34686 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 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
34688 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

1 In the initial stages of EPA CWA regulation, EPA

efforts emphasized the achievement of BPT

limitations for control of the ‘‘classical’’ pollutants

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

of the 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.

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,1 and

non-conventional pollutants. In

specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number

of factors. EPA first considers the cost

of achieving effluent reductions in

relation to the effluent reduction

benefits. The Agency also considers the

age of the equipment and facilities, the

processes employed and any required

process changes, engineering aspects of

the control technologies, non-water

quality environmental impacts

(including energy requirements), and

such other factors as the Agency deems

appropriate (CWA 304(b)(1)(B)).

Traditionally, EPA establishes BPT

effluent limitations based on the average

of the best performances of facilities

within the industry of various ages,

sizes, processes or other common

characteristics. Where existing

performance is uniformly inadequate,

EPA may require higher levels of control

than currently in place in an industrial

category if the Agency determines that

the technology can be practically

applied.

2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control

Technology (BCT)—Section 304(b)(4) of

the CWA

The 1977 amendments to the CWA

required EPA to identify effluent

reduction levels for conventional

pollutants associated with BCT

technology for discharges from existing

industrial point sources. BCT is not an

additional limitation, but replaces Best

Available Technology (BAT) for control

of conventional pollutants. In addition

to other factors specified in Section

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

establish BCT limitations after

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

methodology for the development of

BCT limitations in July 1986 (51 FR

24974).

Section 304(a)(4) designates the

following as conventional pollutants:

biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5),

total suspended solids (TSS), fecal

coliform, pH, and any additional

pollutants defined by the Administrator

as conventional. The Administrator

designated oil and grease as an

additional conventional pollutant on

July 30, 1979 (44 FR 44501).

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

• Subcategory A: Truck/Chemical;

• Subcategory B: Rail/Chemical;

• Subcategory C: Barge/Chemical &

Petroleum;

• Subcategory D: Truck/Petroleum;

• Subcategory E: Rail/Petroleum;

• Subcategory F: Truck/Food;

• Subcategory G: Rail/Food;

• Subcategory H: Barge/Food;

• Subcategory I: Truck/Hopper;

• Subcategory J: Rail/Hopper; and

• Subcategory K: Barge/Hopper.

EPA is proposing to establish effluent

limitations for existing facilities and

new sources discharging wastewater
34690 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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

Subcategory BPT or

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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 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 nationallyapplicable 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
34692 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

interiors of tanks containing those raw

materials. For those facilities where onsite 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 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, closedtop 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 crosscontamination between products or

commodities being transported in the

tanks, containers, or hoppers, and to

prepare transportation equipment for

repair and maintenance activities such

as welding. The cleaning activity is a

necessary part of the transportation

process.

Based upon responses to EPA’s 1994

Detailed Questionnaire for the

Transportation Equipment Cleaning

Industry (see discussion in Section V.B

of 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:

• Identify the cargo last transported

in the tank;

• Determine the next cargo to be

transported;

• Drain the tank heel (residual cargo)

and, if necessary, segregate the heel for

off-site disposal;

• Rinse the tank (pre-rinse);

• Wash the tank using one or more

cleaning methods and solutions;

• Rinse the tank; and

• 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
34694 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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

Industry segment

Estimated

total

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
34696 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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 facilitylevel, 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

Facility type

Estimated

number of 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

Subcategory

Estimated

number of facilities in total

population 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

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 = Nh/nh

Where:

Nh = Total number of facilities in

stratum.

nh = 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 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, phenoxyacid 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, handheld 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) closedtop 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 closedtop hopper trucks each account for three

percent of all tanks cleaned. Rail tank

cars comprise two percent and inland

tank barges, ocean/sea tankers, closedtop 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 closedtop 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
34698 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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:

• Group A—Food Grade Products,

Beverages, and Animal and Vegetable

Oils;

• Group B—Petroleum and Coal

Products;

• Group C—Latex, Rubber and

Resins;

• Group D—Soaps and Detergents;

• Group E—Biodegradable Organic

Chemicals;

• Group F—Refractory

(Nonbiodegradable) Organic Chemicals;

