF). EPA calculates TWFs for priority pollutants and some 
additional nonconventional pollutants using ambient water quality 
criteria and toxicity values. The TWFs are then standardized by 
relating them to a particular pollutant, in this case, copper. PEs are 
calculated only for pollutants for which TWFs have been estimated, thus 
they do not reflect potential toxicity for some nonconventional 
pollutants and any conventional pollutants. EPA calculates incremental 
cost-effectiveness as the ratio of the incremental annual costs to the 
incremental PE removed under each option, compared to the previous 
option. Average cost-effectiveness is calculated for each option as the 
ratio of total costs to total PE removed. In the case of pretreatment 
standards, EPA does not include pollutant removals if those pollutants 
could be removed at the POTW, but only includes the removal of 
pollutants that would pass through the POTW. EPA reports annual costs 
for all cost-effectiveness analyses in 1981 dollars, to enable limited 
comparisons of the cost-effectiveness among regulated industries.
    EPA calculated cost-effectiveness ratios for the technology options 
for each of the five regulated subcategories. Detailed results are 
presented in the CE document. EPA estimates that the incremental cost-
effectiveness of the proposed options for direct dischargers is about 
$108 per PE removed; for indirect dischargers, the incremental cost 
effectiveness is about $185 per PE removed.

XI. Water Quality Impacts of Proposed Regulations

A. Characterization of Pollutants

    EPA evaluated the environmental benefits of controlling the 
discharges of toxic pollutants from facilities in three subcategories 
of the Transportation Equipment Cleaning industry to surface waters and 
POTWs. The detailed assessment can be found in the ``Environmental 
Assessment of Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards 
for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning Category''. EPA's evaluation 
was done in a national analysis of direct and indirect discharges. 
Discharges of these pollutants into freshwater and estuarine ecosystems 
may alter aquatic habitats, adversely affect aquatic biota, and 
adversely impact human health through the consumption of contaminated 
fish and water. Furthermore, EPA evaluated whether these pollutants 
being discharged to POTWs by TEC facilities may interfere with POTW 
operations in terms of inhibition of activated sludge or biological 
treatment, and evaluated whether they may cause contamination of 
sludges, thereby limiting available methods of disposal. Many of these 
pollutants have at least one toxic effect (human health carcinogen or 
systemic toxicant or aquatic toxicant). In addition, many of these 
pollutants bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms and persist in the 
environment.
    The Agency's analysis focused on the effects of toxic pollutants 
and did not evaluate the effects of three conventional pollutants and 
five nonconventional pollutants including total suspended solids (TSS), 
five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD<INF>5</INF> chemical oxygen 
demand (COD), oil and grease (measured as hexane extractable material), 
total dissolved solids (TDS), total organic carbon (TOC), and total 
phenolic compounds. Although the Agency did not monetize the benefits 
associated with reductions of these non-toxic parameters, discharges of 
these parameters can have adverse effects on human health and the 
environment. For example, habitat degradation can result from increased 
suspended particulate matter that reduces light penetration, and thus 
primary productivity, or from accumulation of sludge particles that 
alter benthic spawning grounds and feeding habitats. Oil and grease, 
including animal fats and vegetable oils, can have lethal effects on 
fish by coating gill surfaces and causing asphyxia, by depleting oxygen 
levels due to excessive biological oxygen demand, or by reducing stream 
aeration because of surface film. Oil and grease can also have 
detrimental effects on water fowl by destroying the buoyancy and 
insulation of their feathers. High COD and BOD<INF>5</INF> levels can 
deplete oxygen levels, which can result in mortality or other adverse 
effects on fish. High TOC levels may interfere with water quality by 
causing taste and odor problems and mortality in fish. The 
environmental and human health benefits associated with reducing the 
discharge of these parameters are generally associated with wastewater 
discharged directly to surface waters. The majority of facilities in 
the TEC industry discharge to POTWs, which have the ability to treat 
and control many of these parameters before they reach surface waters.

B. Truck/Chemical Subcategory

1. Indirect Dischargers
    EPA evaluated the potential effect on aquatic life and human health 
impacts of a representative sample of 40 indirect wastewater 
dischargers of the 288 facilities in the Truck/Chemical indirect 
subcategory to receiving waters at current levels of treatment and at 
proposed pretreatment levels. These 40 modeled facilities discharge 80 
modeled pollutants in wastewater to 35 POTWs, which then discharge to 
35 receiving streams. EPA predicted steady-state in-stream pollutant 
concentrations after complete immediate mixing with no loss from the 
system, and compared these levels to EPA-published water quality 
criteria. For those chemicals for which EPA has not published water 
quality criteria, concentrations were compared to documented toxic 
effect levels (i.e., lowest reported or estimated toxic concentration). 
Nationwide criteria guidance were used as the most representative 
value. In addition, the potential benefits to human health were 
evaluated by estimating the potential reduction of carcinogenic risk 
and systemic effects from consuming contaminated fish and drinking 
water. Risks were also estimated for recreational and subsistence 
anglers and their families as well as the general

[[Page 34726]]

population. Model results were then extrapolated to the national level.
    At the national level, 288 facilities discharge wastewater to 264 
POTWs, which then discharge into 264 receiving streams. Current 
loadings (in pounds) of the 80 pollutants evaluated for water quality 
impacts are reduced 80 percent by the proposed pretreatment regulatory 
option. EPA projects that in-stream concentrations of one pollutant 
will exceed human health criteria (for both water and organisms) in 14 
receiving streams at current discharge levels. The proposed 
pretreatment regulatory option eliminates excursions of human health 
criteria in all 14 streams. EPA also projects 49 receiving streams with 
in-stream concentrations for one pollutant projected to exceed chronic 
aquatic life criteria or toxic effect levels at current discharge 
levels. At the proposed pretreatment, 37 of the 49 streams still show 
excursions for one pollutant. The remaining 12 streams will no longer 
have excursions of either kind under the proposed pretreatment. 
Estimates of the increase in value of recreational fishing to anglers 
as a result of this improvement range from $ 1.6 to 5.7 million 
annually (1997 dollars). In addition, the nonuse value (e.g. option, 
existence, and bequest value) of the improvement is estimated to range 
from $ 0.8 to $2.9 million (1997 dollars).
    The excess annual cancer cases at current pollutant loadings are 
projected to be much less than 0.5 from the ingestion of contaminated 
fish and drinking water by all populations evaluated for both the 
results from the representative sample and those extrapolated to the 
national level. A monetary value of this benefit to society is, 
therefore, not projected. The risk to develop systemic toxicant effects 
(non-cancer adverse health effects such as reproductive toxicity) are 
projected for 14,173 subsistence anglers in 39 receiving streams for 
one pollutant at current discharge levels. The risk to develop systemic 
toxicant effects are projected at the proposed pretreatment for 3,492 
subsistence anglers fishing in 16 receiving streams for the same 
pollutant, reducing the exposed population by 75 percent. Monetary 
values for the reduction of systemic toxic effects cannot currently be 
estimated.
2. POTWs
    EPA also evaluated the potential adverse impacts on POTW operations 
(inhibition of microbial activity during biological treatment) and 
contamination of sewage sludge at the 35 modeled POTWs that receive 
wastewater from the Truck/Chemical Subcategory. Inhibition of POTW 
operations (impairment of microbial activity) is estimated by comparing 
predicted POTW influent concentrations to available inhibition levels. 
Inhibition values were obtained from Guidance Manual for Preventing 
Interference at POTWs (U.S. EPA, 1987) and CERCLA Site Discharges to 
POTWs: Guidance Manual (U.S. EPA, 1990). Potential contamination of 
sewage sludge (concentrations of pollutants above the levels permitted 
for land application) was estimated by comparing projected pollutant 
concentrations in POTW sewage sludge to available EPA criteria. The 
Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge (40 CFR Part 503) 
contain limits on the concentrations of pollutants in sewage sludge 
that is used or disposed. For the purpose of this analysis, 
contamination is defined as the concentration of a pollutant in sewage 
sludge at or above the limits presented in 40 CFR Part 503. Model 
results were then extrapolated to the national level, which included 
264 POTWs.
    EPA evaluated pollutants for potential POTW operation inhibition 
and potential sewage sludge contamination. At current discharge levels, 
EPA projects no inhibition or sludge contamination problems at any of 
the POTWs at current loadings. Therefore, no further analysis of these 
types of impacts was performed.

C. Rail/Chemical Subcategory

1. Indirect Dischargers
    EPA evaluated the potential effect on aquatic life and human health 
of a representative sample of 12 indirect wastewater dischargers of the 
38 facilities in the Rail/Chemical Subcategory to receiving waters at 
current levels of treatment and at proposed pretreatment levels. These 
12 modeled facilities discharge 103 modeled pollutants in wastewater to 
11 POTWs, which discharge to 11 receiving streams. EPA predicted 
steady-state in-stream pollutant concentrations after complete 
immediate mixing with no loss from the system, and compared these 
levels to EPA-published water quality criteria. For those chemicals for 
which EPA has not published water quality criteria, concentrations were 
compared to documented toxic effect levels (i.e., lowest reported or 
estimated toxic concentration). Nationwide criteria guidance were used 
as the most representative value. In addition, the potential benefits 
to human health were evaluated by estimating the potential reduction of 
carcinogenic risk and systemic effects from consuming contaminated fish 
and drinking water. Risks were also estimated for recreational and 
subsistence anglers and their families as well as the general 
population. Model results were then extrapolated to the national level.
    At the national level, 38 facilities discharge wastewater to 37 
POTWs, which then discharge into 37 receiving streams. Current loadings 
(in pounds) of the 103 pollutants evaluated for water quality impacts 
are reduced 46 percent by the proposed pretreatment regulatory option. 
EPA projects that in-stream pollutant concentrations will exceed human 
health criteria (for both water and organisms) in 16 receiving streams 
at both current and proposed pretreatment discharge levels. Since the 
proposed pretreatment is not expected to eliminate all occurrences of 
pollutant concentrations in excess of human health criteria at any of 
the receiving streams, no increase in value of recreational fishing to 
anglers is projected as a result of this pretreatment. EPA projects 
eight receiving streams with in-stream concentrations of four 
pollutants to exceed chronic aquatic life criteria or toxic effect 
levels at current discharge levels. Proposed pretreatment discharge 
levels will reduce projected excursions to three pollutants in six 
receiving streams. There are expected to be excursions of acute aquatic 
life criteria or toxic effects levels by one pollutant in six receiving 
streams. All of these excursions will be eliminated by the proposed 
pretreatment option.
    The excess annual cancer cases at current pollutant loadings are 
projected to be much less than 0.5 from the ingestion of contaminated 
fish and drinking water by all populations evaluated for both the 
results from the representative sample and those extrapolated to the 
national level. Monetary value of this benefit to society is, 
therefore, not projected. No systemic toxicant effects (non-cancer 
adverse health effects such as reproductive toxicity) are projected for 
anglers fishing the receiving streams at current discharge levels. 
Therefore, no further analysis of these types of impacts was performed.
2. POTWs
    EPA also evaluated the potential adverse impacts on POTW operations 
(inhibition of microbial activity during biological treatment) and 
contamination of sewage sludge at the 11 modeled POTWs that receive 
wastewater from the rail chemical indirect subcategory. Model results 
were then extrapolated to the national level, which included 37 POTWs.

[[Page 34727]]

    EPA evaluated pollutants for potential POTW operation inhibition 
and potential sewage sludge contamination through wastewater modeling. 
At current discharge levels, the EPA model projects inhibition problems 
at 21 of the POTWs, caused by four pollutants. At the proposed 
pretreatment regulatory option, EPA projects continued inhibition 
problems at 13 POTWs. Inhibition was prevented at eight POTWs; however, 
the EPA is currently unable to monetize these benefits. The Agency 
projects sewage sludge contamination at none of the POTWs at current 
loadings. Therefore, no further analysis of these types of impacts was 
performed.
    The POTW inhibition values used in this analysis are not, in 
general, regulatory values. EPA based these values upon engineering and 
health estimates contained in guidance or guidelines published by EPA 
and other sources. EPA used these values to determine whether the 
pollutants interfere with POTW operations. The pretreatment standards 
proposed today are not based on these values; rather, they are based on 
the performance of the selected technology basis for each standard. 
However, the values used in this analysis help indicate the potential 
benefits for POTW operations that may result from the compliance with 
proposed pretreatment discharge levels.

