5464 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 18 / January, 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 437

[FRL–5126–9]

RIN 2040–AB78

Effluent Limitations Guidelines,

Pretreatment Standards, and New

Source Performance Standards:

Centralized Waste Treatment Category

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This proposed regulation

would establish technology-based limits

for the discharge of pollutants into

navigable waters of the United States

and into publicly-owned treatment

works by existing and new facilities that

receive industrial waste from off-site for

treatment or recovery. This regulation

will reduce the discharge of pollutants

by at least 123 million pounds per year,

reducing excursions of aquatic life and/

or human health toxic effect levels in

thirty waterbodies. As a result of

consultation with stakeholders, the

preamble solicits comments and data

not only on issues raised by EPA, but

also on those raised by State and local

governments who will be implementing

these regulations and by industry

representatives who will be affected by

them.

DATES: Comments on the proposal must

be received by April 27, 1995.

In addition, EPA will conduct a

workshop covering this rulemaking, in

conjunction with a public hearing on

the pretreatment standards portion of

the rule. The workshop will be held on

March 24, 1995, from 8:30 a.m. to 10:30

a.m. The public hearing will be

conducted from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this

proposal to Ms. Debra DiCianna,

Engineering and Analysis Division

(4303), 911 East Tower, U.S. EPA, 401

M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460.

The public record is in the Water Docket

located in the basement of the EPA

Headquarters building, Room L102, 401

M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460,

telephone number (202) 260–3027. The

Docket staff requests that interested

parties call for an appointment between

the hours of 9 am and 3:30 pm, before

visiting the docket. The EPA regulations

at 40 CFR Part 2 provide that a

reasonable fee may be charged for

copying.

The workshop and public hearing

covering the rulemaking will be held in

the Lake Michigan Conference Room at

the U.S. EPA Region V Building, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL.

Persons wishing to present formal

comments at the public hearing should

have a written copy for submittal.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

additional technical information contact

Ms. Debra DiCianna at (202) 260–7141.

Additional economic information may

be obtained by contacting Ms. Susan M.

Burris at (202) 260–5379. Background

documents supporting the proposed

regulations are described in the

‘‘Background Documents’’ section

below. Many of the documents are also

available from the Office of Water

Resource Center, RC–4100, U.S. EPA,

401 M Street SW., Washington, DC

20460; telephone (202) 260–7786 for the

voice mail publication request line.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Overview

The preamble describes the

definitions, acronyms, and

abbreviations used in this notice; the

background documents that support

these proposed regulations; the legal

authority of these rules; a summary of

the proposal; background information;

and the technical and economic

methodologies used by the Agency to

develop these regulations. This

preamble also solicits comment and

data on specific areas of interest.

Organization of This Document

Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations

Background Documents

Legal Authority

I. Summary and Scope of the Proposed

Regulation

A. Background

B. The Centralized Waste Treatment

Industry

C. Scope

D. Proposed Limitations and Standards

II. Background

A. Clean Water Act

B. Summary of Public Participation

C. The Land Disposal Restrictions Program

III. Description of the Industry

A. Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities

B. Waste Treatment Processes

IV. Summary of EPA Activities and Data

Gathering Efforts

A. EPA Initial Efforts to Develop

Guidelines for the Waste Treatment

Industry

B. Wastewater Sampling Program

C. 1991 Waste Treatment Industry

Questionnaire

D. Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire

V. Development of Effluent Limitations

Guidelines and Standards

A. Industry Subcategorization

B. Characterization of Wastewater

C. Pollutants Not Regulated

D. Available Technologies

E. Rationale for Selection of Proposed

Regulations

F. Monitoring to Demonstrate Compliance

with the Regulation

G. Determination of Long-Term Averages,

Variability Factors, and Limitations for

BPT

H. Regulatory Implementation

VI. Costs and Impacts of Regulatory

Alternative

A. Costs

B. Pollutant Reductions

C. Economic Impact Assessment

D. Water Quality Analysis

E. Non-Water Quality Environmental

Impacts

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket and Public Record

B. Clean Water Act Procedural

Requirements

C. Executive Order 12866

D. Executive Order 12875

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

VIII. Solicitation of Data and Comments

A. Introduction and General Solicitation

B. Specific Data and Comment

Solicitations

Definitions, Acronyms, and

Abbreviations

Administrator—The Administrator of

the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency.

Agency—The U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency.

Average monthly discharge

limitation—The highest allowable

average of ‘‘daily discharges’’ over a

calendar month, calculated as the sum

of all ‘‘daily discharges’’ measured

during the calendar month divided by

the number of ‘‘daily discharges’’

measured during the month.

BAT—The best available technology

economically achievable, 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—Biochemical oxygen

demand—Five Day. 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 contaminants in a

water sample under standard laboratory

conditions of five days and 70 °C. BOD5

is not related to the oxygen

requirements in chemical combustion.

BPT—The best practicable control

technology currently available, as

described in Sec. 304(b)(1) of the CWA.

Centralized waste treatment facility—

Any facility that treats any hazardous or

non-hazardous industrial wastes

received from off-site by tanker truck,

trailer/roll-off bins, drums, barge, or

other forms of shipment. A ‘‘centralized

waste treatment facility’’ includes (1) a

facility that treats waste received from

off-site exclusively and (2) a facility that
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 18 / January, 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules 5465

treats wastes generated on-site as well as

waste received from off-site.

Centralized waste treatment

wastewater—Water that comes in

contact with wastes received from offsite for treatment or recovery or that

comes in contact with the area in which

the off-site wastes are received, stored or

collected.

Clarifier—A treatment unit designed

to remove suspended materials from

wastewater—typically by

sedimentation.

COD—Chemical oxygen demand. A

bulk parameter that measures the

oxygen-consuming capacity of refractory

organic and inorganic matter present in

water or wastewater. COD is expressed

as the amount of oxygen consumed from

a chemical oxidant in a specific test.