• Group

• G—Inorganic Chemicals;

• Group H—Agricultural Chemicals

and Fertilizers;

• Group I—Chemical Products;

• Group J—Hazardous Waste (as

defined by RCRA in 40 CFR Part 261);

• Group K—Nonhazardous Waste;

• Group L—Dry Bulk Cargos (i.e.,

hopper cars); and

• 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 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 pesticidecontaining 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, costeffectiveness and benefits to the

environment and POTWs of nonpesticide 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
34700 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 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
34702 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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 TECcontaminated 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 phosphatebased surfactants. Some facilities use

off-the-shelf brands of detergent

solutions such as Tide, Arm &

Hammer, and Pine Power. 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 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 (BOD5),

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 onsite. 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

• Conventional pollutants: BOD5,

TSS, Oil and Grease, and pH;

• Priority toxic pollutants: methylene

chloride, copper, nickel, and zinc; and

• 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

• Conventional pollutants: BOD5,

TSS, Oil and Grease, and pH;

• Priority toxic pollutants: toluene,

arsenic, chromium, copper, nickel, zinc,

tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and

tetrachlorodibenzofuran.

• Nonconventional pollutants: neicosane, n-octadecane, aluminum,

barium, boron, calcium, cobalt, iron,

magnesium, manganese, phosphorus,

potassium, silicon, sodium, strontium,

sulfur, titanium, AOX, ammonia as

nitrogen, COD, chloride, fluoride, silicagel hexane extractable material (SGT–

HEM), MBAS, TDS, TOC, total phenols,

total phosphorus, and volatile residue.

Barge/Chemical and Petroleum

Subcategory

• Conventional pollutants: BOD5,

TSS, Oil and Grease, and pH;

• Priority toxic pollutants: benzene,

ethylbenzene, toluene, naphthalene,

copper, nickel, zinc, tetrachlorodibenzop-dioxin and tetrachlorodibenzofuran.

• Nonconventional pollutants:

acetone, o-+ p-xylene, 2-

methylnaphthalene, n-docosane, ndodecane, n-eicosane, n-hexadecane, noctadecane, 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

• Conventional pollutants: BOD5,

TSS, and pH;

• Priority toxic pollutants: none; and

• 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

• Conventional pollutants: BOD5, Oil

and Grease, TSS, and pH;

• Priority toxic pollutants: bis(2-

ethylhexyl)phthalate, and zinc; and

• Nonconventional pollutants:

acetone, n-eicosane, n-octacosane, noctadecane, 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

• Conventional pollutants: BOD5,

TSS, and pH;

• Priority toxic pollutants: bis(2-

ethylhexyl)phthalate, arsenic,

beryllium, cadmium, chromium,

copper, nickel, silver, and zinc; and

• 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
34704 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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 noncontact 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 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 posttreatment 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’’
34706 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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:

• 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, sixtysix 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).

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

• 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 BOD5, 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.)

• 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.)

• 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

BOD5. 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:

• Option I: Flow Reduction, Oil/

Water Separation, Dissolved Air

Flotation, Filter Press, Biological

Treatment, and Sludge Dewatering.

Option I removed 81 percent or greater
34708 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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).

• 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:

• Option I—Flow Reduction and Oil/

Water Separation.

• 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 BOD5

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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 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 costreasonable 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 nonconventional 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 costeffective 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
34710 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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

• 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.

• 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 BOD5 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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. (Organoclay/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
34712 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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.

• Option I—Flow Reduction,

Equalization, Oil/Water Separation, and

Chemical Precipitation.

• 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.

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

• 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.)

• 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.)

• 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.
34714 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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 deltalognormal 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 grouplevel 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 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 BOD5 , 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 BOD5, TSS, Oil and Grease,

COD, N-Dodecane, N-Hexadecane, NTetradecane, 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

BOD5, 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, NDodecane, N-Eicosane, N-Octadecane,

N-Tetracosane, N-Tetradecane, PCymene, and Pyrene.

Additionally, EPA is proposing to

establish BPT, BCT, and NSPS

limitations for the Truck/Food, Rail/

Food, and Barge/Food Subcategories for

BOD5, 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
34716 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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 passthrough 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 BOD5 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, NHexadecane, N-Tetradecane, and

Fluoranthene. Based on the passthrough 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, NDecane, N-Docesane, N-Dodecane, NEicosane, 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:

• 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.