D. Barge/Chemical and Petroleum Subcategory

1. Direct Dischargers
    EPA evaluated the potential effect on aquatic life and human health 
of a representative sample of six direct wastewater dischargers of the 
14 facilities in the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory to 
receiving waters at current levels of treatment and at proposed 
pretreatment levels. These six modeled facilities discharge 60 modeled 
pollutants to six receiving streams. EPA predicted steady-state in-
stream pollutant concentrations after complete immediate mixing with no 
loss from the system, and compared these levels to EPA-published water 
quality criteria. For those chemicals for which EPA has not published 
water quality criteria, concentrations were compared to documented 
toxic effect levels (i.e., lowest reported or estimated toxic 
concentration). Nationwide criteria guidance were used as the most 
representative value. In addition, the potential benefits to human 
health were evaluated by estimating the potential reduction of 
carcinogenic risk and systemic effects from consuming contaminated fish 
and drinking water. Risks were also estimated for recreational and 
subsistence anglers and their families as well as the general 
population. Model results were then extrapolated to the national level.
    At the national level, 14 facilities discharge wastewater directly 
to 14 receiving streams. Current loadings (in pounds) of the 60 
pollutants evaluated for water quality impacts are reduced 95 percent 
by the proposed BAT regulatory option. EPA projects that in-stream 
concentrations of two pollutants will exceed human health criteria (for 
both water and organisms) in six receiving streams at current discharge 
levels. The proposed BAT regulatory option eliminates excursions of 
human health criteria in three of these streams. Estimates of the 
increase in value of recreational fishing to anglers as a result of 
this improvement range from $169,000 to $604,000 annually (1997 
dollars). In addition, the nonuse value (e.g. option, existence, and 
bequest value) of the improvement is estimated to range from $84,500 to 
$302,000 (1997 dollars).
    The excess annual cancer cases at current pollutant loadings are 
projected to be much less than 0.5 from the ingestion of contaminated 
fish and drinking water by all populations evaluated for both the 
results from the representative sample and those extrapolated to the 
national level. A monetary value of this benefit to society is, 
therefore, not projected. No systemic toxicant effects (non-cancer 
adverse health effects such as reproductive toxicity) are projected for 
anglers fishing the 14 receiving streams at current discharge levels. 
Therefore, no further analysis of these types of impacts was performed.
2. Indirect Dischargers
    EPA evaluated the potential effect on aquatic life and human health 
of a single indirect wastewater discharger (there was only one facility 
which received the Detailed Questionnaire, although several additional 
facilities were identified in the Screen Questionnaire) to receiving 
waters at current levels of treatment and at proposed pretreatment 
levels. This facility discharges 60 modeled pollutants in wastewater to 
a POTW, which discharges to a receiving stream. EPA predicted steady-
state in-stream pollutant concentrations after complete immediate 
mixing with no loss from the system, and compared these levels to EPA-
published water quality criteria. For those chemicals for which EPA has 
not published water quality criteria, concentrations were compared to 
documented toxic effect levels (i.e., lowest reported or estimated 
toxic concentration). Nationwide criteria guidance were used as the 
most representative value. In addition, the potential benefits to human 
health were evaluated by estimating the potential reduction of 
carcinogenic risk and systemic effects from consuming contaminated fish 
and drinking water. Risks were also estimated for recreational and 
subsistence anglers and their families as well as the general 
population. Model results were then extrapolated to the national level.
    EPA projects that in-stream concentrations of none of the 
pollutants will exceed human health criteria (for both water and 
organisms) at current discharge levels. EPA also projects that no 
receiving streams will show in-stream concentrations exceeding chronic 
aquatic life criteria or toxic effect levels at current discharge 
levels. No carcinogenic effects or systemic toxicant effects (non-
cancer adverse health effects such as reproductive toxicity) are 
projected for drinking water or ingesting fish taken from the single 
receiving stream at current discharge levels. Therefore, no further 
analysis of these types of impacts was performed.
3. POTWs
    EPA also evaluated the potential adverse impacts on POTW operations 
(inhibition of microbial activity during biological treatment) and 
contamination of sewage sludge at the one POTW that receives wastewater 
from the barge chemical indirect subcategory. Inhibition of POTW 
operations (impairment of microbial activity) is estimated by comparing 
predicted POTW influent concentrations to available inhibition levels. 
Model results were not extrapolated to the national level, which 
included only the single POTW.
    EPA evaluated pollutants for potential POTW operation inhibition 
and potential sewage sludge contamination. At current discharge levels, 
EPA projects no inhibition or sludge contamination problems at this 
POTW. Therefore, no further analysis of these types of impacts was 
performed.

XII. Non-Water Quality Impacts of Proposed Regulations

    As required by sections 304(b) and 306 of the Clean Water Act, EPA 
has considered the non-water quality environmental impacts associated 
with the treatment technology options for the transportation equipment 
cleaning industry. Non-water quality impacts are impacts of the 
proposed rule on the environment that are not directly associated with 
wastewater. Non-water

[[Page 34728]]

quality impacts include changes in energy consumption, air emissions, 
and solid waste generation of oil and sludge. In addition to these non-
water quality impacts, EPA examined the impacts of the proposed rule on 
noise pollution, and water and chemical use. Based on these analyses, 
EPA finds the relatively small increase in non-water quality impacts 
resulting from the proposed rule to be acceptable.

A. Energy Impacts

    Energy impacts resulting from the proposed regulatory options 
include energy requirements to operate wastewater treatment equipment 
such as aerators, pumps, and mixers. However, flow reduction 
technologies (a component of the regulatory options) reduce energy 
requirements by reducing the number of operating hours per day and/or 
operating days per year for wastewater treatment equipment currently 
operated by the TEC industry. For some regulatory options, energy 
savings resulting from flow reduction exceed requirements for operation 
of additional wastewater treatment equipment, resulting in a net energy 
savings for these options.
    EPA estimates a net increase in electricity use of approximately 6 
million kilowatt hours annually for the TEC industry as a result of the 
proposed rule. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, the total 
U.S. industrial electrical energy purchase in 1990 was approximately 
756 billion kilowatt hours. EPA's proposed options would increase U.S. 
industrial electrical energy purchase by 0.0008 percent. Therefore, the 
Agency concludes that the effluent pollutant reduction benefits from 
the proposed technology options exceed the potential adverse effects 
from the estimated increase in energy consumption.

B. Air Emission Impacts

    TEC facilities generate wastewater containing significant 
concentrations of volatile and semivolatile organic pollutants, some of 
which are also on the list of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) in Title 
3 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. These waste streams pass 
through treatment units open to the atmosphere, which may result in the 
volatilization of organic pollutants from the wastewater.
    Emissions from TEC facilities also occur when tanks are opened and 
cleaned, with cleaning typically performed using hot water or cleaning 
solutions. Prior to cleaning, tanks may be opened with vapors vented 
through the tank hatch and air vents in a process called gas freeing. 
At some facilities, tanks used to transport gases or volatile material 
are filled to capacity with water to displace vapors to the atmosphere 
or a combustion device. Some facilities also perform open steaming of 
tanks.
    Other sources of emissions at TEC facilities include heated 
cleaning solution storage tanks as well as emissions from TEC 
wastewater as it falls onto the cleaning bay floor, flows to floor 
drains and collection sumps, and conveys to wastewater treatment.
    In order to quantify the impact of the proposed regulation on air 
emissions, EPA performed a model analysis to estimate the amount of 
organic pollutants emitted to the air. EPA estimates the increase of 
air emissions at TEC facilities as a result of the proposed wastewater 
treatment technology to be approximately 153,000 kilograms per year of 
organic pollutants (volatile and semivolatile organics), which 
represents approximately 35 percent of the total organic pollutant 
wastewater load. EPA's estimate of air emissions reflects the increase 
in emissions at TEC facilities, and does not account for baseline air 
emissions that are currently being released to the atmosphere at the 
POTW.
    EPA's model analysis was performed based on the most stringent 
regulatory options considered for each subcategory in order to create a 
``worst case scenario'' (i.e., the more treatment technologies used, 
the more chance of volatilization of compounds to the air). For some 
subcategories, EPA is not proposing the most stringent regulatory 
option; therefore, for these subcategories, air emission impacts are 
overestimated. In addition, to the extent that facilities currently 
operate treatment in place, the results overestimate air emission 
impacts from the regulatory options. Additional details concerning 
EPA's model analysis to estimate air emission impacts are included in 
``Estimated Air Emission Impacts of TEC Industry Regulatory Options'' 
in the rulemaking record.
    Based on the sources of air emissions in the TEC industry and 
limited data concerning air pollutant emissions from TEC operations 
provided in response to the 1994 Detailed Questionnaire (most 
facilities did not provide air pollutant emissions estimates), EPA 
estimates that the incremental air emissions resulting from the 
proposed regulatory options are a small percentage of air emissions 
generated by TEC operations. For these reasons, air emission impacts of 
the regulatory options are acceptable.

C. Solid Waste Impacts

    Solid waste impacts resulting from the proposed regulatory options 
include additional solid wastes generated by wastewater treatment 
technologies. These solid wastes include wastewater treatment 
residuals, including sludge, waste oil, spent activated carbon, and 
spent organo-clay.
    Regulations pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 
(RCRA), require companies/facilities which generate waste (including 
waste generated from the cleaning of the interiors of tanks) to 
determine if they generate a hazardous waste (the applicable 
regulations are found in 40 CFR part 261). This determination is made 
by answering two questions: (1) Is the material a listed hazardous 
waste; or (2) is the material hazardous because it exhibits one of the 
four hazardous waste characteristics (ignitability, corrosivity, 
reactivity or toxicity). If the material is determined to be a 
hazardous waste, the waste must be managed according to the regulations 
found in 40 CFR parts 262-265, 268, 270, 271 and 124.
1. Wastewater Treatment Sludge
    Wastewater treatment sludge is generated in two forms: dewatered 
sludge (or filter cake) generated by a filter press and/or wet sludge 
generated by treatment units such as oil/water separators, chemical 
precipitation/clarification, coagulation/clarification, dissolved air 
flotation, and biological treatment. Many facilities that currently 
operate wastewater treatment systems do not dewater wastewater 
treatment sludge. Storage, transportation, and disposal of greater 
volumes of un-dewatered sludge that would be generated after 
implementing the TEC industry regulatory options is less cost-effective 
than dewatering sludge on site and disposing of the greatly reduced 
volume of resulting filter cake. However, in estimating costs for 
today's proposal, EPA has included the costs for TEC facilities to 
install sludge dewatering equipment to handle increases in sludge 
generation. For these reasons, EPA estimates net decreases in the 
volume of wet sludge generated by the industry and net increases in the 
volume of dry sludge generated by the industry.
    EPA estimates that the proposed rule will result in a decrease in 
wet sludge generation of approximately 17 million gallons per year, 
which represents an estimated 90 percent decrease from current wet 
sludge generation. In addition, EPA estimates that the proposed rule 
will result in an increase in dewatered sludge generation of 
approximately 33 thousand cubic yards per year, which represents an 
estimated 170 percent increase from current dewatered sludge 
generation.

[[Page 34729]]

Compliance cost estimates for the TEC industry regulatory options are 
based on disposal of wastewater treatment sludge in nonhazardous waste 
landfills. EPA sampling of sludge using the Toxicity Characteristic 
Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test verified the sludge as non-hazardous. 
Such landfills are subject to RCRA Subtitle D standards found in 40 CFR 
parts 257 or 258.
    The Agency concludes that the effluent benefits and the reductions 
in wet sludge generation from the proposed technology options exceed 
the potential adverse effects from the estimated increase in wastewater 
treatment sludge generation.
2. Waste Oil
    EPA estimates that compliance with the proposed regulation will 
result in an increase in waste oil generation at TEC sites based on 
removal of oil from wastewater via oil/water separation. EPA estimates 
that this increase in waste oil generation will be approximately 1.5 
million gallons per year, which represents an estimated 122 percent 
increase from current waste oil generation. EPA assumes, based on 
responses to the detailed questionnaire, that waste oil disposal will 
be via oil reclamation or fuels blending on or off site. Therefore, the 
Agency does not estimate any adverse effects from increased waste oil 
generation.
3. Spent Activated Carbon
    Spent activated carbon is generated by the following regulatory 
options:

    <bullet> Truck/Chemical Subcategory--BPT Option II.
    <bullet> Truck/Chemical Subcategory--PSES Option II.
    <bullet> Rail/Chemical Subcategory--BPT Option III.
    <bullet> Rail/Chemical Subcategory--PSES Option III.
    <bullet> Truck/Petroleum Subcategory--PSES Option II.
    <bullet> Rail/Petroleum Subcategory--PSES Option II.
    Treatment of TEC wastewater via these technology options will 
generate 8,470 tons annually of spent activated carbon. EPA assumes 
that the spent activated carbon will be sent off site for regeneration 
rather than disposed of as a waste. Possible air emissions during 
regeneration are minimal. Therefore, the Agency does not estimate any 
adverse effects from activated carbon treatment technologies.
4. Spent Organo-Clay
    Spent organo-clay is generated by the following options:
    <bullet> Rail/Chemical Subcategory--BPT Option III.
    <bullet> Rail/Chemical Subcategory--PSES Option III.
    Treatment of TEC wastewater via these technology options will 
generate 118 tons annually of spent organo-clay. EPA assumes that the 
spent organo-clay will be disposed as a non-hazardous waste. The Agency 
concludes that the effluent benefits from the proposed technology 
options exceed any potential adverse effects from the generation and 
disposal of spent organo-clay.

XIII. Related Acts of Congress, Executive Orders, and Agency 
Initiatives

A. Summary of Public Participation

    During all phases of developing the proposed rule, EPA sought to 
maintain communications with the regulated community and other 
interested parties. The Agency met with representatives from the 
industry, the National Tank Truck Carriers (NTTC), the Railway Progress 
Institute, and the National Shipyard Association (formerly the American 
Waterways Shipyard Conference). In addition, NTTC and the National 
Shipyard Association set up the earliest site visits for EPA staff at 
TECI facilities. All three trade associations provided comments and 
suggestions on the industry screener and detailed questionnaires prior 
to distribution to the industry. EPA also attended six NTTC conferences 
in between 1994 and 1997 to provide information on the progress of the 
rule to the industry, to provide assistance to the industry in 
completing the detailed questionnaire, and to obtain information 
related to industry trends.
    Because most (approximately 95 percent) of the facilities in the 
TECI are indirect dischargers, the Agency has made a concerted effort 
to consult with State and local entities that will be responsible for 
implementing the regulation. EPA has spoken with pretreatment 
coordinators from around the nation and discussed the technology 
options with these pretreatment coordinators.
    In addition, on May 8, 1997, EPA sponsored a public meeting, where 
the Agency presented information about the content and the status of 
the proposed regulation. The meeting was announced in the Federal 
Register, and agendas and meeting materials were distributed at the 
meeting. The public meeting also gave interested parties an opportunity 
to provide information, data, and ideas on key issues to the Agency. 
EPA's intent in conducting the public meeting was to elicit input that 
would improve the quality of the proposed regulation. At the public 
meeting the Agency clarified that the public meeting would not replace 
the notice and comment process, nor would the meeting become a 
mechanism for a negotiated rulemaking. While EPA promised to accept 
information and data at the meeting and make good faith efforts to 
review all information and address all issues discussed at the meeting, 
EPA could not commit to fully assessing and incorporating all comments 
into the proposal. EPA will assess all comments and data received at 
the public meeting prior to promulgation.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA), EPA generally is required to conduct an initial regulatory 
flexibility analysis (IRFA) describing the impact of the proposed rule 
on small entities. Under section 605(b) of the RFA, if the 
Administrator certifies that the rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA is not 
required to prepare an IRFA.
    Based on its preliminary assessment of the economic impact of 
regulatory options being considered for the proposed rule, EPA had 
concluded that the proposal might significantly affect a substantial 
number of small entities. Accordingly, EPA prepared an IRFA pursuant to 
section 603(b) of the RFA addressing:
    <bullet> The need for, objectives of, and legal basis for the rule;
    <bullet> A description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the 
number of small entities to which the rule would apply;
    <bullet> The projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other 
compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the 
classes of small entities that would be subject to the requirements and 
the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report 
or record;
    <bullet> An identification, to the extent practicable, of all 
relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with 
the proposed rule;
    <bullet> A description of any significant regulatory alternatives 
to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives of 
applicable statutes and which minimize any significant economic impact 
of the proposed rule on small entities. Consistent with the stated 
objectives of the CWA, the analysis discusses significant alternatives 
such as--