Commercial facility—Facilities that

accept waste from off-site for treatment

from facilities not under the same

ownership as their facility.

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 Treatment.

Daily discharge—The discharge of a

pollutant measured during any calendar

day or any 24-hour period that

reasonably represents a calendar day.

Direct discharger—A facility that

discharges or may discharge treated or

untreated pollutants into waters of the

United States.

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).)

EIA—Economic Impact Analysis.

EPA—The U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency.

Facility—A facility is all contiguous

property owned, operated, leased or

under the control of the same person.

The contiguous property may be

divided by public or private right-ofway.

Fuel Blending—The process of mixing

organic waste for the purpose of

generating a fuel for reuse.

Indirect discharger—A facility that

discharges or may discharge pollutants

into a publicly-owned treatment works.

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.

Metal-bearing wastes—Wastes that

contain metal pollutants from

manufacturing or processing facilities or

other commercial operations. These

wastes may include, but are not limited

to, the following: process wastewater,

process residuals such as tank bottoms

or stills and process wastewater

treatment residuals, such as treatment

sludges.

Minimum level—The level at which

an analytical system gives recognizable

signals and an acceptable calibration

point.

Mixed Commercial/Non-commercial

facility—Facilities that accept some

waste from off-site for treatment from

facilities not under the same ownership,

and some waste from off-site for

treatment from facilities under the same

ownership as their facility.

New Source—‘‘New source’’ is

defined at 40 CFR 122.2 and 122.29.

Non-commercial facility—Facilities

that accept waste from off-site for

treatment only from facilities under the

same ownership as their facility.

Non-conventional pollutants—

Pollutants that are neither conventional

pollutants nor priority 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.

Non-water quality environmental

impact—An environmental impact of a

control or treatment technology, other

than to surface waters.

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.

OCPSF—Organic Chemicals, Plastics,

and Synthetic Fibers Manufacturing

Effluent Guideline.

Off-Site—‘‘Off-site’’ means outside the

boundaries of a facility.

Oily Wastes—Wastes that contain oil

and grease from manufacturing or

processing facilities or other commercial

operations. These wastes may include,

but are not limited to, the following:

spent lubricants, cleaning fluids,

process wastewater, process residuals

such as tank bottoms or stills and

process wastewater treatment residuals,

such as treatment sludges.

Oligopoly—A market structure with

few competitors, in which each

producer is aware of his competitors’

actions and has a significant influence

on market price and quantity.

On-site—‘‘On-site’’ means within the

boundaries of a facility.

Organic-bearing Wastes—Wastes that

contain organic pollutants from

manufacturing or processing facilities or

other commercial operations. These

wastes may include, but are not limited

to, process wastewater, process

residuals such as tank bottoms or stills

and process wastewater treatment

residuals, such as treatment sludges.

Outfall—The mouth of conduit drains

and other conduits from which a facility

effluent discharges into receiving

waters.

Pipeline—‘‘Pipeline’’ means an open

or closed conduit used for the

conveyance of material. A pipeline

includes a channel, pipe, tube, trench or

ditch.

Point source category—A category of

sources of water pollutants.

Pollutant (to water)—Dredged spoil,

solid waste, incinerator residue, filter

backwash, sewage, garbage, sewage

sludge, munitions, chemical wastes,

biological materials, certain radioactive

materials, heat, wrecked or discarded

equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt, and

industrial, municipal, and agricultural

waste discharged into water.

POTW or POTWs—Publicly-owned

treatment works, as defined at 40 CFR

403.3(0).

Pretreatment standard—A regulation

that establishes industrial wastewater

effluent quality required for discharge to

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

Priority pollutants—The pollutants

designated by EPA as priority in 40 CFR

part 423, appendix A.

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.

RCRA—Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (PL 94–580) of 1976, as

amended.

SIC—Standard Industrial

Classification (SIC). A numerical

categorization system used by the U.S.

Department of Commerce to catalogue

economic activity. SIC codes refer to the

products, or group of products,

produced or distributed, or to services
5466 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 18 / January, 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules

rendered by an operating establishment.

SIC codes are used to group

establishments by the economic

activities in which they are engaged. SIC

codes often denote a facility’s primary,

secondary, tertiary, etc. economic

activities.

Small business—Businesses with

annual sales revenues less than $6

million. This is the Small Business

Administration definition of small

business for SIC code 4953, Refuse

Systems (13 CFR Ch.1, § 121.601).

Solidification—The addition of agents

to convert liquid or semi-liquid

hazardous waste to a solid before burial

to reduce the leaching of the waste

material and the possible migration of

the waste or its constituent from the

facility. The process is usually

accompanied by stabilization.

Stabilization—A hazardous waste

process that decreases the mobility of

waste constituents by means other than

solidification. Stabilization techniques

include mixing the waste with sorbents

such as fly ash to remove free liquids.

For the purpose of this rule, chemical

precipitation is not a technique for

stabilization.

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.

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.

Waste Receipt—Wastes received for

treatment or recovery. Waters of the

United States—The same meaning set

forth in 40 CFR 122.2.

Zero discharge—No discharge of

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, and land application.

Background Documents

The regulations proposed today are

supported by several major documents.

(1) EPA’s technical conclusions

concerning the wastewater regulations

are detailed in the ‘‘Development

Document for Proposed Effluent

Limitations Guidelines and Standards

for the Centralized Waste Treatment

Industry,’’ hereafter referred to as the

Technical Development Document

(EPA–821–R–95–006). (2) Detailed

documentation of the procedure and

equations used for costing the

technology options is included in the

‘‘Detailed Costing Document for the

Centralized Waste Treatment Industry,’’

hereafter referred to as the Costing

Document (EPA–821–R–95–002). (3)

The Agency’s economic analysis is

found in the ‘‘Economic Impact

Analysis of Proposed Effluent

Limitations Guidelines and Standards

for the Centralized Waste Treatment

Industry,’’ hereafter called the Economic

Impact Analysis (EPA–821–R–95–001).