• 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 34717

Facilities that did not have the

proposed technology option already inplace 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:

• Capital costs for installed

technologies.

• Operating and maintenance (O&M)

costs for installed wastewater treatment

technologies; including labor, electrical,

and chemical usage costs.

• Solids handling costs; including

capital, O&M, and disposal.

• 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 postcompliance 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 subcategoryspecific 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 longterm average effluent concentrations is

discussed in more detail in Section VIII

of this preamble and in the Statistical

Support Document. The subcategoryspecific 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 sitespecific 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 postcompliance 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 subcategoryspecific 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 sitespecific baseline effluent concentration.

The site-specific baseline effluent

concentrations were then multiplied by

the facility daily wastewater discharge
34718 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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 postcompliance 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 postcompliance pollutant loadings.

Finally, pollutant reductions were

calculated at each facility as the

difference between the baseline

pollutant loadings and the postcompliance 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 costeffectiveness 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 noreal-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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 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
34720 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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

Rule

Posttax

annualized

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]

Subcategory Total capital

investment

Total

annualized

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]

Subcategory Total capital

investment

Total

annualized

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., nonTEC 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 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 nonpricing 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
34722 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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 nonattainment 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-toentry 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 barrierto-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.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 34723

TABLE 8.—SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FOR PROPOSED BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, AND PSNS OPTIONS

Subcategory Option

Posttax

annualized

costs

($ 1997

thousands)

Facility closuresFinancial

stress

Employment

losses

Truck/Chemical (Direct) ............................. Option I ..................................................... $78 0 0 0

Option II (Proposed for BPT, BCT, BAT,

NSPS).

78 0 0 0

Truck/Chemical (Indirect) .......................... Option I ..................................................... 13,200 0 22 0

Option II (Proposed for PSES, PSNS) ..... 20,206 0 29 0

Rail/Chemical (Direct) ............................... Option I (Proposed for BPT, BCT, BAT) .. 39 0 0 0

Option II .................................................... 74 0 0 0

Option III (Proposed for NSPS) ................ 89 0 0 0

Rail/Chemical (Indirect) ............................. Option I (Proposed for PSES) .................. 1,262 0 0 0

Option II .................................................... 1,953 6 0 421

Option III (Proposed for PSNS) ................ 2,630 6 0 421

Barge/Chemical & Petroleum (Direct) ....... Option I (Proposed for BPT, BCT, BAT,

NSPS).

1,508 0 0 0

Option II .................................................... 1,774 0 0 0

Barge/Chemical & Petroleum (Indirect) .... Option I ..................................................... 122 0 0 0

Option II (Proposed for PSNS) ................. 187 0 0 0

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
34724 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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

Category

Costs and

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 waterdependent 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,
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 34725

since this approximation was only

applied to recreational fishing benefits

for recreational anglers, it does not take

into account non-use values for nonanglers 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 (BOD5

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 nontoxic 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 BOD5 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 instream 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
34726 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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 instream 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 (noncancer 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 instream 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 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 instream 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 instream 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
34728 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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 undewatered sludge that would be

generated after implementing the TEC

industry regulatory options is less costeffective than dewatering sludge on site

and disposing of the greatly reduced

volume of resulting filter cake.

However, in estimating costs for 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 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 nonhazardous. Such landfills are subject to

RCRA Subtitle D standards found in 40

CFR parts 257 or 258.

The Agency concludes that the

effluent benefits and the reductions in

wet sludge generation from the

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:

• Truck/Chemical Subcategory—BPT

Option II.

• Truck/Chemical Subcategory—

PSES Option II.

• Rail/Chemical Subcategory—BPT

Option III.

• Rail/Chemical Subcategory—PSES

Option III.

• Truck/Petroleum Subcategory—

PSES Option II.

• 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:

• Rail/Chemical Subcategory—BPT

Option III.