[[Page 34730]]

    (1) Establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables that take into account the resources available to small 
entities;
    (2) Clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance 
and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities;
    (3) The use of performance rather than design standards; and
    (4) An exclusion from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, 
for such small entities.
    The IRFA is presented in Chapter VI of the EA and summarized in 
Section X.C.4 of this notice. EPA's analysis indicates that no small 
businesses would close as a result of the proposed effluent guideline. 
Using two sets of assumptions related to the ability of a business to 
pass the additional costs to customers, EPA projects that either 75 or 
50 small businesses would incur costs exceeding one percent of revenues 
and 64 or 17 small businesses would incur costs exceeding three percent 
of revenues. Based on the data presented in the IRFA, EPA now believes 
that the proposal, if promulgated, may not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Consequently, there 
is a possibility, after evaluation of comments and data received in 
response to today's proposal, that the Agency may not be required to 
prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis.
    Nonetheless, EPA convened a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) 
Panel on July 17, 1997, in compliance with the RFA, as amended by 
SBREFA. The Panel was comprised of representatives from three federal 
agencies: EPA, the Small Business Administration, and the Office of 
Management and Budget. The Panel reviewed materials EPA prepared in 
connection with the IRFA, and collected the advice and recommendations 
of small entity representatives. For this proposed rule, the small 
entity representatives included trade association officials from the 
National Tank Truck Carriers, Railway Progress Institute, Short Line 
Railroad Association, National Shipyard Association, The Association of 
Container Reconditioners and National Oil Recovery Association. The 
Panel prepared a report (available in the public docket for this 
rulemaking) that summarizes its outreach to small entities and the 
comments submitted by the small entity representatives. The Panel's 
report also presents their findings on issues related to the elements 
of an IRFA and recommendations regarding the rulemaking.
    In addition to the activities discussed in XIII.A, EPA and the 
other members of the Panel sought to gather small business advice and 
recommendations by meeting and consulting with the small entity 
representatives listed above. On July 2, 1997, EPA convened a meeting 
for the small entity representatives to describe EPA's regulatory 
process and alternative technology options for the TEC effluent 
guideline. While the Panel was in session, they met with the small 
entity representatives, provided more than 200 pages of analysis 
results and background information to the small entity representatives, 
and carefully reviewed the written comments submitted by the small 
entity representatives.
    Some of the key issues discussed by the Panel and the small entity 
representatives were potential exclusions for small businesses. EPA, 
through extensive analysis and documentation for the Panel members and 
the small entity representatives, supported this effort to identify 
regulatory alternatives that would minimize the economic impacts on 
small businesses while preserving the environmental benefits associated 
with the treatment technologies. EPA evaluated alternative breakpoints 
in four variables (flow, employment, annual revenue, and number of 
tanks cleaned) to determine possible exclusions for small entities. For 
numerous potential exclusion scenarios, EPA provided comparisons of 
financial characteristics, economic impacts, and pollutant loadings. 
The Agency also provided background information on the engineering 
models, compliance cost calculations, pollutant loadings estimations, 
financial models, and economic impact methodologies. Thus, EPA provided 
to the Panel and the small entity representatives a thorough 
description of the data and techniques, thereby facilitating the 
Panel's task to prepare and submit recommendations to EPA's 
Administrator.
    Throughout this notice the Agency has discussed issues raised by 
the Panel and the small entity representatives, and has attempted to 
address the recommendations made to EPA's Administrator. Specifically, 
as recommended by the Panel, EPA has solicited data and comment on the 
following: the population of affected facilities; the cost models and 
assumptions; alternative treatment technologies not considered by EPA; 
the subcategorization approach, and specifically on an alternative 
regulatory approach that would establish a separate subcategory for any 
facility which accepts tanks containing pesticide-containing cargos; 
the cost-effectiveness of removing non-pesticide chemicals, and 
information on the impacts to receiving streams and POTWs by non-
pesticide pollutants; approaches for minimizing the regulatory impacts 
for small facilities; pollutant loads associated with IBC cleaning 
wastewater; the economic methodologies and assumptions; and the burdens 
associated with compliance of the Clean Air Act for barge facilities.
    Additionally, as recommended by the Panel, EPA has included a clear 
discussion on the following: the monitoring frequency used in 
determining limits and associated costs of compliance; a discussion of 
the costs, impacts, and the technology options considered for proposal; 
and the reasons for the apparent discrepancy in the levels of treatment 
technology proposed for the Truck/Chemical Subcategory and the Rail/
Chemical Subcategory. Additionally, EPA has clearly described its 
intention for coverage for those facilities potentially affected by 
more than one Clean Water Act effluent guideline, and has documented 
all cost models, costing assumptions, and cost projections in the 
Technical Development Document and the regulatory record.
    There are several instances where the Agency has re-evaluated 
earlier thinking based on comments received from the Panel and the 
small entity representatives. At times, the Panel produced supporting 
data which was used to re-evaluate certain aspects of what EPA intended 
to propose. For example, after small entity representatives provided 
the Agency with additional information on the cleaning of IBCs, the 
Agency decided not to include facilities which clean IBCs within the 
scope of this proposed rule. In other instances, where the Agency has 
received comments from a Panel member or a small entity representative, 
but has not received data that would support changing the scope of the 
proposal or requirements contained therein, EPA has identified these 
areas of concern in today's notice and has solicited comment from the 
regulated community, permit writers, POTW operators and other 
stakeholders.

C. Executive Order 12866 (OMB 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

[[Page 34731]]

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.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. 
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-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 proposed rule does not contain a 
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more 
for State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the 
private sector in any one year. The total cost of the rule is not 
expected to exceed $23 million (1997$) in any given year. Thus, today's 
rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the 
UMRA.
    EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments and thus this rule is not subject to the requirement of 
section 203 of UMRA. EPA recognizes that small governments may own or 
operate POTWs that will need to enter into pretreatment agreements with 
the indirect dischargers of the TEC industry that would be subject to 
this proposed rule. However, the costs of this are expected to be 
minimal. Additionally, the additional requirements of today's proposal 
are not unique because POTWs must enter into pretreatment agreements 
for all significant industrial users and all industrial facilities 
regulated under categorical standards of the Clean Water Act.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The proposed transportation equipment cleaning effluent guidelines 
and pretreatment 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, 44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

F. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 
Advancement Act (``NTTAA''), the Agency is required to use voluntary 
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would 
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials 
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices, 
etc.) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard 
bodies. Where available and potentially applicable voluntary consensus 
standards are not used by EPA, the Act requires the Agency to provide 
Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, an explanation 
of the reasons for not using such standards.
    EPA is not proposing any new analytical test methods as part of 
today's proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards. The 
Agency does not believe that this proposed rule addresses any technical 
standards subject to the NTAA. A commenter who disagrees with this 
conclusion should indicate how the notice is subject the Act and 
identify any potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards.

G. The Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act

    The Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act, Public Law 104-55, requires 
most federal agencies to differentiate between and establish separate 
classes for (1) animal fats and oils and greases, fish and marine 
mammal oils, and oils of vegetable origin and (2) other greases and 
oils, including petroleum, when issuing or enforcing any regulation or 
establishing any interpretation or guideline relating to the 
transportation, storage, discharge, release, emission, or disposal of a 
fat, oil or grease.
    The Agency believes that vegetable oils and animal fats pose 
similar types of threats to the environment as petroleum oils when 
spilled to the environment (62 FR 54508, Oct. 20, 1997).
    The deleterious environmental effects of spills of petroleum and 
non-petroleum oils, including animal fats and vegetable oils, are 
produced through physical contact and destruction of food sources (via 
smothering or coating) as well as toxic contamination (62 FR 54511). 
However, the permitted discharge of TEC process wastewater containing 
residual and dilute quantities of petroleum and non-petroleum oils is 
significantly different than an uncontrolled spill of pure petroleum or 
non-petroleum oil products.
    EPA has grouped facilities which clean transportation equipment 
that carry vegetable oils or animal fats as cargos into separate 
subcategories (food) from those facilities that clean equipment that 
had carried petroleum products for the following reasons.
    First, food grade and petroleum facilities operate different tank 
interior cleaning processes and unique water use practices. Food grade 
cleaning processes are typically performed using computer operated and 
controlled dedicated stainless steel washing systems which regulate 
flow rate, pressure, temperature, and cleaning sequence duration. Final 
water rinses

[[Page 34732]]

are performed using fresh rather than recycled water. In contrast, 
petroleum facilities comprise approximately 70 percent of all 
facilities that practice 100 percent recycle/reuse of TEC process 
wastewater to TEC processes. In addition, 43 percent of food grade 
facilities use chemical cleaning solutions such as caustic or detergent 
as compared to only four percent of petroleum facilities.
    Second, food grade and petroleum facilities generate TEC wastewater 
with different characteristics. Both petroleum and non-petroleum oils 
are comprised of hydrocarbon mixtures. However, petroleum oils contain 
alkanes, cycloalkanes, and aromatic hydrocarbons of which many are 
included in EPA's list of priority pollutants. In contrast, vegetable 
oils and animal fats contain esters of glycerol and fatty acids which 
are not included in EPA's list of priority pollutants and are 
relatively non-toxic in dilute concentrations. In addition, food grade 
facilities generate from 4 to 14 times more wastewater per tank 
cleaning on average than petroleum facilities. These differences in 
cargo composition, together with differences in cleaning processes and 
water use, result in the generation of TEC wastewater which differs 
significantly in volume, pollutants generated, and pollutant 
concentration.
    In spite of the relatively high toxicity of TEC wastewater 
generated by petroleum facilities as compared to food grade facilities, 
less than one percent of the tanks cleaned in the TECI are petroleum 
tanks cleaned by direct dischargers. Additionally, less than one 
percent of wastewater generated by the TECI is generated by direct 
dischargers cleaning petroleum tanks. Because very few pounds of toxic 
pollutants are being discharged by facilities in the Truck/Petroleum 
and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories, EPA preliminarily concluded that no 
nationally applicable limitations should be established for these 
subcategories.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any 
rule that (1) is likely to be ``economically significant'' as defined 
under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns environmental health or 
safety risk that the Agency has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If a regulatory action meets both 
criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety 
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned 
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045, ``Protection of Children 
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' because this is not 
an ``economically significant'' regulatory action as defined by E.O. 
12866, and because it does not involve decisions on environmental 
health or safety risks that may disproportionately affect children.

XIV. Regulatory Implementation

A. Applicability

    Today's proposal represents EPA's best judgment at this time as to 
the appropriate technology-based effluent limits for the TEC industry. 
These effluent limitations and standards, however, may change based on 
comments received on this proposal, and subsequent data submitted by 
commentors or developed by the Agency. Therefore, while the information 
provided in the Technical Development Documents may provide useful 
information and guidance to permit writers in determining best 
professional judgment permit limits for TEC facilities, the permit 
writer will still need to justify any permit limits based on the 
conditions at the individual facility.

B. Upset and Bypass Provisions

    A ``bypass'' is an intentional diversion of waste streams from any 
portion of a treatment facility. An ``upset'' is an exceptional 
incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance 
with technology-based permit effluent limitations because of factors 
beyond the reasonable control of the permittee. EPA's regulations 
concerning bypasses and upsets are set forth at 40 CFR 122.41(m) and 
(n).

C. Variances and Modifications

    The CWA requires application of the effluent limitations 
established pursuant to Section 301 or the pretreatment standards of 
Section 307 to all direct and indirect dischargers. However, the 
statute provides for the modification of these national requirements in 
a limited number of circumstances. Moreover, the Agency has established 
administrative mechanisms to provide an opportunity for relief from the 
application of national effluent limitations guidelines and 
pretreatment standards for categories of existing sources for priority 
toxic, conventional and non-conventional pollutants.
1. Fundamentally Different Factors Variances
    EPA may develop effluent limitations or standards different from 
the otherwise applicable requirements if an individual existing 
discharging facility is fundamentally different with respect to factors 
considered in establishing the limitation or standards applicable to 
the individual facility. Such a modification is known as a 
``fundamentally different factors'' (FDF) variance.
    Early on, EPA, by regulation, provided for FDF modifications from 
BPT effluent limitations, BAT limitations for priority toxic and non-
conventional pollutants and BCT limitation for conventional pollutants 
for direct dischargers. For indirect dischargers, EPA provided for FDF 
modifications from pretreatment standards for existing facilities. FDF 
variances for priority toxic pollutants were challenged judicially and 
ultimately sustained by the Supreme Court. (Chemical Manufacturers 
Ass'n v. NRDC, 479 U.S. 116 (1985)).
    Subsequently, in the Water Quality Act of 1987, Congress added new 
Section 301(n) of the Act explicitly to authorize modification of the 
otherwise applicable BAT effluent limitations or categorical 
pretreatment standards for existing sources if a facility is 
fundamentally different with respect to the factors specified in 
Section 304 (other than costs) from those considered by EPA in 
establishing the effluent limitations or pretreatment standard. Section 
301(n) also defined the conditions under which EPA may establish 
alternative requirements. Under Section 301(n), an application for 
approval of FDF variance must be based solely on (1) information 
submitted during the rulemaking raising the factors that are 
fundamentally different or (2) information the applicant did not have 
an opportunity to submit. The alternate limitation or standard must be 
no less stringent than justified by the difference and not result in 
markedly more adverse non-water quality environmental impacts than the 
national limitation or standard.
    EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 125, subpart D, authorizing the 
Regional Administrators to establish alternative limitations and 
standards, further detail the substantive criteria used to evaluate FDF 
variance requests for existing direct dischargers. Thus, 40 CFR 
125.31(d) identifies six factors (e.g., volume of process wastewater, 
age and size of a discharger's facility) that may be considered in 
determining if a facility is fundamentally different. The Agency must 
determine whether, on the basis of