(4) The Agency’s assessment of

environmental benefits is detailed in the

‘‘Environmental Assessment of

Proposed Effluent Guidelines for the

Centralized Waste Treatment Industry,’’

hereafter called the Environmental

Assessment (EPA–821–R–95–003). (5)

An analysis of the incremental costs and

pollutant removals for the effluent

regulations is presented in ‘‘CostEffectiveness Analysis of Proposed

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and

Standards for the Centralized Waste

Treatment Industry,’’ hereafter called

the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (EPA–

821–R–95–004). (6) The methodology

used for calculating limitations is

discussed in the ‘‘Statistical Support

Document for Proposed Effluent

Limitations Guidelines and Standards

for the Centralized Waste Treatment

Industry’’ hereafter referred to as the

Statistical Support Document (EPA–

821–R–95–005).

Legal Authority

These regulations are being proposed

under the authority of Sections 301,

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

Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Sections 1311,

1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, and 1361.

I. Summary and Scope of the Proposed

Regulation

A. Background

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 attacks 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) & (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.

In addition, pretreatment standards

must be established for those pollutants

which are not susceptible to treatment

by POTWs or which would interfere

with POTW operations (CWA Sections

301(b), 304(b), 306, 307 (b)–(d), 33

U.S.C. §§ 1311(b), 1314(b), 1316, and

1317 (b)–(d)).

Today’s proposal represents the

Agency’s first attempt to develop

national guidelines that establish

effluent limitations and pretreatment

standards for new and existing

dischargers from the Centralized Waste

Treatment Industry. EPA estimates that

the regulation being proposed today

would reduce the discharge of

conventional, priority, and nonconventional pollutants by at least 123

million pounds per year. EPA

performed an analysis of the water

quality benefits that would be derived

from this proposal and predicts that

contributions by centralized waste

treatment facilities to current excursions

of aquatic life and/or human health

toxic effect levels would be eliminated

for twenty streams and reduced for ten

others. EPA also projects through

modeling that eleven of the seventeen

POTWs expected to experience

inhibition of treatment due to
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 18 / January, 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules 5467

centralized treatment facilities would no

longer experience inhibition from these

sources.

B. The Centralized Waste Treatment

Industry

The adoption of the increased

pollution control measures required by

CWA and RCRA requirements had a

number of ancillary effects, one of

which has been the formation and

development of a waste treatment

industry. Several factors have

contributed to the growth of this

industry. Thus, for example, in order to

comply with CWA discharge limits,

categorical industries have installed

new (or upgraded existing) wastewater

treatment facilities in order to treat their

process wastewater. But the wastewater

treatment may produce a residual

sludge which itself may require further

treatment before disposal under EPA

RCRA requirements. Furthermore, many

industrial process by-products now are

either RCRA listed or characteristic

hazardous wastes which require special

handling or treatment before disposal.

A manufacturing facility’s options for

managing these wastes include on-site

treatment with its other wastes or

sending them off-site. Because a large

number of operations have chosen to

send their wastes off-site, specialized

facilities have developed whose sole

commercial operations are the handling

of wastewater treatment residuals and

industrial process by-products.

Moreover, some industrial operations

also have chosen to accept wastes from

off-site for treatment in their on-site

facilities. Further, there are some

commercial facilities to which wastes

are piped for treatment. Other wastes go

to landfills or incinerators for disposal.

The waste treatment industry

includes facilities which receive both

hazardous and non-hazardous industrial

waste. These facilities receive a variety

of wastes for treatment and recovery of

waste components. Among these wastes

are wastewater treatment sludges,

process residuals, tank bottoms, off-spec

products, and wastes generated from

clean-up activities. Some facilities may

also treat industrial process wastewater

with these wastes.

In the early 1990’s, this industry

experienced a slow down because many

existing facilities were designed to

handle larger quantities than the market

produced. Reduced economic activity

generally in combination with pollution

prevention measures resulted in a

decrease in the amount of waste sent

off-site for treatment. As a result,

competition among facilities increased

resulting in facilities operating below

capacity and experiencing economic

and financial difficulties. This may be

changing at the present. Recently,

participants in the March 1994 public

meeting for this proposal stated that the

industry is experiencing new growth

due to increasing environmental

regulations. The Agency solicits

information and data on the current size

of the industry and trends related to the

growth or decline in need for the

services provided by these facilities.

C. Scope

Today’s proposal would establish

discharge limitations and standards for

discharges from those facilities which

the rule defines as ‘‘centralized waste

treatment facilities.’’ The facilities

which are covered by this guideline

include stand-alone waste treatment and

recovery facilities which treat waste

received from off-site. ‘‘Centralized

waste treatment facilities’’ also include

treatment systems which treat on-site

generated process wastewater with

wastes received from off-site. However,

the rule does not apply to facilities

which receive wastes from off-site by

pipeline from the original source of

waste generation.

Centralized waste treatment facilities

include the following: (1) Commercial

facilities that accept waste from off-site

for treatment from facilities not under

the same ownership as the treating

facility; (2) non-commercial facilities

that accept waste from off-site for

treatment only from facilities under the

same ownership (intra-company

transfer); or (3) mixed commercial/noncommercial facilities that accept some

waste from off-site for treatment from

facilities not under the same ownership

and some waste from facilities under the

same ownership.

This summary section highlights the

technology bases and other key aspects

of the proposed rule. The technology

descriptions in this section are

presented in abbreviated form; more

detailed descriptions are included in the

Technical Development Document and

Section V.E. Today’s proposal presents

the Agency’s recommended regulatory

approach as well as other options

considered by EPA. The Agency’s

recommended approach for establishing

discharge limitations is based on a

detailed evaluation of the available data.