• 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:

• The need for, objectives of, and

legal basis for the rule;

• A description of, and where

feasible, an estimate of the number of

small entities to which the rule would

apply;

• 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;

• An identification, to the extent

practicable, of all relevant Federal rules

which may duplicate, overlap or

conflict with the proposed rule;

• 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—
34730 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

(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 costeffectiveness 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 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 costeffective or least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule.

The provisions of section 205 do not

apply when they are inconsistent with

applicable law. Moreover, section 205

allows EPA to adopt an alternative other

than the least costly, most cost-effective

or least burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation why that alternative

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes

any regulatory requirements that may

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, including tribal

governments, it must have developed

under section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, enabling

officials of affected small governments

to have meaningful and timely input in

the development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

EPA has determined that this

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 nonpetroleum oils, including animal fats

and vegetable oils, are produced

through physical contact and

destruction of food sources (via

smothering or coating) as well as toxic

contamination (62 FR 54511). However,

the permitted discharge of TEC process

wastewater containing residual and

dilute quantities of petroleum and nonpetroleum oils is significantly different

than an uncontrolled spill of pure

petroleum or non-petroleum oil

products.

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
34732 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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 nonconventional 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 nonconventional 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 34733

2Under § 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).

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,2 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.

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
34734 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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.John@epamail.epa.gov’’.

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 email.

B. Specific Data and Comment

Solicitations

EPA has solicited comments and data

on many individual topics throughout

this preamble. The Agency incorporates
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 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 nonprocess waste water (e.g., sanitary waste
34736 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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 Hydrocarbons (Hexane Extractable Materials and Silica Gel Treated Hexane Extractable Materials).1664 ......................................................................... Grab.

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.

BOD5—Five Day Biochemical Oxygen

Demand. A measure of biochemical

decomposition of organic matter in a water

sample. It is determined by measuring the

dissolved oxygen consumed by

microorganisms to oxidize the organic matter

in a water sample under standard laboratory

conditions of five days and 70° C, see Method

405.1. BOD5 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, closedtop 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 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 motordriven vehicle with a completely enclosed

storage vessel used to transport dry bulk

commodities or cargos over roads and

highways. Closed-top hopper trucks are not

designed or constructed to carry liquid

commodities or cargos and are typically used

to transport grain, soybeans, soy meal, soda

ash, 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 oxygenconsuming 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, closedtop 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 (BOD5), 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 facilitytreated process wastewater or nonprocess

wastewater directly into waters of the United

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

United States Surface Waters definition.)

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 tighthead (also known as bung-type top) used to

hold liquid, solid, or gaseous commodities or

cargos which are in direct contact with the

container interior. Drums typically range in

capacity from 30 to 55 gallons.

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 nonself-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 concentrationbased 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.
34738 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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-selfpropelled 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-tricholoro1,2,2-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 prepackaged 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 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
34740 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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

§ 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. Closedtop 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 nonself-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 nonself-propelled vessel constructed or

adapted to transport liquid, solid or

gaseous commodities or cargos in bulk

in cargo spaces (or tanks) through

oceans and seas, where the commodity

or cargo carried comes in direct contact

with the tank interior. There are no

maximum or minimum vessel or tank

volumes.

(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.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 34741

§ 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

§ 442.10 Applicability; description of the

Truck/Chemical Subcategory.

Except as provided in § 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.

§ 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.

§ 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 BOD5, TSS, Oil and

Grease and pH listed in Table 1 of this

part.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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

§ 442.20 Applicability; description of the

Rail/Chemical Subcategory.

Except as provided in § 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.

§ 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.

§ 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 BOD5, TSS, Oil and

Grease, and pH listed in Table 3 of this

part.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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

§ 442.30 Applicability; description of the

Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory.

Except as provided in § 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.

§ 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.

§ 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 BOD5, TSS, Oil and

Grease, and pH listed in Table 5 of this

part.

§ 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.
34742 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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

§ 442.40 Applicability; description of the

Truck/Food Subcategory.

Except as provided in § 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 § 442.10

for the Truck/Chemical Subcategory.

§ 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.

§ 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 BOD5, TSS, Oil and

Grease, and pH listed in Table 9 of this

part.

§ 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).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source must achieve the effluent

limitations for BOD5, TSS, and pH listed

in Table 7 of this part.