[[Page 34733]]

one or more of these factors, the facility in question is fundamentally 
different from the facilities and factors considered by EPA in 
developing the nationally applicable effluent guidelines. The 
regulation also lists four other factors (e.g., infeasibility of 
installation within the time allowed or a discharger's ability to pay) 
that may not provide a basis for an FDF variance. In addition, under 40 
CFR 125.31(b)(3), a request for limitations less stringent than the 
national limitation may be approved only if compliance with the 
national limitations would result in either (a) a removal cost wholly 
out of proportion to the removal cost considered during development of 
the national limitations, or (b) a non-water quality environmental 
impact (including energy requirements) fundamentally more adverse than 
the impact considered during development of the national limits. EPA 
regulations provide for an FDF variance for existing indirect 
dischargers at 40 CFR 403.13. The conditions for approval of a request 
to modify applicable pretreatment standards and factors considered are 
the same as those for direct dischargers.
    The legislative history of Section 301(n) underscores the necessity 
for the FDF variance applicant to establish eligibility for the 
variance. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 125.32(b)(1) are explicit in 
imposing this burden upon the applicant. The applicant must show that 
the factors relating to the discharge controlled by the applicant's 
permit which are claimed to be fundamentally different are, in fact, 
fundamentally different from those factors considered by EPA in 
establishing the applicable guidelines. The pretreatment regulation 
incorporate a similar requirement at 40 CFR 403.13(h)(9).
    An FDF variance is not available to a new source subject to NSPS or 
PSNS.
2. Permit Modifications
    Even after EPA (or an authorized State) has issued a final permit 
to a direct discharger, the permit may still be modified under certain 
conditions. (When a permit modification is under consideration, 
however, all other permit conditions remain in effect.) A permit 
modification may be triggered in several circumstances. These could 
include a regulatory inspection or information submitted by the 
permittee that reveals the need for modification. Any interested person 
may request modification of a permit be made. There are two 
classifications of modifications: major and minor. From a procedural 
standpoint, they differ primarily with respect to the public notice 
requirements. Major modifications require public notice while minor 
modifications do not. Virtually any modifications that results in less 
stringent conditions is treated as a major modification, with 
provisions for public notice and comment. Conditions that would 
necessitate a major modification of a permit are described in 40 CFR 
122.62. Minor modifications are generally non-substantive changes. The 
conditions for minor modification are described in 40 CFR 122.63.
3. Removal Credits
    The CWA establishes a discretionary program for POTWs to grant 
``removal credits'' to their indirect dischargers. This credit in the 
form of a less stringent pretreatment standard, allows an increased 
concentration of a pollutant in the flow from the indirect discharger's 
facility to the POTW (See 40 CFR 403.7). EPA has promulgated removal 
credit regulations as part of its pretreatment regulations.
    The following discussion provides a description of the existing 
removal credit regulations. However, EPA is considering proposing a 
rule which would expand the universe of pollutants for which removal 
credits may be authorized. Under EPA's existing pretreatment 
regulations, the availability of a removal credit for a particular 
pollutant is linked to the POTW method of using or disposing of its 
sewage sludge. The regulations provide that removal credits are only 
available for certain pollutants regulated in EPA's 40 CFR part 503 
sewage sludge regulations (58 FR 9386). The pretreatment regulations at 
40 CFR part 403 provide that removal credits may be made potentially 
available for the following pollutants:

    (1) If a POTW applies its sewage sludge to the land for 
beneficial uses, disposes of it on surface disposal sites or 
incinerates it, removal credits may be available, depending on which 
use or disposal method is selected (so long as the POTW complies 
with the requirements in Part 503). When sewage sludge is applied to 
land, removal credits may be available for ten metals. When sewage 
sludge is disposed of on a surface disposal site, removal credits 
may be available for three metals. When the sewage sludge is 
incinerated, removal credits may be available for seven metals and 
for 57 organic pollutants (40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(iv)(A)).
    (2) In addition, when sewage sludge is used on land or disposed 
of on a surface disposal site or incinerated, removal credits may 
also be available for additional pollutants so long as the 
concentration of the pollutant in sludge does not exceed a 
concentration level established in Part 403. When sewage sludge is 
applied to land, removal credits may be available for two additional 
metals and 14 organic pollutants. When the sewage sludge is disposed 
of on a surface disposal site, removal credits may be available for 
seven additional metals and 13 organic pollutants. When the sewage 
sludge is incinerated, removal credits may be available for three 
other metals (40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(iv)(B)).
    (3) When a POTW disposes of its sewage sludge in a municipal 
solid waste landfill (MSWLF) that meets the criteria of 40 CFR Part 
258, removal credits may be available for any pollutant in the 
POTW's sewage sludge (40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(iv)(C)). Thus, given 
compliance with the requirements of EPA's removal credit 
regulations,<SUP>2</SUP> following promulgation of the pretreatment 
standards being proposed today, removal credits may be authorized 
for any pollutant subject to pretreatment standards if the applying 
POTW disposes of its sewage sludge in a MSWLF that meets the 
requirements of 40 CFR part 258. If the POTW uses or disposes of its 
sewage sludge by land application, surface disposal or incineration, 
removal credits may be available for the following metal pollutants 
(depending on the method of use or disposal): arsenic, cadmium, 
chromium, copper, iron, lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium 
and zinc. Given compliance with Section 403.7, removal credits may 
be available for the following organic pollutants (depending on the 
method of use or disposal) if the POTW uses or disposes of its 
sewage sludge: benzene, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,2-dibromoethane, 
ethylbenzene, methylene chloride, toluene, tetrachloroethene, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, 1,1,2-trichloroethane and trans-1,2-dichloroethene.

    \2\ Under Sec. 403.7, a POTW is authorized to give removal 
credits only under certain conditions. These include applying for, 
and obtaining, approval from the Regional Administrator (or Director 
of a State NPDES program with an approved pretreatment program), a 
showing of consistent pollutant removal and an approved pretreatment 
program. See 40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(i), (ii), and (iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some facilities may be interested in obtaining removal credit 
authorization for other pollutants being considered for regulation in 
this rulemaking for which removal credit authorization would not 
otherwise be available under part 403. Under Sections 307(b) and 405 of 
the CWA, EPA may authorize removal credits only when EPA determines 
that, if removal credits are authorized, that the increased discharges 
of a pollutant to POTWs resulting from removal credits will not affect 
POTW sewage sludge use or disposal adversely. As discussed in the 
preamble to amendments to Part 403 regulations (58 FR 9382-9383), EPA 
has interpreted these sections to authorize removal credits for a 
pollutant only in one of two circumstances. Removal credits may be 
authorized for any categorical pollutant (1) for which EPA have 
established a numerical pollutant limit in Part 503; or (2) which EPA 
has determined will not threaten human health and the environment when 
used or disposed in sewage sludge. The pollutants described in 
paragraphs (1)-(3) above include all

[[Page 34734]]

those pollutants that EPA either specifically regulated in Part 503 or 
evaluated for regulation and determined would not adversely affect 
sludge use and disposal.
    EPA is considering a proposal amending Part 403 to make removal 
credits available for those pollutants that are not now listed in 
Appendix G as eligible for removal credits provided a POTW seeking 
removal credit authority studies the impact that granting removal 
credits would have on the concentration of the pollutant in the POTW's 
sewage sludge and establishes that the pollutants will not interfere 
with sewage sludge use or disposal. These changes would provide POTWs 
and their industrial users with additional opportunities to use removal 
credits to efficiently allocate treatment.
    The proposal would address the availability of removal credits for 
pollutants for which EPA has not developed a Part 503 pollutant limit 
or determined through a national study a concentration for the 
pollutant in sewage sludge below which public health and the 
environment are protected when the sewage sludge is used or disposed. 
Because EPA is only considering two additional pollutants for 
regulation under Part 503, the proposal would provide a mechanism for 
evaluating other pollutants for removal credit purposes. As noted 
above, EPA has interpreted the Court's decision in NRDC v. EPA as only 
allowing removal credits for a pollutant if EPA had either regulated 
the pollutant 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 proposal would allow the POTW to 
perform the study that would establish that allowable concentration. 
The POTW analysis would need to establish that the granting of removal 
credits will not increase the level of pollutants in the POTW's sewage 
sludge to a level that would fail to protect public health and the 
environment from reasonably anticipated adverse effects of the 
pollutant.

D. Relationship of Effluent Limitations to NPDES Permits and Monitoring 
Requirements

    Effluent limitations act as a primary mechanism to control the 
discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States. These 
limitations are applied to individual facilities through NPDES permits 
issued by EPA or authorized States under Section 402 of the Act.
    The Agency has developed the limitations and standards for this 
proposed rule to cover the discharge of pollutants for this industrial 
category. In specific cases, the NPDES permitting authority may elect 
to establish technology-based permit limits for pollutants not covered 
by this proposed regulation. In addition, if State water quality 
standards or other provisions of State or Federal Law require limits on 
pollutants not covered by this regulation (or require more stringent 
limits on covered pollutants) the permitting authority must apply those 
limitations.
    Working in conjunction with the effluent limitations are the 
monitoring conditions set out in a NPDES permit. An integral part of 
the monitoring conditions is the point at which a facility must monitor 
to demonstrate compliance. The point at which a sample is collected can 
have a dramatic effect on the monitoring results for that facility. 
Therefore, it may be necessary to require internal monitoring points in 
order to ensure compliance. Authority to address internal waste streams 
is provided in 40 CFR 122.44(i)(1)(iii) and 122.45(h). Permit writers 
may establish additional internal monitoring points to the extent 
consistent with EPA's regulations.
    Another important component of the monitoring requirements 
established by the permitting authority is the frequency at which 
monitoring is required. In costing the various technology options for 
the TEC industry, EPA assumed monthly monitoring for toxic priority and 
nonconventional pollutants and weekly monitoring for conventional 
pollutants. For this reason, the proposed daily and monthly limitations 
for toxic priority and nonconventional pollutants are the same. These 
monitoring frequencies may be lower than those generally imposed by 
some permitting authorities, but EPA believes these reduced frequencies 
are appropriate due to the relative costs of monitoring when compared 
to the estimated costs of complying with the proposed limitations. This 
issue was also discussed by the Small Business Advocacy Panel. In the 
Panel report, EPA indicated its intention to issue guidance to local 
permitting authorities recommending that they use the reduced 
monitoring frequencies when issuing permits to facilities in this 
industry and explaining the rationale for the recommended frequencies.

E. Best Management Practices (BMPs)

    Section 304(e) of the Act authorizes the Administrator to prescribe 
``best management practices'' (BMPs). EPA may develop BMPs that apply 
to all industrial sites or to a designated industrial category and may 
offer guidance to permit authorities in establishing management 
practices required by unique circumstances at a given plant. Dikes, 
curbs, and other control measures are being used at some TEC sites to 
contain leaks and spills as part of good ``housekeeping'' practices. 
However, on a facility-by-facility basis a permit writer may choose to 
incorporate BMPs into the permit.

XV. 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 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 ``For 
Further Information'' section at the beginning of this preamble for 
technical contacts at EPA.
    To ensure that EPA can read, understand and therefore properly 
respond to comments, the Agency would prefer that commenters cite, 
where possible the paragraph(s) or sections in the notice or supporting 
documents to which each comment refers. Commenters should use a 
separate paragraph for each issue discussed. Please submit an original 
and two copies of your comments and enclosures (including references).
    Commenters who want EPA to acknowledge receipt of their comments 
should enclose a self-addressed, stamped envelope. No facsimiles 
(faxes) will be accepted. Comments and data will also be accepted on 
disks in WordPerfect format or ASCII file format.
    Comments may also be filed electronically to 
``Tinger.J<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cea1a6a08eabbeafa3afa7a2e0abbeafe0a9a1b8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7b1413153b1e0b1a161a1217551e0b1a551c140d">[email protected]</span></a>''. Electronic comments must be submitted 
as an ASCII or Wordperfect file avoiding the use of special characters 
and any form of encryption. Electronic comments must be identified by 
the docket number W-97-25 and may be filed online at many Federal 
Depository Libraries. No confidential business information (CBI) should 
be sent via e-mail.

B. Specific Data and Comment Solicitations

    EPA has solicited comments and data on many individual topics 
throughout this preamble. The Agency incorporates

[[Page 34735]]