As indicated below in the discussion of

the specifics of the proposal, the Agency

welcomes comment on all options and

issues and encourages commenters to

submit additional data during the

comment period. Also, the Agency

plans additional discussions with

interested parties during the comment

period to ensure that the Agency has the

views of all parties and the best possible

data upon which to base a decision for

the final regulation. EPA’s final

regulation may be based upon any

technologies, rationale or approaches

that are a logical outgrowth of this

proposal and public comments,

including any options considered but

not selected for today’s proposed

regulation.

In today’s notice, EPA is proposing for

the Centralized Waste Treatment Point

Source Category effluent limitations

guidelines and standards based on BPT,

BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS for

new and existing facilities that are

engaged in the treatment of industrial

waste from off-site facilities.

The proposed regulation today

applies to the following activities:

• Subcategory A: Discharges from

operations which treat, or treat and

recover metals from, metal-bearing

waste received from off-site,

• Subcategory B: Discharges from

operations which treat, or treat and

recover oil from, oily waste received

from off-site, and

• Subcategory C: Discharges from

operations which treat, or treat and

recover organics from, other organicbearing waste received from off-site.

Facilities subject to the guidelines and

standards would include facilities

whose exclusive operation is the

treatment of off-site generated industrial

waste as well as industrial or

manufacturing facilities that also accept

waste from off-site for centralized

treatment. A further discussion of the

types of waste included in each

subcategory is included in the Technical

Development Document and Section

III.B. of this notice.

The proposed effluent limitations

guidelines and standards are intended

to cover wastewater discharges resulting

from treatment of, or recovery of

components from, hazardous and nonhazardous industrial waste received

from off-site facilities by tanker truck,

trailer/roll-off bins, drums, barges, or

other forms of shipment. Any discharges

generated from the treatment of wastes

received through an open or enclosed

conduit (e.g., pipeline, channels,

ditches, and trenches, etc.) from the

original source of waste generation are

not included in the regulation.

However, discharges generated from the

treatment of CWT wastes received by

pipeline from a facility acting as an

intermediate collection point for CWT

wastes received from off-site would be

subject to the proposed requirements.

Based on information collected in the

1991 Waste Treatment Industry

Questionnaire and discussions with

operators of waste treatment facilities,

EPA has concluded that facilities which
5468 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 18 / January, 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules

receive all their wastes through a

pipeline or trench from the original

source of waste generation are receiving

continuous flows of process wastewater

with relatively consistent pollutant

profiles. In the case of these treatment

facilities, the process wastewater flows

in virtually all cases would be subject to

categorical regulations if discharged

from the original point of waste

generation. However, these companies,

instead of discharging to a surface water

or POTW, discharge process wastewater

to a ‘‘centralized pipeline’’ facility. EPA

has concluded that the effluent

limitations and pretreatment standards

for centralized waste treatment facilities

should not apply to such pipeline

treatment facilities because their wastes

differ fundamentally from those

received at centralized waste treatment

facilities. In large part, the waste

streams received at centralized waste

treatment facilities are more

concentrated and variable, including

sludges, tank bottoms, off-spec

products, and process residuals. The

limitations and standards developed for

centralized waste treatment facilities, in

turn, reflect the types of waste streams

being treated and are necessarily

different from those promulgated for

discharges resulting from the treatment

of process wastewater for categorical

industries. However, this proposed

pipeline exclusion would not apply to

facilities which receive waste via

conduit (i.e., pipeline, trenches, ditches,

etc.) from facilities that are acting

merely as waste collection centers that

are not the original source of the waste

generation.

In evaluating the current operation

and performance of centralized waste

treatment facilities, the Agency is

concerned about the effective

management of such highlyconcentrated waste streams. Due to the

variability of waste streams, the

possibility exists for dilution to occur

rather than effective treatment.

Therefore, the Agency is proposing to

require monitoring to demonstrate

compliance with the limitations and

standards for the regulated treatment

subcategories The limitations and

standards proposed today are based on

treatment systems that optimize

removals for homogeneous wastes. If a

facility commingles different

subcategories of CWT wastes before

treatment or mixes CWT wastes with

non-CWT waste streams before

treatment, the facility must demonstrate

that its treatment system achieves

pollutant limits equivalent to the

effluent limitations and standards that

would be achieved if the CWT wastes

were treated separately. (In addition,

there may be circumstances where the

mixing of off-site and on-site waste

streams is necessary to prevent upset of

treatment systems, such as with

biological treatment for organic waste

streams.) Equivalent treatment is

demonstrated when Centralized Waste

Treatment Industry pollutants of

concern are (1) detectable at quantifiable

levels prior to mixing, (2) are detected

at quantifiable levels following mixing,

and (3) the on-site treatment system is

designed to treat the pollutants of

concern in some manner other than

incidental removals by partitioning to

sludge or air. The Agency believes such

an approach is necessary to ensure

achievement of the pollutant discharge

levels which the Agency has

preliminarily determined may be

obtained through proper treatment of

the CWT wastes. In the absence of such

a requirement to demonstrate achievable

removals, facilities may merely dilute

wastes with other waste streams to meet

the required discharge levels.

The Agency also solicits comment on

including a de minimis quantity or

percentage of off-site receipts in

comparison to the total facility flow for

which facilities would not be

considered in the scope of this

regulation. According to comments

received on the May 1994 proposed

Effluent Guideline Plan (59 FR 25859),

some manufacturing facilities may

receive a few shipments of waste or offspec products to be treated on-site with

wastewater from on-site manufacturing

processes, but these facilities do not

actively accept large quantities of waste

from off-site for the purpose of

treatment and disposal. In the 1991

Waste Treatment Industry

Questionnaire, no facilities were

identified with intermittent shipments

of waste, but the questionnaire mailing

list was developed on the basis of a

facility’s regular business. Therefore,

manufacturing facilities which do not

accept off-site waste on a normal basis

were not included in the mailing list.