§ 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.

§ 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

§ 442.50 Applicability; description of the

Rail/Food Subcategory.

Except as provided in § 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 § 442.20 for the Rail/

Chemical Subcategory.

§ 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.

§ 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 BOD5, TSS, Oil and

Grease, and pH listed in Table 8 of this

part.

§ 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).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source must achieve the effluent

limitations for BOD5, TSS, and pH listed

in Table 8 of this part.

§ 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.

§ 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

§ 442.60 Applicability; description of the

Barge/Food Subcategory.

Except as provided in § 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 § 442.30 for

the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum

Subcategory.

§ 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.

§ 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 BOD5, TSS, Oil and

Grease, and pH listed in Table 9 of this

part.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 34743

§ 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).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source must achieve the effluent

limitations for BOD5, TSS, and pH listed

in Table 9 of this part.

§ 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.

§ 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]

Pollutant or pollutant property

BPT BCT BAT NSPS

Daily

maximum

Monthly

average

Daily

maximum

Monthly

average

Daily maximum/monthly

average

Daily

maximum

Monthly

average

BOD5 ........................................... 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]

Pollutant or pollutant property

PSES PSNS

Daily

maximum

Monthly

average

Daily

maximum

Monthly

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]

Pollutant or pollutant property

BPT BCT BAT NSPS

Daily

maximum

Monthly

average

Daily

maximum

Monthly

average

Daily maximum/monthly

average

Daily

maximum

Monthly

average

BOD5 ............................................... 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
34744 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 3 TO PART 442.—RAIL/CHEMICAL SUBCATEGORY: BPT, BCT, BAT AND NSPS PROPOSED MASS BASED

LIMITATIONS FOR DISCHARGES TO SURFACE WATERS—Continued

[Grams/tank]

Pollutant or pollutant property

BPT BCT BAT NSPS

Daily

maximum

Monthly

average

Daily

maximum

Monthly

average

Daily maximum/monthly

average

Daily

maximum

Monthly

average

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]

Pollutant or pollutant property

PSES PSNS

Daily

maximum

Monthly

average

Daily

maximum

Monthly

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]

Pollutant or pollutant property

BPT BCT BAT NSPS

Daily

maximum

Monthly

average

Daily

maximum

Monthly

average

Daily maximum/monthly

average

Daily

maximum

Monthly

average

BOD5 ............................................... 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 34745

TABLE 6 TO PART 442.—BARGE/CHEMICAL & PETROLEUM SUBCATEGORY: PSES AND PSNS PROPOSED MASS BASED

LIMITATIONS FOR DISCHARGES TO POTWS

[Grams/tank]

Pollutant or pollutant property

PSES PSNS

Daily

maximum

Monthly

average

Daily

maximum

Monthly

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]

Pollutant or pollutant property

BPT BCT BAT NSPS

Daily

maximum

Monthly

average

Daily

maximum

Monthly

average

Daily

maximum/

monthly

average

Daily

maximum

Monthly

average

BOD5 ............................................. 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]

Pollutant or pollutant property

BPT BCT BAT NSPS

Daily

maximum

Monthly

average

Daily

maximum

Monthly

average

Daily

maximum/

monthly

average

Daily

maximum

Monthly

average

BOD5 ......................................................... 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]

Pollutant or pollutant property

BPT BCT BAT NSPS

Daily

maximum

Monthly

average

Daily

maximum

Monthly

average

Daily

maximum/

monthly

average

Daily

maximum

Monthly

average

BOD5 ......................................................... 945 412 945 412 N/A 945 412

TSS ........................................................... 3,830 1,460 3,830 1,460 N/A 3,830 1,460
34746 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 9 TO PART 442.—BARGE/FOOD SUBCATEGORY: BPT, BCT AND NSPS PROPOSED MASS BASED LIMITATIONS FOR

DISCHARGES TO SURFACE WATERS—Continued

[Grams/tank]

Pollutant or pollutant property

BPT BCT BAT NSPS

Daily

maximum

Monthly

average

Daily

maximum

Monthly

average

Daily

maximum/

monthly

average

Daily

maximum

Monthly

average

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