each and every such solicitation here, and reiterates its interest in 
receiving data and comments on the issues addressed by those 
solicitations. In addition, EPA particularly requests comments and data 
on the following issues:
    1. EPA is soliciting comment and data on the pollutant loads 
associated with IBC cleaning wastewater, and on the initial decision 
not to include IBC wastewater within the scope of this guideline. 
(Refer to Section III)
    2. EPA is soliciting comment from any industrial site which has the 
potential to be covered by TEC and MP&M but is uncertain as to their 
appropriate classification. EPA is also soliciting comment from 
permitting authorities as to whether the approach outlined above will 
result in easier, or more difficult, implementation of the TEC and MP&M 
regulations, and on alternative applicability approaches. (Refer to 
Section III)
    3. The Agency solicits comment and sources of data which may 
provide additional information on the population of affected 
facilities. (Refer to Section V)
    4. EPA solicits comment on the appropriateness of the proposed 
subcategorization approach which addresses the complexities inherent in 
this industry, and on other subcategorization approaches which may be 
appropriate. (Refer to Sections III and VI)
    5. The Agency solicits comment from permitting authorities and 
affected facilities on implementation and applicability issues 
surrounding the proposed subcategorization approach. (Refer to Sections 
III and VI)
    6. EPA solicits comment on the difficulty of defining petroleum and 
chemical products from a regulatory standpoint. (Refer to Sections III 
and VI)
    7. The Agency is soliciting comment and data on the preliminary 
conclusion that the Truck/Chemical and Truck/Petroleum Subcategories; 
and Rail/Chemical and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories, should not be 
combined. (Refer to Sections III and VI)
    8. EPA is soliciting comment and data on an alternative 
subcategorization approach that would combine the petroleum and 
chemical subcategories. (Refer to Sections III and VI)
    9. The Agency solicits comment on an alternative regulatory 
approach that would establish a subcategory for any facility which 
accepts tanks containing pesticide-containing cargos for cleaning, and 
on the cost-effectiveness of removing non-pesticide chemicals, and 
information on the impacts to receiving streams and POTWs by these 
pollutants. (Refer to Section VI)
    10. EPA solicits comment on the hierarchy of applicability that EPA 
is proposing as the basis for subcategorization. (Refer to Section VI)
    11. The Agency solicits comment on alternative treatment 
technologies not considered by EPA which may attain similar treatment 
removal efficiencies but that may be less expensive to install and 
operate. (Refer to Section VIII.B)
    12. The Agency solicits data which can either substantiate or 
refute its tentative conclusions regarding raw wastewater from Truck/
Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories, and also any data which 
characterizes pollutants present in wastewaters from these facilities. 
EPA solicits data and comments which may support or refute the Agency's 
conclusion that wastewater generated in the petroleum subcategories 
does not contain significant toxic loadings. (Refer to Sections III and 
VIII.B)
    13. The Agency solicits data which can either substantiate or 
refute its tentative conclusions regarding raw wastewater from hopper 
facilities, and also any data which characterizes pollutants present in 
wastewaters from these facilities. EPA solicits comments on the 
appropriateness of not regulating hopper facilities. EPA also solicits 
data on pollutant levels in wastewater from hopper facilities. (Refer 
to Sections III and VIII.B)
    14. The Agency solicits comment on the cost and effectiveness of 
flow reduction and oil/water separation as an option for indirect 
dischargers in the Truck/Chemical Subcategory.
    15. For PSNS in the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, EPA is 
soliciting comment on the technology selected as the basis for 
regulation. Specifically, EPA solicits comments and data which would 
support or refute the assumption that a POTW may accept effluent, 
without causing pass-through or interference, that has not been treated 
biologically.(Refer to Section VIII.B)
    16. EPA solicits comments on the appropriateness of the pollutants 
selected for regulation, including the decision to establish effluent 
limitations for metals using modeled treatment systems not specifically 
designed for metals control. The Agency also solicits data which will 
support or refute the ability of TEC facilities to meet the proposed 
effluent limitations using the modeled treatment systems. (Refer to 
Section VIII.C)
    17. The Agency solicits comments on the cost models and the 
assumptions used to project the cost of compliance to the industry as a 
result of today's proposed regulation. (Refer to Section IX)
    18. EPA solicits comment on the economic methodologies described in 
today's proposal. In particular, the Agency requests comment on the 
assumptions used in the analyses. (Refer to Section X)
    19. The Agency solicits information available that could be useful 
to determining an approach for minimizing the regulatory impacts for 
small facilities. (Refer to Sections III, X, and XIII.A)
    20. EPA solicits comments on changes in the economic/financial 
condition of facilities in the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory 
affected by the Clean Air Act National Emission Standards for Ship 
Building and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) promulgated in 1995. (Refer 
to Section X.C)

XVI. Guidelines for Comment Submission of Analytical Data

    EPA requests that commentors to today's proposed rule submit 
analytical, flow, and production data to supplement data collected by 
the Agency during the regulatory development process. To ensure that 
commentor data may be effectively evaluated by the Agency, EPA has 
developed the following guidelines for submission of data.

A. Types of Data Requested

    EPA requests paired influent and effluent treatment data for each 
of the technologies identified in the technology options, as well as 
any additional technologies applicable to the treatment of TEC waste 
waters. This includes end-of-pipe treatment technologies, heel 
management practices, and water conservation technologies. Submission 
of effluent data only is not sufficient for full analysis; the 
corresponding influent data must be provided.
    For submissions of paired influent and effluent treatment data, a 
minimum of four days of data are required for EPA to assess 
variability. Submissions of paired influent and effluent treatment data 
should include: a process diagram of the treatment system; treatment 
chemical addition rates; sampling point locations; sample collection 
dates; influent and effluent flow rates for each treatment unit during 
the sampling period; sludge or waste oil generation rates; a brief 
discussion of the treatment technology sampled; and a list of unit 
operations contributing to the sampled wastestream. EPA requests data 
for systems that are treating only process waste water. Systems 
treating non-process waste water (e.g., sanitary waste

[[Page 34736]]

water or non-contact cooling water) will not be evaluated by EPA. If 
available, information on capital cost, annual (operation and 
maintenance) cost, and treatment capacity should be included for each 
treatment unit within the system.

B. Analytes Requested

    EPA considered for regulation under the TEC category 330 metal, 
organic, conventional, and other nonconventional pollutant parameters 
detected in TEC process wastewater. Based on analytical data collected 
by the Agency, 180 pollutant parameters were identified as TEC 
``pollutants of concern''. Complete lists of pollutant parameters 
considered for regulation and pollutants of concern (as well as the 
criteria used to identify each of these pollutant parameters) are 
available in the Technical Development Document for this proposal. The 
Agency requests analytical data for any of the pollutants of concern 
and for any other pollutant parameters which commentors believe are of 
concern in the TEC industry. Commentors should use these methods or 
equivalent methods for analyses, and should document the method used 
for all data submissions.

C. Quality Assurance/ Quality Control (QA/QC) Requirements

    Today's proposed regulations were based on analytical data 
collected by EPA using rigorous QA/QC checks. These QA/QC checks 
include procedures specified in each of the analytical methods, as well 
as procedures used for the TEC sampling program in accordance with EPA 
sampling and analysis protocols. The Agency requests that submissions 
of analytical data include documentation that QA/QC procedures similar 
to those listed below were observed.
    EPA followed the QA/QC procedures specified in the analytical 
methods listed in Table 10. These QA/QC procedures include sample 
preservation and the use of method blanks, matrix spikes, matrix spike 
duplicates, laboratory duplicate samples, and Q standard checks (e.g., 
continuing calibration blanks). EPA requests that sites provide 
detection limits for all non-detected pollutants. EPA also requests 
that composite samples be collected for all flowing waste water streams 
(except for analyses requiring grab samples, such as oil and grease), 
sites collect and analyze 10% field duplicate samples to assess 
sampling variability, and sites provide data for equipment blanks for 
volatile organic pollutants when automatic compositors are used to 
collect samples.

                                                   Table 10.--EPA Analytical Methods for Use With TEC                                                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Parameter                                                  EPA method                                             Sample type           
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals...................................  1620......................................................................  Composite/Grab.                  
Volatile Organics........................  1624C.....................................................................  Grab.                            
Semivolatile Organics....................  1625C.....................................................................  Composite/Grab.                  
pH.......................................  150.1.....................................................................  Composite/Grab.                  
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS).............  160.1.....................................................................  Composite/Grab.                  
Total Suspended Solids (TSS).............  160.2.....................................................................  Composite/Grab.                  
Chloride, Fluoride, and Sulfate..........  300.0, 325.2 or 325.3, 340.2, and 375.4...................................  Composite/Grab.                  
Cyanide, Total...........................  335.3.....................................................................  Grab.                            
Nitrogen, Ammonia........................  350.2.....................................................................  Composite/Grab.                  
Phosphorus, Total........................  365.4.....................................................................  Composite/Grab.                  
Chemical Oxygen Demand...................  410.1 or 410.2............................................................  Composite/Grab.                  
Hexavalent Chromium......................  218.4.....................................................................  Composite/Grab.                  
Biochemical Oxygen Demand................  405.1.....................................................................  Composite/Grab.                  
Total Organic Carbon.....................  415.1.....................................................................  Composite/Grab.                  
Dioxins and Furans.......................  1613A.....................................................................  Composite/Grab.                  
Organo-Halide Pesticides.................  1656......................................................................  Composite/Grab.                  
Organo-Phosphorus Pesticides.............  1657......................................................................  Composite/Grab.                  
Phenolics, Total Recoverable.............  420.1 or 420.2............................................................  Composite/Grab.                  
Phenoxy-Acid Herbicides..................  1658......................................................................  Composite/Grab.                  
Oil and Grease and Total Petroleum         1664......................................................................  Grab.                            
 Hydrocarbons (Hexane Extractable                                                                                                                       
 Materials and Silica Gel Treated Hexane                                                                                                                
 Extractable Materials).                                                                                                                                
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix A: Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations Used in This 
Notice

    AGENCY--The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
    BAT--The best available technology economically achievable, as 
described in Sec. 304(b)(2) of the CWA.
    BCT--The best conventional pollutant control technology, as 
described in Sec. 304(b)(4) of the CWA.
    BOD<INF>5</INF>--Five Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand. A measure 
of biochemical decomposition of organic matter in a water sample. It 
is determined by measuring the dissolved oxygen consumed by 
microorganisms to oxidize the organic matter in a water sample under 
standard laboratory conditions of five days and 70 deg. C, see 
Method 405.1. BOD<INF>5</INF> is not related to the oxygen 
requirements in chemical combustion.
    BMP--Best Management Practice--Section 304(e) of the CWA gives 
the Administrator the authority to publish regulations to control 
plant site runoff, spills, or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, and 
drainage from raw material storage.
    BPT--The best practicable control technology currently 
available, as described in Sec. 304(b)(1) of the CWA.
    CARGO--Any chemical, material, or substance transported in a 
tank truck, closed-top hopper truck, intermodal tank container, rail 
tank car, closed-top hopper rail car, inland tank barge, closed-top 
inland hopper barge, ocean/sea tanker, or a similar tank that comes 
in direct contact with the chemical, material, or substance. A cargo 
may also be referred to as a commodity.
    CLOSED-TOP HOPPER BARGE--A self-or non-self-propelled vessel 
constructed or adapted primarily to carry dry commodities or cargos 
in bulk through inland rivers and waterways, and may occasionally 
carry commodities or cargos through oceans and seas when in transit 
from one inland waterway to another. Closed-top inland hopper barges 
are not designed to carry liquid commodities or cargos and are 
typically used to transport corn, wheat, soy beans, oats, soy meal, 
animal pellets, and similar commodities or cargos. The commodities 
or cargos transported come in direct contact with the hopper 
interior. The basic types of tops on closed-top inland hopper barges 
are telescoping rolls, steel lift covers, and fiberglass lift 
covers.
    CLOSED-TOP HOPPER RAIL CAR--A completely enclosed storage vessel 
pulled by a locomotive that is used to transport dry bulk 
commodities or cargos over railway access lines. Closed-top hopper 
rail cars are not designed or contracted to carry liquid commodities 
or cargos and are typically used to transport grain, soybeans, soy 
meal, soda

[[Page 34737]]

ash, fertilizer, plastic pellets, flour, sugar, and similar 
commodities or cargos. The commodities or cargos transported come in 
direct contact with the hopper interior. Closed-top hopper rail cars 
are typically divided into three compartments, carry the same 
commodity or cargo in each compartment, and are generally top loaded 
and bottom unloaded. The hatch covers on closed-top hopper rail cars 
are typically longitudinal hatch covers or round manhole covers.
    CLOSED-TOP HOPPER TRUCK--A motor-driven vehicle with a 
completely enclosed storage vessel used to transport dry bulk 
commodities or cargos over roads and highways. Closed-top hopper 
trucks are not designed or constructed to carry liquid commodities 
or cargos and are typically used to transport grain, soybeans, soy 
meal, soda ash, fertilizer, plastic pellets, flour, sugar, and 
similar commodities or cargos. The commodities or cargos transported 
come in direct contact with the hopper interior. Closed-top hopper 
trucks are typically divided into three compartments, carry the same 
commodity or cargo in each compartment, and are generally top loaded 
and bottom unloaded. The hatch covers used on closed-top hopper 
trucks are typically longitudinal hatch covers or round manhole 
covers. Closed-top hopper trucks are also commonly referred to as 
dry bulk hoppers.
    COD--Chemical oxygen demand--A bulk parameter that measures the 
oxygen-consuming capacity of refractory organic and inorganic matter 
present in water or wastewater. COD is expressed as the amount of 
oxygen consumed from a chemical oxidant in a specific test, see 
Method 410.1.
    COMMODITY--Any chemical, material, or substance transported in a 
tank truck, closed-top hopper truck, intermediate bulk container, 
rail tank car, closed-top hopper rail car, inland tank barge, 
closed-top inland hopper barge, ocean/sea tanker, or similar tank 
that comes in direct contact with the chemical, material, or 
substance. A commodity may also be referred to as a cargo.
    CONSIGNEE--Customer or agent to whom commodities or cargos are 
delivered.
    CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS--The pollutants identified in Sec. 
304(a)(4) of the CWA and the regulations thereunder (biochemical 
oxygen demand (BOD<INF>5</INF>), total suspended solids (TSS), oil 
and grease, fecal coliform, and pH).
    CWA--CLEAN WATER ACT--The Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
Amendments of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), as amended, inter alia, 
by the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-217) and the Water 
Quality Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-4).
    CWT--Centralized Waste Treaters Effluent Guideline.
    DIRECT DISCHARGE--A facility that conveys or may convey 
untreated or facility-treated process wastewater or nonprocess 
wastewater directly into waters of the United States, such as 
rivers, lakes, or oceans. (See United States Surface Waters 
definition.)
    DISCHARGE--The conveyance of wastewater: (1) to United States 
surface waters such as rivers, lakes, and oceans, or (2) to a 
publicly-owned, privately-owned, federally-owned, combined, or other 
treatment works.
    DRUM--A metal or plastic cylindrical container with either an 
open-head or a tight-head (also known as bung-type top) used to hold 
liquid, solid, or gaseous commodities or cargos which are in direct 
contact with the container interior. Drums typically range in 
capacity from 30 to 55 gallons.
    EFFLUENT--Wastewater discharges.
    EFFLUENT LIMITATION--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).)
    FACILITY-SPECIFIC LONG-TERM AVERAGE--Either an arithmetic 
average or the expected value of the distribution of daily samples, 
depending on the number of total samples and the number of detected 
samples for that pollutant at that facility.
    FACILITY-SPECIFIC MONTHLY VARIABILITY FACTOR--The ratio of the 
estimated 95th percentile of the distribution of the monthly 
pollutant concentration values divided by the expected value of the 
distribution of monthly values.
    FACILITY-SPECIFIC VARIABILITY FACTOR--The ratio of the estimated 
99th percentile of the distribution of the daily pollutant 
concentration values divided by the expected value of the 
distribution of daily values.
    FDF--FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FACTOR--Section 301(n) of the Water 
Quality Act of 1987. This section authorizes modification of the 
otherwise applicable BAT effluent limitations or categorical 
pretreatment standards for existing sources if a facility is 
fundamentally different with respect to the factors specified at 40 
CFR 403.13.
    FOOD GRADE CARGO--Food grade cargos include edible and non-
edible food products. Specific examples of food grade products 
include but are not limited to: alcoholic beverages, animal by-
products, animal fats, animal oils, caramel, caramel coloring, 
chocolate, corn syrup and other corn products, dairy products, 
dietary supplements, eggs, flavorings, food preservatives, food 
products that are not suitable for human consumption, fruit juices, 
honey, lard, molasses, non-alcoholic beverages, salt, sugars, 
sweeteners, tallow, vegetable oils, vinegar, and water.
    FRACTION-LEVEL VARIABILITY FACTOR--The median of group-level 
variability factors for the groups within each fraction.
    GROUP-LEVEL VARIABILITY FACTOR--The median of all calculable 
pollutant variability factors for the pollutants within each group.
    HEEL--Any material remaining in a tank or container following 
unloading, delivery, or discharge of the transported cargo. Heels 
may also be referred to as container residue, residual materials or 
residuals.
    HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL (HEM)--A method-defined parameter 
that measures the presence of relatively nonvolatile hydrocarbons, 
vegetable oils, animal fats, waxes, soaps, greases, and related 
materials that are extractable in the solvent n-hexane. The 
analytical method for Oil and Grease is currently being revised to 
allow for the use of normal hexane in place of freon 113, a 
chlorofluorocarbon (CFC). Method 1664 (Hexane Extractable Material) 
will replace the current Oil and Grease Method 413.1 found in 40 CFR 
136.
    INDIRECT DISCHARGE--A facility that discharges or may discharge 
pollutants into a publicly-owned treatment works.
    INLAND TANK BARGE--A self-or non-self-propelled vessel 
constructed or adapted primarily to carry commodities or cargos in 
bulk in cargo spaces (or tanks) through rivers and inland waterways, 
and may occasionally carry commodities or cargos through oceans and 
seas when in transit from one inland waterway to another. The 
commodities or cargos transported are in direct contact with the 
tank interior. There are no maximum or minimum vessel or tank 
volumes.
    INTERMEDIATE BULK CONTAINER (IBC OR TOTE)--A completely enclosed 
storage vessel used to hold liquid, solid, or gaseous commodities or 
cargos which are in direct contact with the tank interior. 
Intermediate bulk containers may be loaded onto flat beds for either 
truck or rail transport, or onto ship decks for water transport. 
IBCs are portable containers with 450 liters (119 gallons) to 3000 
liters (793 gallons) capacity. IBCs are also commonly referred to as 
totes or tote bins.
    INTERMODAL TANK CONTAINER--A completely enclosed storage vessel 
used to hold liquid, solid, or gaseous commodities or cargos which 
come in direct contact with the tank interior. Intermodal tank 
containers may be loaded onto flat beds for either truck or rail 
transport, or onto ship decks for water transport. Containers larger 
than 3000 liters capacity are considered intermodal tank containers. 
Containers smaller than 3000 liters capacity are considered IBCs.
    LTA--LONG-TERM AVERAGE--For purposes of the effluent guidelines, 
average pollutant levels achieved over a period of time by a 
facility, subcategory, or technology option. LTAs were used in 
developing the limitations and standards in today's proposed 
regulation.
    MONTHLY AVERAGE 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.
    NEW SOURCE--``New source'' is defined at 40 CFR 122.2 and 
122.29(b).
    NON-CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT--Pollutants that are neither 
conventional pollutants nor priority toxic pollutants listed at 40 
CFR Section 401.
    NON-DETECT VALUE--A concentration-based measurement reported 
below the sample specific detection limit that can reliably be 
measured by the analytical method for the pollutant.
    NONPROCESS WASTEWATER--Wastewater that is not generated from 
industrial processes or that does not come into contact with process 
wastewater. Nonprocess wastewater includes, but is not limited to, 
wastewater generated from restrooms, cafeterias, and showers.