The EPA is requesting information on

the amounts of waste received and the

reasons the waste were accepted to

determine if a de minimis quantity

should be established to limit the

applicability of this rulemaking. At

present, no de minimis quantity has

been established for this rulemaking.

Facilities are included in the scope of

this regulation regardless of the quantity

received for treatment.

D. Proposed Limitations and Standards

1. Best Practicable Control Technology

Currently Available (BPT)

The Agency is proposing to set BPT

effluent limitations guidelines for all

subcategories of the Centralized Waste

Treatment Industry to control

conventional, priority, and nonconventional pollutants in the waste

treatment effluent. In the case of metalbearing wastes that include cyanide

streams, achievement of BPT limitations

requires pretreatment for cyanide. Table

I.D–1 is a summary of the technology

basis for the proposed effluent

limitations for each subcategory.

L2,i1,xs36,r50,r150

Table I.D–1.—Technology Basis for BPT

Effluent Limitations

subpart

basis

The pollutants controlled and the

points of application vary for each

subcategory and are described in

Sections V.

2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control

Technology (BCT)

The EPA is proposing BCT effluent

limitations guidelines for Total

Suspended Solids (TSS) and Oil and

Grease for the Metals and Oils

Subcategories of the Centralized Waste

Treatment Industry. The EPA is also

proposing to set BCT effluent

limitations guidelines for biochemical

oxygen demand (BOD5) and total

suspended solids (TSS) for the Organics

Subcategory. The proposed BCT effluent

limitations guidelines are equal to the

proposed BPT limitations for

conventional pollutants. The

development of proposed BCT effluent

limitations is further explained in

Section V.

3. Best Available Technology

Economically Achievable (BAT)

The Agency is proposing to set BAT

effluent limitations guidelines for all

subcategories of the Centralized Waste

Treatment Industry. These proposed

limitations are based on the

technologies proposed for BPT. The

pollutants controlled and the points of

application vary for each subcategory

and are described in Section V.

4. New Source Performance Standards

(NSPS)

EPA is proposing to set NSPS

equivalent to the proposed BPT/BCT/

BAT effluent limitations for all

subcategories of the Centralized Waste

Treatment Industry. NSPS are discussed

in more detail in Section V.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 18 / January, 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules 5469

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, BOB5). However, nothing on the face

of the statute explicitly restricted BPT limitation to

such pollutants. Following passage of the Clean

Water Act of 1977 with its requirement for points

sources to achieve best available technology

limitations to control discharges of toxic pollutants,

EPA shifted its focus to address the listed priority

pollutants under the guidelines program. BPT

guidelines continue to include limitations to

address all pollutants.

5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing

Sources (PSES)

For pollutants that pass-through or

otherwise interfere with POTWs, EPA is

proposing to set PSES equivalent to the

proposed BAT effluent limitations for

all subcategories of the Centralized

Waste Treatment Industry. PSES are

further discussed in Section V.

6. Pretreatment Standards for New

Sources (PSNS)

For pollutants that pass-through or

otherwise interfere with POTWs, EPA is

proposing to set PSNS equivalent to the

proposed NSPS effluent limitations for

all subcategories of the Centralized

Waste Treatment Industry. PSNS are

further discussed in Section V.

II. Background

A. Clean Water Act

1. Statutory Requirements of Regulation

As previously discussed, Section

301(a) of the CWA prohibits discharges

of pollutants to navigable waters except

in compliance with the statute. 33

U.S.C. 1311(a). Section 301(b) requires

that direct dischargers comply with

effluent limitations established by EPA

for categories of industrial dischargers

or in the case of certain categories of

new dischargers, new source

performance standards.

Section 307 requires indirect

dischargers to comply with pretreatment

standards and Section 306 requires

compliance with new source

performance standards.

These guidelines and standards are

summarized below:

a. Best practicable control technology

currently available (BPT)—Sec.

304(b)(1) of the CWA. In the guidelines,

EPA defines BPT effluent limits for

conventional, priority,1 and nonconventional pollutants. In specifying

BPT, EPA looks at a number of factors.

EPA first considers the cost of achieving

effluent reductions in relation to the

effluent reduction benefits. The Agency

next considers: the age of the equipment

and facilities, the processes employed

and any required process changes,

engineering aspects of the control

technologies, non-water quality

environmental impacts (including

energy requirements), and such other

factors as the Agency deems

appropriate. CWA § 304(b)(1)(B).

Traditionally, EPA establishes BPT

effluent limitations based on the average

of the best performances of facilities

within the industry of various ages,

sizes, processes or other common

characteristic. Where, however, 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.

b. Best conventional pollutant control

technology (BCT)—Sec. 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. 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).

c. Best available technology

economically achievable (BAT)—Sec.

304(b)(2) of the CWA. In general, BAT

effluent limitations guidelines represent

the best economically achievable

performance of plants in the industrial

subcategory or category. The factors

considered in assessing BAT include the

cost of achieving BAT effluent

reductions, the age of equipment and

facilities involved, the process

employed, potential process changes,

and non-water quality environmental

impacts, including energy requirements.

The Agency retains considerable

discretion in assigning the weight to be

accorded these factors. Unlike BPT

limitations, BAT limitations may be

based on effluent reductions attainable

through changes in a facility’s processes

and operations. As with BPT, where

existing performance is uniformly

inadequate, BAT may require a higher

level of performance than is currently

being achieved based on technology

transferred from a different subcategory

or category. BAT may be based upon

process changes or internal controls,

even when these technologies are not

common industry practice.

d. New source performance standards

(NSPS)—Sec. 306 of the CWA. NSPS

reflect effluent reductions that are

achievable based on the best available

demonstrated treatment technology.

New facilities have the opportunity to

install the best and most efficient

production processes and wastewater

treatment technologies. As a result,

NSPS should represent the most

stringent controls attainable through the

application of the best available control

technology for all pollutants (i.e.,

conventional, nonconventional, and

priority pollutants). In establishing

NSPS, EPA is directed to take into

consideration the cost of achieving the

effluent reduction and any non-water

quality environmental impacts and

energy requirements.

e. Pretreatment standards for existing

sources (PSES)—Sec. 307(b) of the

CWA. PSES are designed to prevent the

discharge of pollutants that passthrough, interfere-with, or are otherwise

incompatible with the operation of

publicly-owned treatment works

(POTW). The CWA authorizes EPA to

establish pretreatment standards for

pollutants that pass-through POTWs or

interfere with treatment processes or

sludge disposal methods at POTWs.

Pretreatment standards are technologybased 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.

f. Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS)—Sec. 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.

2. Section 304(m) Consent Decree

Section 304(m) of the Act, added by

the Water Quality Act of 1987, requires

EPA, before February 4, 1988, to
5470 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 18 / January, 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules

establish a schedule (1) for reviewing

and revising existing guidelines and

standards and (2) for promulgating

effluent guidelines for categories of

sources of priority or nonconventional

pollutants for which effluent limitations

and pretreatment standards had not

previously been published. The

statutory deadline for such guidelines is

no later four years after February 4,

1987, for categories identified in the

first published plan.

The Natural Resource Defense

Council (NRDC) and Public Citizen, Inc.

filed suit against the Agency, alleging

violation of Section 304(m) and other

statutory authorities requiring

promulgation of effluent limitations

guidelines, new source performance

standards, new source performance

standards and pretreatment standards.

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

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

decree dated January 31, 1992, which

settled the litigation, EPA agreed, among

other things, to propose and promulgate

20 new guidelines establishing BPT,

BCT and BAT limitations and

pretreatment standards, including

guidelines and standards for CWT

facilities.

B. Summary of Public Participation

During the data gathering activities

that preceded development of the

proposed rules, EPA met with

representatives from the industry, the

Hazardous Waste Treatment Council,

the National Solid Waste Management

Association, and the Natural Resources

Defense Council. Because most of the

facilities affected by this proposal are

indirect dischargers, the Agency has

made a concerted effort to consult with

State and local entities that will be

responsible for implementing this

regulation. EPA has met with

pretreatment coordinators from around

the nation and presented our regulatory

approach before the Association of

Metropolitan Sewerage Authorities to

solicit feedback on implementation

issues. Today’s proposal solicits

comment on many of the issues raised

by EPA’s co-regulators.

On March 8, 1994, EPA sponsored a

public meeting, where the Agency

shared information about the content

and the status of the proposed

regulation. The meeting was announced

in the Federal Register, 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. EPA’s intent in conducting

the public meeting was to elicit input

that would improve the quality of the

proposed regulations.

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.

C. The Land Disposal Restrictions

Program

1. Introduction to RCRA Land Disposal

Restrictions

The Hazardous and Solid Waste

Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),

enacted on November 8, 1984, largely

prohibit the land disposal of untreated

hazardous wastes. Once a hazardous

waste is prohibited from land disposal,

the statute provides only two options for

legal land disposal: meet the treatment

standard for the waste prior to land

disposal, or dispose of the waste in a

land disposal unit that has been found

to satisfy the statutory no migration test.

A no migration unit is one from which

there will be no migration of hazardous

constituents for as long as the waste

remains hazardous. RCRA Sections 3004

(d), (e), (g)(5). The treatment standards

may be expressed as either constituent

concentration levels or as specific

methods of treatment. These standards

must substantially diminish the toxicity

of the waste or substantially reduce the

likelihood of migration of hazardous

constituents from the waste so that

short-term and long-term threats to

human health and the environment are

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

For purposes of the restrictions, the

RCRA program defines land disposal to

include any placement of hazardous

waste in a landfill, surface

impoundment, waste pile, injection

well, land treatment facility, salt dome

formation, salt bed formation, or

underground mine or cave.

2. BDAT and Land Disposal Restrictions

Standards

EPA generated a set of hazardous

waste treatability data to serve as the

basis for land disposal restrictions

standards. First, EPA identified Best

Demonstrated Available Treatment

Technology (BDAT) for each listed

hazardous waste. BDAT was that

treatment technology which EPA found

to be the most effective for that waste

and which was also readily available to

generators and treaters. In some cases

EPA designated as BDAT for a particular

waste stream a treatment technology

shown to have successfully treated a

similar but more difficult to treat waste

stream. This ensured that the land

disposal restrictions standards for a

listed waste stream were achievable

since they always reflected the actual

treatability of the waste itself or of a

more refractory waste.

3. RCRA Phase 2 and the Centralized

Waste Treatment Industry Effluent

Guidelines

The RCRA Phase 2 final rule July 27,

1994, promulgated Universal Treatment

Standards (UTS) for all constituents

regulated by the RCRA Land Disposal

Restrictions program. The UTS are a

series of concentration levels for

wastewater and nonwastewaters that

provide a single treatment standard for

each constituent regardless of the

process generating it. Previously, many

constituents were regulated with several

numerical treatment standards

depending on the identity of the original

waste. Comments from generators and

treaters supported the UTS as a means

of simplifying compliance with LDR

requirements by ensuring that only one

treatment standard applies to any

constituent in any waste residue.

While the UTS may not apply to those

facilities addressed by the CWT effluent

guidelines (due to the lack of land

disposal), both involve many of the

same wastewater and both are

technology-based. Consequently, EPA is

identifying the major differences

between the development of the two

rules.

4. General Differences in Approaches

Between LDR UTS and Centralized

Waste Treatment Industry Effluent

Guidelines

Comparing the effluent guidelines

proposed by today’s rule for the

Centralized Waste Treatment Industry

with the UTS finalized in July 1994

shows that the RCRA and CWA

approaches are similar in that both rules

address many of the same waste streams

and base treatment standards on many

of the same wastewater treatment

technologies. However, the two sets of

treatment standards differ both in their

format and in the numerical values set

for each constituent.