[[Page 34738]]

    NPDES--The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
authorized under Sec. 402 of the CWA. NPDES requires permits for 
discharge of pollutants from any point source into waters of the 
United States.
    NSPS--New Source Performance Standards.
    OCEAN/SEA TANKER--A self-or non-self-propelled vessel 
constructed or adapted to transport commodities or cargos in bulk in 
cargo spaces (or tanks) through oceans and seas, where the commodity 
or cargo carried comes in direct contact with the tank interior. 
There are no maximum or minimum vessel or tank volumes.
    OCPSF--Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers 
Manufacturing Effluent Guideline, see 40 CFR part 414.
    OFF SITE--``Off site'' means outside the bounds of the facility.
    OIL AND GREASE--A method-defined parameter that measures the 
presence of relatively nonvolatile hydrocarbons, vegetable oils, 
animal fats, waxes, soaps, greases, and related materials that are 
extractable in Freon 113 (1,1,2-tricholoro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane). 
The analytical method for Oil and Grease and Total Petroleum 
Hydrocarbons (TPH) is currently being revised to allow for the use 
of normal hexane in place of freon 113, a chlorofluorocarbon (CFC). 
Method 1664 (Hexane Extractable Material) will replace the current 
Oil and Grease Method 413.1 found in 40 CFR part 136. In 
anticipation of promulgation of method 1664, data collected by EPA 
in support of the TECI effluent guideline utilized method 1664. 
Therefore, all effluent limitations proposed for Oil and Grease and 
TPH in this effluent guideline are to be measured by Method 1664.
    ON SITE--``On-site'' means within the bounds of the facility.
    OUTFALL--The mouth of conduit drains and other conduits from 
which a facility effluent discharges into receiving waters.
    PETROLEUM CARGO--Petroleum cargos include the products of the 
fractionation or straight distillation of crude oil, redistillation 
of unfinished petroleum derivatives, cracking, or other refining 
processes. For purposes of this rule, petroleum cargos also include 
products obtained from the refining or processing of natural gas and 
coal. For purposes of this rule, specific examples of petroleum 
products include but are not limited to: asphalt; benzene; coal tar; 
crude oil; cutting oil; ethyl benzene; diesel fuel; fuel additives; 
fuel oils; gasoline; greases; heavy, medium, and light oils; 
hydraulic fluids, jet fuel; kerosene; liquid petroleum gases (LPG) 
including butane and propane; lubrication oils; mineral spirits; 
naphtha; olefin, paraffin, and other waxes; tall oil; tar; toluene; 
xylene; and waste oil.
    POLLUTANTS EFFECTIVELY REMOVED--Non-pesticide/herbicide 
pollutants that meet the following criteria are considered 
effectively removed: detected two or more times in the subcategory 
influent, an average subcategory influent concentration greater than 
or equal to five times their analytical method detection limit, and 
a removal rate of 50 percent or greater by the treatment technology 
option. Pesticide/herbicide pollutants that meet the following 
criteria are considered effectively removed: detected in the 
subcategory influent one or more times at a concentration above the 
analytical method detection limit, and a removal rate of greater 
than zero by the treatment technology option. All pollutants 
effectively removed were used in the environmental assessment and 
cost effectiveness analyses.
    POTW--Publicly-owned treatment works, as defined at 40 CFR 
403.3(o).
    PRERINSE--Within a TEC cleaning process, a rinse, typically with 
hot or cold water, performed at the beginning of the cleaning 
sequence to remove residual material from the tank interior.
    PRESOLVE WASH--Use of diesel, kerosene, gasoline, or any other 
type of fuel or solvent as a tank interior cleaning solution.
    PRETREATMENT STANDARD--A regulation that establishes industrial 
wastewater effluent quality required for discharge to a POTW. (CWA 
Section 307(b).)
    PRIORITY POLLUTANTS--The pollutants designated by EPA as 
priority in 40 CFR part 423, Appendix A.
    PROCESS WASTEWATER--``Process wastewater'' is defined at 40 CFR 
122.2.
    PSES--Pretreatment standards for existing sources of indirect 
discharges, under Sec. 307(b) of the CWA.
    PSNS--Pretreatment standards for new sources of indirect 
discharges, under Sec. 307(b) and (c) of the CWA.
    RAIL TANK CAR--A completely enclosed storage vessel pulled by a 
locomotive that is used to transport liquid, solid, or gaseous 
commodities or cargos over railway access lines. A rail tank car 
storage vessel may have one or more storage compartments and the 
stored commodities or cargos come in direct contact with the tank 
interior. There are no maximum or minimum vessel or tank volumes.
    RCRA--Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (Pub. L. 94-580) of 
1976, as amended.
    SIC--STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION--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.
    SILICA GEL TREATED HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL (SGT-HEM)--A 
method-defined parameter that measures the presence of mineral oils 
that are extractable in the solvent n-hexane and not adsorbed by 
silica gel. The analytical method for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 
(TPH) and Oil and Grease is currently being revised to allow for the 
use of normal hexane in place of freon 113, a chlorofluorocarbon 
(CFC). Method 1664 (Hexane Extractable Material) will replace the 
current Oil and Grease Method 413.1 found in 40 CFR part 136. In 
anticipation of promulgation of method 1664, data collected by EPA 
in support of the TECI effluent guideline utilized method 1664. 
Therefore, all effluent limitations proposed for Oil and Grease and 
TPH in this effluent guideline are to be measured by Method 1664.
    SOURCE REDUCTION--Any practice which reduces the amount of any 
hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant entering any waste 
stream or otherwise released into the environment prior to 
recycling, treatment, or disposal. Source reduction can include 
equipment or technology modifications, process or procedure 
modifications, substitution of raw materials, and improvements in 
housekeeping, maintenance, training, or inventory control.
    TANK--A generic term used to describe any closed container used 
to transport commodities or cargos. The commodities or cargos 
transported come in direct contact with the container interior, 
which is cleaned by TEC facilities. Examples of containers which are 
considered tanks include but are not limited to: tank trucks, 
closed-top hopper trucks, intermodal tank containers, rail tank 
cars, closed-top hopper rail cars, inland tank barges, closed-top 
inland hopper barges, ocean/sea tankers, and similar tanks 
(excluding drums and intermediate bulk containers). Containers used 
to transport pre-packaged materials are not considered tanks, nor 
are 55-gallon drums or pails.
    TANK TRUCK--A motor-driven vehicle with a completely enclosed 
storage vessel used to transport liquid, solid or gaseous materials 
over roads and highways. The storage vessel or tank may be 
detachable, as with tank trailers, or permanently attached. The 
commodities or cargos transported come in direct contact with the 
tank interior. A tank truck may have one or more storage 
compartments. There are no maximum or minimum vessel or tank 
volumes. Tank trucks are also commonly referred to as cargo tanks or 
tankers.
    TEC industry--Transportation Equipment Cleaning Industry.
    TOTES OR TOTE BINS--A completely enclosed storage vessel used to 
hold liquid, solid, or gaseous commodities or cargos which come in 
direct contact with the vessel interior. Totes may be loaded onto 
flat beds for either truck or rail transport, or onto ship decks for 
water transport. There are no maximum or minimum values for tote 
volumes, although larger containers are generally considered to be 
intermodal tank containers. Totes or tote bins are also referred to 
as intermediate bulk containers or IBCs. Fifty-five gallon drums and 
pails are not considered totes or tote bins.
    TPH--Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons. A method-defined parameter 
that measures the presence of mineral oils that are extractable in 
Freon 113 (1,1,2-tricholoro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane) and not adsorbed 
by silica gel. The analytical method for TPH and Oil and Grease is 
currently being revised to allow for the use of normal hexane in 
place of freon 113, a chlorofluorocarbon (CFC). Method 1664 (Hexane 
Extractable Material) will replace the current Oil and Grease Method 
413.1 found in 40 CFR 136. In anticipation of promulgation of method 
1664, data collected by EPA in support of the TECI effluent 
guideline utilized method 1664. Therefore, all effluent limitations 
proposed

[[Page 34739]]

for Oil and Grease and TPH in this effluent guideline are to be 
measured by Method 1664.
    TSS--TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS--A measure of the amount of 
particulate matter that is suspended in a water sample. The measure 
is obtained by filtering a water sample of known volume. The 
particulate material retained on the filter is then dried and 
weighed, see Method 160.2.
    TWF--Toxic Weighting Factor.
    UNITED STATES SURFACE WATERS--Waters including, but not limited 
to, oceans and all interstate and intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, 
mudflats, sand flats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet 
meadows, playa lakes, and natural ponds.
    VARIABILITY FACTOR--The daily variability factor is the ratio of 
the estimated 99th percentile of the distribution of daily values 
divided by the expected value, median or mean, of the distribution 
of the daily data. The monthly variability factor is the estimated 
95th percentile of the distribution of the monthly averages of the 
data divided by the expected value of the monthly averages.
    VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOCs)--Any compound of carbon, 
excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic 
carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate, which participates 
in atmospheric photochemical reactions. See 40 CFR 51.100 for 
additional detail and exclusions
    WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES--The same meaning set forth in 40 
CFR 122.2.
    ZERO DISCHARGE FACILITY--Facilities that do not discharge 
pollutants to waters of the United States or to a POTW. Also 
included in this definition are discharge of pollutants by way of 
evaporation, deep-well injection, off-site transfer to a treatment 
facility, and land application.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 442

    Environmental protection, Barge cleaning, Rail tank cleaning, Tank 
cleaning, Transportation equipment cleaning, Waste treatment and 
disposal, Water pollution control.

    Dated: May 15, 1998.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    Accordingly, 40 CFR Part 442 is proposed to be added as follows:

PART 442--TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT CLEANING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY

General Provisions

Sec.
442.1  Specialized definitions.
442.2  Applicability.