The differences in format between

effluent guidelines and LDR’s are

relatively straightforward. The effluent

guidelines provide for several types of

discharge (new vs. existing sources,

pretreatment vs. direct discharge) while

the LDR program makes no distinctions
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 18 / January, 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules 5471

among different types of land disposal.

While the effluent guidelines address

both monthly and daily limits, UTS

only sets daily limits.

For many pollutants, there are

differences in the numerical values of

the limits. The differences result from

the use of different legal criteria for

developing the limits and resulting

differences in the technical and

economic criteria and data sets for

establishing the respective limits. As

described above, the LDR UTS establish

a single numerical standard for each

regulated pollutant parameter that

applies to all waste streams.

The Clean Water Act pollutant

specific numerical effluent limitations

guidelines and standards (40 CFR

Subchapter N) often differ not only from

the LDR UTS but also from point-source

category to point-source category (e.g.,

Electroplating, 40 CFR part 413; and

Metal Finishing, 40 CFR part 433). The

effluent guidelines limitations and

standards are industry-specific,

subcategory-specific, and technologybased. The numerical limits are

typically based on different data sets

that reflect the performance of specific

waste water management and treatment

practices. Differences in the limits

reflect differences in the statutory

factors that the Administrator is

required to consider in developing

technically and economically

achievable limitations and standards—

manufacturing products and processes

(which for CWT facilities includes types

of treatment or waste management

services performed), raw materials,

wastewater characteristics, treatability,

facility size, geographic location, age of

facility and equipment, non-water

quality environmental impacts, and

energy requirements.

Limits for CWT’s are developed for

individual industrial subcategories

leaving the permit writer with the

responsibility of assembling the

‘‘building blocks’’ into a discharge limit.

There is, however, only one set of LDR

standards, the Universal Treatment

Standards (UTS) applying to all

constituents regardless of the waste

stream. While there is one set of

standards for LDR rules, the limits are

generally based on BDAT applied to the

waste that is most difficult to treat.

A consequence of these differing

approaches is that similar or identical

waste streams are regulated at different

levels. Several of the effluent guidelines

discharge categories reflect pretreatment

prior to discharge to POTW’s where

there is further treatment and are

therefore not directly comparable to

LDR wastewater standards. However,

those categories that represent daily

maximum standards for discharge of

treated wastes are analogous to the LDR

wastewater standards, and the

numerical differences in these standards

reflect differences in methodology as

described above.

EPA’s survey of CWT facilities

identified no wastewater discharges

which would be regulated under the

CWT effluent limitations guidelines and

standards and the Universal Treatment

Standards. Because none of the 72 CWT

discharging CWT facilities discharge

wastewater effluent to land disposal

units, the proposed regulations for the

CWT Industry are not redundant

requirements.

III. Description of the Industry

A. Centralized Waste Treatment

Facilities

Presented below is a brief summary

description of the Centralized Waste

Treatment Industry for which EPA is

today proposing guidelines.

Based upon responses to EPA’s 1991

Waste Treatment Industry

Questionnaire (see discussion below),

the Agency estimates that there are

approximately 85 centralized waste

treatment facilities in 31 States of the

type for which EPA is proposing

limitations and standards. These

include both stand-alone treatment

facilities as well as facilities which treat

their own process wastewater and

treatment or process residuals as well as

wastes received from off-site. The major

concentration of centralized waste

treatment facilities in the U.S. are found

in the Midwest, Northeast, and

Northwest regions, due to the proximity

of the industries generating the wastes

undergoing treatment.

As previously noted, centralized

waste treatment facilities accept a

variety of different wastes for treatment.

Before these facilities accept a waste for

treatment, the waste generally

undergoes a rigorous screening for

compatibility with other wastes being

treated at the facility. Waste generators

initially furnish the treatment facility

with a sample of the waste stream to be

treated. The sample is analyzed to

characterize the level of pollutants in

the sample and bench-scale treatability

tests are performed to determine what

treatment is necessary to treat the waste

stream effectively. After all analysis and

tests are performed, the treatment

facility determines the cost for treating

the waste stream. If the waste generator

accepts the cost of treatment, shipments

of the waste stream to the treatment

facility will begin. For each truck load

of waste received for treatment, the

treatment facility collects a sample from

the shipment and analyzes the sample

to determine if it is similar to the initial

sample tested. If the sample is similar,

the shipment of waste will be treated. If

the sample is not similar but falls within

an allowable range as determined by the

treatment facility, the treatment facility

will reevaluate the estimated cost of

treatment for the shipment. Then, the

waste generator decides if the waste will

remain at the treatment facility for

treatment. If the sample is not similar

and does not fall within an allowable

range, the treatment facility will decline

the shipment for treatment.

Treatment facilities and waste

generators complete extensive amounts

of paperwork during the waste

acceptance process. Most of the

paperwork is required by Federal, State,

and local regulations. The amount of

paperwork necessary for accepting a

waste stream emphasizes the difficulty

of operating Centralized Waste

Treatment facilities.

In its information and data-gathering

effort, EPA also looked at how these

facilities handle wastes after they are

accepted for treatment. Even though a

waste must surmount a number of

hurdles before being accepted for

treatment at a facility, many facilities do

not devote the same level of attention to

the process of managing and treating

wastes for optimal removals. Thus,

EPA’s data show that approximately

half of the facilities in the industry 1)

accept wastes for treatment in more than

one of the waste categories (metalbearing, oily or organic-bearing) being

considered here or 2) operate other

industrial processes that generate wastes

at the same site. In most cases, the waste

streams from these various sources are

mixed prior to treatment or after

minimal pretreatment.