Subpart A--Truck/Chemical Subcategory

442.10  Applicability; description of the Truck/Chemical 
Subcategory.
442.11  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable 
control technology currently available (BPT).
442.12  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional 
pollutant control technology (BCT).
442.13  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best available 
technology economically achievable (BAT).
442.14  New source performance standards (NSPS).
442.15  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
442.16  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

Subpart B--Rail/Chemical Subcategory

442.20  Applicability; description of the Rail/Chemical Subcategory.
442.21  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable 
control technology currently available (BPT).
442.22  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional 
pollutant control technology (BCT).
442.23  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best available 
technology economically achievable (BAT).
442.24  New source performance standards (NSPS).
442.25  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
442.26  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

Subpart C--Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory

442.30  Applicability; description of the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum 
Subcategory.
442.31  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable 
control technology currently available (BPT).
442.32  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional 
pollutant control technology (BCT).
442.33  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best available 
technology economically achievable (BAT).
442.34  New source performance standards (NSPS).
442.35  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
442.36  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

Subpart D--Truck/Food Subcategory

442.40  Applicability; description of the Truck/Food Subcategory.
442.41  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable 
control technology currently available (BPT).
442.42  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional 
pollutant control technology (BCT).
442.43  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best available 
technology economically achievable (BAT). [Reserved]
442.44  New source performance standards (NSPS).
442.45  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
442.46  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

Subpart E--Rail/Food Subcategory

442.50  Applicability; description of the Rail/Food Subcategory.
442.51  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable 
control technology currently available (BPT).
442.52  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional 
pollutant control technology (BCT).
442.53  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best available 
technology economically achievable (BAT). [Reserved]
442.54  New source performance standards (NSPS).
442.55  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
442.56  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

Subpart F--Barge/Food Subcategory

442.60  Applicability; description of the Barge/Food Subcategory.
442.61  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable 
control technology currently available (BPT).
442.62  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional 
pollutant control technology (BCT).
442.63  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best available 
technology economically achievable (BAT). [Reserved]
442.64  New source performance standards (NSPS).
442.65  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
442.66  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

Tables to Part 442

Table 1 to Part 442.--Truck/Chemical Subcategory: BPT, BCT, BAT, and 
NSPS Proposed Mass Based Limitations for Discharges to Surface 
Waters
Table 2 to Part 442.--Truck/Chemical Subcategory: PSES and PSNS 
Proposed Mass Based Limitations for Discharges to POTWs

[[Page 34740]]

Table 3 to Part 442.--Rail/Chemical Subcategory: BPT, BCT, BAT, and 
NSPS Proposed Mass Based Limitations for Discharges to Surface 
Waters
Table 4 to Part 442.--Rail/Chemical Subcategory: PSES and PSNS 
Proposed Mass Based Limitations for Discharges to POTWs
Table 5 to Part 442.--Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory: BPT, 
BCT, BAT, and NSPS Proposed Mass Based Limitations for Discharges to 
Surface Waters
Table 6 to Part 442.--Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory: PSES 
and PSNS Proposed Mass Based Limitations for Discharges to POTWs
Table 7 to Part 442.--Truck/Food Subcategory: BPT, BCT and NSPS 
Proposed Mass Based Limitations for Discharges to Surface Waters
Table 8 to Part 442.--Rail/Food Subcategory: BPT, BCT and NSPS 
Proposed Mass Based Limitations for Discharges to Surface Waters
Table 9 to Part 442.--Barge/Food Subcategory: BPT, BCT and NSPS 
Proposed Mass Based Limitations for Discharges to Surface Waters

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342 and 
1361.

General Provisions


Sec. 442.1  Specialized definitions.

    In addition to the definitions set forth in 40 CFR 401.11 and 
403.3, the following definitions apply to this part:
    (a) Chemical cargos are defined to include but are not limited to 
the following cargos: latex, rubber, plastics, plasticizers, resins, 
soaps, detergents, surfactants, agricultural chemicals and pesticides, 
hazardous waste, organic chemicals including: alcohols, aldehydes, 
formaldehydes, phenols, peroxides, organic salts, amines, amides, other 
nitrogen compounds, other aromatic compounds, aliphatic organic 
chemicals, glycols, glycerines, and organic polymers; refractory 
organic compounds including: ketones, nitriles, organo-metallic 
compounds containing chromium, cadmium, mercury, copper, zinc; and 
inorganic chemicals including: aluminum sulfate, ammonia, ammonium 
nitrate, ammonium sulfate, and bleach. Cargos which are not considered 
to be food-grade, petroleum, or dry bulk goods are considered to be 
chemical cargos.
    (b) Closed-top hopper is a completely enclosed storage vessel used 
to transport dry bulk commodities or cargos. Closed-top hoppers are not 
designed or constructed to carry liquid commodities or cargos and are 
typically used to transport grain, soybeans, soy meal, soda ash, 
fertilizer, plastic pellets, flour, sugar, and similar commodities or 
cargos. The commodities or cargos transported come in direct contact 
with the hopper interior. Closed-top hoppers include truck, rail, and 
barge vessels.
    (c) Drums are metal or plastic cylindrical containers with either 
an open-head or a tight-head (also known as bung-type top) used to hold 
liquid, solid, or gaseous commodities or cargos which are in direct 
contact with the container interior. Drums typically range in capacity 
from 30 to 55 gallons.
    (d) Food grade cargos are defined to include edible and non-edible 
food products. Specific examples of food grade products include but are 
not limited to: alcoholic beverages, animal by-products, animal fats, 
animal oils, caramel, caramel coloring, chocolate, corn syrup and other 
corn products, dairy products, dietary supplements, eggs, flavorings, 
food preservatives, food products that are not suitable for human 
consumption, fruit juices, honey, lard, molasses, non-alcoholic 
beverages, sweeteners, tallow, vegetable oils, vinegar, and water.
    (e) Inland tank barge is a self- or non-self-propelled vessel 
constructed or adapted primarily to carry liquid, solid or gaseous 
commodities or cargos in bulk in cargo spaces (or tanks) through rivers 
and inland waterways, and may occasionally carry commodities or cargos 
through oceans and seas when in transit from one inland waterway to 
another. The commodities or cargos transported are in direct contact 
with the tank interior. There are no maximum or minimum vessel or tank 
volumes.
    (f) Intermediate bulk container (``IBC'' or ``Tote'') is a 
completely enclosed storage vessel used to hold liquid, solid, or 
gaseous commodities or cargos which are in direct contact with the tank 
interior. IBCs may be loaded onto flat beds for either truck or rail 
transport, or onto ship decks for water transport. IBCs are portable 
containers with 450 liters (119 gallons) to 3000 liters (793 gallons) 
capacity. IBCs are also commonly referred to as totes or tote bins.
    (g) Intermodal tank container is a completely enclosed storage 
vessel used to hold liquid, solid, or gaseous commodities or cargos 
which come in direct contact with the tank interior. Intermodal tank 
containers may be loaded onto flat beds for either truck or rail 
transport, or onto ship decks for water transport. Containers larger 
than 3000 liters capacity are considered intermodal tank containers. 
Containers smaller than 3000 liters capacity are considered IBCs.
    (h) Ocean/sea tanker is a self- or non-self-propelled vessel 
constructed or adapted to transport liquid, solid or gaseous 
commodities or cargos in bulk in cargo spaces (or tanks) through oceans 
and seas, where the commodity or cargo carried comes in direct contact 
with the tank interior. There are no maximum or minimum vessel or tank 
volumes.
    (i) Petroleum cargos are defined to include the products of the 
fractionation or straight distillation of crude oil, redistillation of 
unfinished petroleum derivatives, cracking, or other refining 
processes. For purposes of this rule, petroleum cargos also include 
products obtained from the refining or processing of natural gas and 
coal. For purposes of this rule, specific examples of petroleum 
products include but are not limited to: asphalt; benzene; coal tar; 
crude oil; cutting oil; ethyl benzene; diesel fuel; fuel additives; 
fuel oils; gasoline; greases; heavy, medium, and light oils; hydraulic 
fluids, jet fuel; kerosene; liquid petroleum gases (LPG) including 
butane and propane; lubrication oils; mineral spirits; naphtha; olefin, 
paraffin, and other waxes; tall oil; tar; toluene; xylene; and waste 
oil.
    (j) Rail tank car is a completely enclosed storage vessel pulled by 
a locomotive that is used to transport liquid, solid, or gaseous 
commodities or cargos over railway access lines. A rail tank car 
storage vessel may have one or more storage compartments and the stored 
commodities or cargos come in direct contact with the tank interior. 
There are no maximum or minimum vessel or tank volumes.
    (k) Tank truck is a motor-driven vehicle with a completely enclosed 
storage vessel used to transport liquid, solid or gaseous materials 
over roads and highways. The storage vessel or tank may be detachable, 
as with tank trailers, or permanently attached. The commodities or 
cargos transported come in direct contact with the tank interior. A 
tank truck may have one or more storage compartments. There are no 
maximum or minimum vessel or tank volumes. Tank trucks are also 
commonly referred to as cargo tanks or tankers.
    (l) Transportation equipment cleaning (TEC) process wastewater is 
identified to include all wastewaters associated with cleaning the 
interiors of tanks including, but not limited to: tank trucks; rail 
tank cars; intermodal tank containers; inland tank barges; and ocean/
sea tankers used to transport commodities or cargos that come into 
direct contact with the tank or container interior. TEC process 
wastewaters include wastewater generated from washing vehicle 
exteriors, equipment and floor washings, and TEC contaminated 
wasetwater.

[[Page 34741]]

Sec. 442.2  Applicability.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, 
the provisions of this part apply to wastewater discharges of 
transportation equipment cleaning process wastewater. Facilities that 
do not engage in cleaning the interiors of tanks are not subject to the 
provisions of this part.
    (b) The provisions of this part do not apply to wastewater 
discharges from transportation equipment cleaning operations located at 
industrial facilities regulated under other Clean Water Act effluent 
guidelines, provided that the facility cleans only tanks containing 
cargos or commodities generated or used on-site or by a facility under 
the same corporate structure.
    (c) The provisions of this part do not apply to wastewater 
discharges from cleaning the interiors of drums or intermediate bulk 
containers.

Subpart A--Truck/Chemical Subcategory


Sec. 442.10  Applicability; description of the Truck/Chemical 
Subcategory.

    Except as provided in Sec. 442.2, the provisions of this subpart 
apply to TEC process wastewater discharged from facilities that clean 
tank trucks and intermodal tank containers where 10 percent or more of 
the total tanks cleaned at that facility in an average year contained 
chemical cargos.


Sec. 442.11  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control 
technology currently available (BPT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the effluent 
limitations listed in Table 1 of this part.


Sec. 442.12  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional 
pollutant control technology (BCT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source must achieve the effluent limitations for BOD<INF>5</INF>, 
TSS, Oil and Grease and pH listed in Table 1 of this part.


Sec. 442.13  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best available 
technology economically achievable (BAT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the effluent 
limitations listed in Table 1 of this part.


Sec. 442.14  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the effluent 
limitations listed in Table 1 of this part.


Sec. 442.15  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source 
subject to this subpart that introduces pollutants into a publicly-
owned treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and achieve the 
pretreatment standards listed in Table 2 of this part.


Sec. 442.16  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 achieve the pretreatment 
standards listed in Table 2 of this part.

Subpart B--Rail/Chemical Subcategory


Sec. 442.20  Applicability; description of the Rail/Chemical 
Subcategory.

    Except as provided in Sec. 442.2, the provisions of this subpart 
apply to TEC wastewater discharged from facilities that clean rail tank 
cars where 10 percent or more of the total tanks cleaned at that 
facility in an average year contained chemical cargos.


Sec. 442.21  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control 
technology currently available (BPT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the effluent 
limitations listed in Table 3 of this part.


Sec. 442.22  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional 
pollutant control technology (BCT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source must achieve the effluent limitations for BOD<INF>5</INF>, 
TSS, Oil and Grease, and pH listed in Table 3 of this part.


Sec. 442.23  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best available 
technology economically achievable (BAT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the effluent 
limitations listed in Table 3 of this part.


Sec. 442.24  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the effluent 
limitations listed in Table 3 of this part.


Sec. 442.25  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source 
subject to this subpart that introduces pollutants into a publicly-
owned treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and achieve the 
pretreatment standards listed in Table 4 of this part.


Sec. 442.26  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 achieve the pretreatment 
standards listed in Table 4 of this part.

Subpart C--Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory


Sec. 442.30  Applicability; description of the Barge/Chemical & 
Petroleum Subcategory.

    Except as provided in Sec. 442.2, the provisions of this subpart 
apply to TEC wastewater discharged from facilities that clean tank 
barges or ocean/sea tankers where 10 percent or more of the total tanks 
cleaned at that facility in an average year contained chemical and/or 
petroleum cargos.


Sec. 442.31  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control 
technology currently available (BPT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the effluent 
limitations listed in Table 5 of this part.


Sec. 442.32  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional 
pollutant control technology (BCT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source must achieve the effluent limitations for BOD<INF>5</INF>, 
TSS, Oil and Grease, and pH listed in Table 5 of this part.


Sec. 442.33  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best available 
technology economically achievable (BAT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the effluent 
limitations listed in Table 5 of this part.

[[Page 34742]]

Sec. 442.34  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the effluent 
limitations listed in Table 5 of this part.


Sec. 442.35  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

    Any existing source subject to this subpart that introduces 
pollutants into a publicly-owned treatment works must comply with 40 
CFR part 403. There are no additional pretreatment requirements 
established for Barge/Chemical & Petroleum facilities.


Sec. 442.36  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 achieve the pretreatment 
standards listed in Table 6 of this part.

Subpart D--Truck/Food Subcategory


Sec. 442.40  Applicability; description of the Truck/Food Subcategory.

    Except as provided in Sec. 442.2, the provisions of this subpart 
apply to TEC wastewater discharged from facilities that clean tank 
trucks and intermodal tank containers where 10 percent or more of the 
total tanks cleaned at that facility in an average year contain food 
grade cargos. The provisions of this part do not apply to those 
facilities subject to the provisions established in Sec. 442.10 for the 
Truck/Chemical Subcategory.


Sec. 442.41  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control 
technology currently available (BPT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the effluent 
limitations listed in Table 7 of this part.


Sec. 442.42  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional 
pollutant control technology (BCT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source must achieve the effluent limitations for BOD<INF>5</INF>, 
TSS, Oil and Grease, and pH listed in Table 9 of this part.


Sec. 442.43  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best available 
technology economically achievable (BAT). [Reserved]


Sec. 442.44  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source must achieve the effluent limitations for BOD<INF>5</INF>, 
TSS, and pH listed in Table 7 of this part.


Sec. 442.45  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

    Any existing source subject to this subpart that introduces 
pollutants into a publicly-owned treatment works must comply with 40 
CFR part 403. There are no additional pretreatment requirements 
established for Truck/Food facilities.


Sec. 442.46  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

    Any existing source subject to this subpart that introduces 
pollutants into a publicly-owned treatment works must comply with 40 
CFR part 403. There are no additional pretreatment requirements 
established for Truck/Food facilities.

Subpart E--Rail/Food Subcategory


Sec. 442.50  Applicability; description of the Rail/Food Subcategory.

    Except as provided in Sec. 442.2, the provisions of this subpart 
apply to TEC wastewater discharged from facilities that clean rail tank 
cars where 10 percent or more of the total tanks cleaned at that 
facility in an average year contain food grade cargos. The provisions 
of this part do not apply to those facilities subject to the provisions 
established in Sec. 442.20 for the Rail/Chemical Subcategory.


Sec. 442.51  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control 
technology currently available (BPT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the effluent 
limitations listed in Table 8 of this part.


Sec. 442.52  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional 
pollutant control technology (BCT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source must achieve the effluent limitations for BOD<INF>5</INF>, 
TSS, Oil and Grease, and pH listed in Table 8 of this part.


Sec. 442.53  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best available 
technology economically achievable (BAT). [Reserved]


Sec. 442.54  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source must achieve the effluent limitations for BOD<INF>5</INF>, 
TSS, and pH listed in Table 8 of this part.


Sec. 442.55  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

    Any existing source subject to this subpart that introduces 
pollutants into a publicly-owned treatment works must comply with 40 
CFR part 403. There are no additional pretreatment requirements 
established for Rail/Food facilities.


Sec. 442.56  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

    Any existing source subject to this subpart that introduces 
pollutants into a publicly-owned treatment works must comply with 40 
CFR part 403. There are no additional pretreatment requirements 
established for Rail/Food facilities.

Subpart F--Barge/Food Subcategory


Sec. 442.60  Applicability; description of the Barge/Food Subcategory.

    Except as provided in Sec. 442.2, the provisions of this subpart 
apply to TEC wastewater discharged from facilities that clean barges 
and ocean/sea tankers where 10 percent or more of the total tanks 
cleaned at that facility in an average year contain food grade cargos. 
The provisions of this part do not apply to those facilities subject to 
the provisions established in Sec. 442.30 for the Barge/Chemical & 
Petroleum Subcategory.


Sec. 442.61  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control 
technology currently available (BPT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the effluent 
limitations listed in Table 9 of this part.


Sec. 442.62  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional 
pollutant control technology (BCT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source must achieve the effluent limitations for BOD<INF>5</INF>, 
TSS, Oil and Grease, and pH listed in Table 9 of this part.

[[Page 34743]]

Sec. 442.63  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best available 
technology economically achievable (BAT). [Reserved]


Sec. 442.64  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source must achieve the effluent limitations for BOD<INF>5</INF>, 
TSS, and pH listed in Table 9 of this part.


Sec. 442.65  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

    Any existing source subject to this subpart that introduces 
pollutants into a publicly-owned treatment works must comply with 40 
CFR part 403. There are no additional pretreatment requirements 
established for Barge/Food facilities.


Sec. 442.66  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

    Any existing source subject to this subpart that introduces 
pollutants into a publicly-owned treatment works must comply with 40 
CFR part 403. There are no additional pretreatment requirements 
established for Barge/Food facilities.

Tables to Part 442

       Table 1 to Part 442.--Truck/Chemical Subcategory: BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS Proposed Mass Based Limitations for Discharges to Surface Waters       
                                                                      [Grams/tank]                                                                      
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    BPT                         BCT                  BAT                 NSPS           
                                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                    Daily                               
            Pollutant or pollutant property                 Daily        Monthly        Daily        Monthly      maximum/        Daily        Monthly  
                                                           maximum       average       maximum       average       monthly       maximum       average  
                                                                                                                   average                              
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD<INF>5..................................................        145            67.6          145            67.6        N/A           145            67.6 
TSS...................................................        281           115            281           115          N/A           281           115   
Oil and Grease (HEM)..................................         25.3          16.1           25.3          16.1        N/A            25.3          16.1 
Chromium..............................................          0.16          0.16         N/A           N/A            0.16          0.16          0.16
Zinc..................................................          0.09          0.09         N/A           N/A            0.09          0.09          0.09
COD...................................................       3760          3760            N/A           N/A         3760          3760          3760   
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) pthalate...........................          0.12          0.12         N/A           N/A            0.12          0.12          0.12
di-N-octyl phthalate..................................          0.12          0.12         N/A           N/A            0.12          0.12          0.12
N-Dodecane............................................          0.12          0.12         N/A           N/A            0.12          0.12          0.12
N-Hexadecane..........................................          0.12          0.12         N/A           N/A            0.12          0.12          0.12
Styrene...............................................          0.20          0.20         N/A           N/A            0.20          0.20          0.20
1,2-dichlorobenzene...................................          0.12          0.12         N/A           N/A            0.12          0.12          0.12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table 2 to Part 442.--Truck/Chemical Subcategory: PSES and PSNS Proposed Mass Based Limitations for Discharges 
                                                    to POTWs                                                    
                                                  [Grams/tank]                                                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     PSES                        PSNS           
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
             Pollutant or pollutant property                  Daily        Monthly        Daily        Monthly  
                                                             maximum       average       maximum       average  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium................................................          0.20          0.20          0.20          0.20
Zinc....................................................          0.12          0.12          0.12          0.12
COD.....................................................       3760          3760          3760          3760   
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) pthalate.............................          0.23          0.23          0.23          0.23
di--N-octyl phthalate...................................          0.15          0.15          0.15          0.15
N-Dodecane..............................................          0.19          0.19          0.19          0.19
N-Hexadecane............................................          0.19          0.19          0.19          0.19
Styrene.................................................          0.40          0.40          0.40          0.40
1,2-dichlorobenzene.....................................          0.15          0.15          0.15          0.15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


        Table 3 to Part 442.--Rail/Chemical Subcategory: BPT, BCT, BAT and NSPS Proposed Mass Based Limitations for Discharges to Surface Waters        
                                                                      [Grams/tank]                                                                      
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      BPT                        BCT                 BAT                 NSPS           
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                    Daily                               
             Pollutant or pollutant property                  Daily        Monthly       Daily       Monthly      maximum/        Daily        Monthly  
                                                             maximum       average      maximum      average       monthly       maximum       average  
                                                                                                                   average                              
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD<INF>5....................................................      3,840         1,790           3,840        1,790        N/A         3,840         1,790   
TSS.....................................................        338           141             338          141        N/A           338           141   
Oil and Grease (HEM)....................................        470           286             470          286        N/A           130            83   
COD.....................................................     42,200        42,200             N/A          N/A     42,200        42,200        42,200   
N-Dodecane..............................................          0.63          0.63          N/A          N/A          0.63          0.43          0.43
N-Hexadecane............................................          0.43          0.43          N/A          N/A          0.43          0.43          0.43

[[Page 34744]]

                                                                                                                                                        
N-Tetradecane...........................................          0.43          0.43          N/A          N/A          0.43          0.43          0.43
Anthracene..............................................          2.20          2.20          N/A          N/A          2.20          2.20          2.20
Pyrene..................................................          0.68          0.68          N/A          N/A          0.68          0.68          0.68
Fluoranthene............................................          0.74          0.74          N/A          N/A          0.74          0.74          0.74
Phenanthrene............................................          1.96          1.96          N/A          N/A          1.96          1.96          1.96
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Table 4 to Part 442.--Rail/Chemical Subcategory: PSES and PSNS Proposed Mass Based Limitations for Discharges to
                                                      POTWs                                                     
                                                  [Grams/tank]                                                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     PSES                        PSNS           
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
             Pollutant or pollutant property                  Daily        Monthly        Daily        Monthly  
                                                             maximum       average       maximum       average  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (SGT-HEM)..................        942           942           207           207   
COD.....................................................     42,200        42,200        42,200        42,200   
N-Hexadecane............................................          2.56          2.56          2.56          2.56
N-Tetradecane...........................................          3.98          3.98          0.66          0.66
Fluoranthene............................................          0.60          0.60          0.60          0.60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table 5 to Part 442.--Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory: BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS Proposed Mass Based Limitations for Discharges to Surface Waters 
                                                                      [Grams/tank]                                                                      
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      BPT                        BCT                 BAT                 NSPS           
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                    Daily                               
             Pollutant or pollutant property                  Daily        Monthly       Daily       Monthly      maximum/        Daily        Monthly  
                                                             maximum       average      maximum      average       monthly       maximum       average  
                                                                                                                   average                              
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD<INF>5....................................................     18,300         8,600          18,300        8,600        N/A        18,300         8,600   
TSS.....................................................      9,540         6,090           9,540        6,090        N/A         9,540         6,090   
Oil and Grease (HEM)....................................        658           294             658          294        N/A           658           294   
COD.....................................................     74,300        74,300             N/A          N/A     74,300        74,300        74,300   
Cadmium.................................................          0.19          0.19          N/A          N/A          0.19          0.19          0.19
Chromium................................................          1.82          1.82          N/A          N/A          1.82          1.82          1.82
Copper..................................................          2.17          2.17          N/A          N/A          2.17          2.17          2.17
Lead....................................................          1.93          1.93          N/A          N/A          1.93          1.93          1.93
Nickel..................................................         15.3          15.3           N/A          N/A         15.3          15.3          15.3 
Zinc....................................................        153           153             N/A          N/A        153           153           153   
1-Methylphenanthrene....................................          2.04          2.04          N/A          N/A          2.04          2.04          2.04
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate............................          1.88          1.88          N/A          N/A          1.88          1.88          1.88
Di-N-Octyl Phthalate....................................          2.68          2.68          N/A          N/A          2.68          2.68          2.68
N-Decane................................................          5.96          5.96          N/A          N/A          5.96          5.96          5.96
N-Docosane..............................................          3.02          3.02          N/A          N/A          3.02          3.02          3.02
N-Dodecane..............................................         16.7          16.7           N/A          N/A         16.7          16.7          16.7 
N-Eicosane..............................................          6.67          6.67          N/A          N/A          6.67          6.67          6.67
N-Octadecane............................................          7.45          7.45          N/A          N/A          7.45          7.45          7.45
N-Tetracosane...........................................          2.19          2.19          N/A          N/A          2.19          2.19          2.19
N-Tetradecane...........................................          7.30          7.30          N/A          N/A          7.30          7.30          7.30
P-Cymene................................................          0.29          0.29          N/A          N/A          0.29          0.29          0.29
Pyrene..................................................          1.20          1.20          N/A          N/A          1.20          1.20          1.20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 34745]]


 Table 6 to Part 442.--Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory: PSES and PSNS Proposed Mass Based Limitations for
                                               Discharges to POTWs                                              
                                                  [Grams/tank]                                                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      PSES                       PSNS           
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
              Pollutant or pollutant property                  Daily       Monthly        Daily        Monthly  
                                                              maximum      average       maximum       average  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (SGT-HEM)....................          N/A          N/A        347           347   
COD.......................................................          N/A          N/A     74,300        74,300   
Cadmium...................................................          N/A          N/A          0.51          0.51
Chromium..................................................          N/A          N/A          0.61          0.61
Copper....................................................          N/A          N/A         79.9          79.9 
Lead......................................................          N/A          N/A          5.04          5.04
Nickel....................................................          N/A          N/A         39.1          39.1 
Zinc......................................................          N/A          N/A        241           241   
1-Methylphenanthrene......................................          N/A          N/A          9.70          9.70
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate..............................          N/A          N/A          2.05          2.05
Di-N-Octyl Phthalate......................................          N/A          N/A          7.69          7.69
N-Decane..................................................          N/A          N/A          7.26          7.26
N-Docesane................................................          N/A          N/A          3.67          3.67
N-Dodecane................................................          N/A          N/A         20.3          20.3 
N-Eicosane................................................          N/A          N/A          8.13          8.13
N-Octadecane..............................................          N/A          N/A          9.07          9.07
N-Tetracosane.............................................          N/A          N/A          5.51          5.51
N-Tetradecane.............................................          N/A          N/A          8.90          8.90
P-Cymene..................................................          N/A          N/A          2.21          2.21
Pyrene....................................................          N/A          N/A          2.94          2.94
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


            Table 7 to Part 442.--Truck/Food Subcategory: BPT, BCT and NSPS Proposed Mass Based Limitations for Discharges to Surface Waters            
                                                                      [Grams/tank]                                                                      
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     BPT                         BCT                 BAT                 NSPS           
                                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                    Daily                               
            Pollutant or pollutant property                  Daily        Monthly        Daily        Monthly      maximum/       Daily        Monthly  
                                                            maximum       average       maximum       average      monthly       maximum       average  
                                                                                                                   average                              
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD<INF>5...................................................         166            72.4         166            72.4          N/A         166            72.4
TSS....................................................         673           256           673           256            N/A         673           256  
Oil and Grease (HEM)...................................          60.4          26.3          60.4          26.3          N/A          60.4          26.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


             Table 8 to Part 442.--Rail/Food Subcategory: BPT, BCT and NSPS Proposed Mass Based Limitations for Discharges to Surface Waters            
                                                                      [Grams/tank]                                                                      
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          BPT                       BCT                BAT                NSPS          
                                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                      Daily                             
               Pollutant or pollutant property                    Daily       Monthly       Daily       Monthly      maximum/      Daily       Monthly  
                                                                 maximum      average      maximum      average      monthly      maximum      average  
                                                                                                                     average                            
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD<INF>5.........................................................          945          412          945          412          N/A          945          412
TSS..........................................................        3,830        1,460        3,830        1,460          N/A        3,830        1,460
Oil and Grease (HEM).........................................          344          150          344          150          N/A          344          150
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


            Table 9 to Part 442.--Barge/Food Subcategory: BPT, BCT and NSPS Proposed Mass Based Limitations for Discharges to Surface Waters            
                                                                      [Grams/tank]                                                                      
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          BPT                       BCT                BAT                NSPS          
                                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                      Daily                             
               Pollutant or pollutant property                    Daily       Monthly       Daily       Monthly      maximum/      Daily       Monthly  
                                                                 maximum      average      maximum      average      monthly      maximum      average  
                                                                                                                     average                            
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD<INF>5.........................................................          945          412          945          412          N/A          945          412
TSS..........................................................        3,830        1,460        3,830        1,460          N/A        3,830        1,460

[[Page 34746]]

                                                                                                                                                        
Oil and Grease (HEM).........................................          344          150          344          150          N/A          344          150
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 98-13792 Filed 6-24-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>