The problems associated with the

mixing of the different types of wastes

and wastewater treated at centralized

waste treatment facilities or mixing with

other industrial wastewater and noncontaminated stormwater exacerbated

the difficulty of evaluating adequate

treatment performance. EPA concluded

that mixing waste streams adversely

affects pollutant removal in the

discharge water. Rather than treating to

remove pollutants, the facilities were

diluting their streams to achieve

required effluent levels. Therefore, EPA

has concluded reasonable further

progress to the goal of reducing

discharges requires achievement of

discharge levels associated with

treatment of segregated wastestreams.

Consequently, as explained above, the

Agency is proposing to establish

effluent limitations which reflect
5472 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 18 / January, 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules

achievable effluent reductions for

unmixed wastes.

B. Waste Treatment Processes

As the Agency learned from data and

information collected as a result of the

1991 Waste Treatment Industry

Questionnaire, CWTs accept many types

of hazardous and non-hazardous

industrial waste for treatment in liquid

or solid form. In 1989, approximately

1.1 billion gallons of industrial waste

were accepted for treatment of which 53

percent were hazardous and 47 percent

were non-hazardous.

1. Metal-Bearing Waste Treatment or

Recovery

In 1989, 709 million gallons of metalbearing wastes were accepted for

treatment by 56 facilities. This metalbearing waste comprised the largest

portion of the waste treated by the

Centralized Waste Treatment Industry.

The typical treatment process used for

metal-bearing wastes was precipitation

with lime or caustic followed by

filtration. The sludge generated was

then landfilled in a RCRA Subtitle C or

D landfill depending upon its content.

A small fraction of facilities recovered

metals from the waste using selective

metals precipitation or electrolytic

metals recovery processes. Most

facilities that recovered metals did not

generate a sludge that required disposal,

instead, the sludges were sold for the

metal content.

2. Oily Waste Treatment or Recovery

Approximately 223 million gallons of

oily waste were accepted for treatment

by 35 facilities in 1989. A wide range of

oily wastes were accepted for treatment

and the on-site treatment scheme was

determined by the type of oily waste

accepted. The oily waste accepted for

treatment could typically be classified

as either: (1) stable oil-water emulsions,

such as coolants and lubricants; or (2)

unstable oil-water emulsions, such as

bilge water. Stable oil-water emulsions

are more difficult to treat because the

droplets of the dispersed phase are so

small that separation of the oil and

water phases by settling would occur

very slowly or not at all and required a

chemical process to break the emulsion

to adequately treat the waste. From the

data collected in the 1991 Waste

Treatment Industry Questionnaire,

chemical emulsion breaking processes

were the most widely-used treatment

technology at the 29 oil recovery

facilities, and, therefore, EPA believes

that these facilities primarily accept for

treatment stable oil-water emulsions.

The wastewater effluent resulting from

the emulsion-breaking process was

typically mixed with wastewater from

other CWT subcategories or stormwater

for further treatment prior to discharge.

Six facilities did not operate oil

recovery processes and used only

dissolved air flotation (DAF), a

technique used to separate oil and

suspended solids from water by

skimming, to treat the oily waste

receipts. Consequently, EPA concluded

that these facilities were receiving for

treatment less stable oil-water

emulsions that were amenable to gravity

separation or dissolved air flotation, and

did not require chemical emulsion

breaking treatment processes. EPA’s

sampling program focused on facilities

that treated the more concentrated and

more difficult to treat stable oil-water

emulsions as reported by waste manifest

forms and facility records. In August

1994, EPA conducted additional

sampling at an oily waste treatment

facility to further characterize the types

of oils accepted for treatment and the

technologies used. The data has not

been reviewed at the time of this

proposal, but the data is included in the

rulemaking record and will be evaluated

prior to promulgation. EPA solicits

comments with detailed information

and data on the concentrations of

pollutants and type of oily wastes

accepted for treatment by these facilities

so that EPA can develop a more

thorough understanding of the facility

operations. Any new information used

to establish the basis for the final

regulation will be made available for

public comment.

3. Organic Waste Treatment or Recovery

In 1989, 22 facilities accepted 147

million gallons of organic wastewater

for treatment. Most facilities with

treatment on-site used some form of

biological treatment to handle the

wastewater. Most of the facilities in the

Organics Subcategory have other

industrial operations as well, and the

CWT wastes are mixed with these

wastewater prior to treatment. The

relatively constant on-site wastewater

can support the operation of

conventional, continuous biological

treatment processes, which otherwise

could be upset by the variability of the

off-site waste receipts.

IV. Summary of EPA Activities and

Data Gathering Efforts

A. EPA’s Initial Efforts to Develop a

Guideline for the Waste Treatment

Industry

In 1986, the Agency initiated a study

of waste treatment facilities which

receive waste from off-site for treatment,

recovery, or disposal. The Agency

looked at various segments of the waste

management industry including

centralized waste treatment facilities,

landfills, incinerators, fuel blending

operations, and waste solidification/

stabilization processes (Preliminary

Data Summary for the Hazardous Waste

Treatment Industry, EPA 1989). EPA

conducted a separate study of the

Solvent Recycling Industry (Preliminary

Data Summary for the Solvent Recycling

Industry, EPA 1989).

Development of effluent limitations

guidelines and standards for this

industry began in 1989. EPA originally

studied centralized waste treatment

facilities, fuel blending operations and

waste solidification/stabilization

facilities. EPA has decided not to

propose nationally applicable effluent

limitations guidelines and standards for

fuel blending and stabilization

operations because, even though these

operations are integral to a facility’s

waste management practices,

wastewater generation and disposal

practices are not similar to the

operations of centralized waste

treatment operations. Most fuel

blending and stabilization processes are

‘‘dry,’’ i.e., they generate no wastewater.

Therefore, EPA decided to limit this

phase of the proposed rulemaking to the

development of regulations for the

Centralized Waste Treatment Industry.

B. Wastewater Sampling Program

In the sampling program for the

Hazardous Waste Treatment Industry

Study, twelve facilities were sampled to

characterize the wastes received and the

on-site treatment technology

performance at incinerators, landfills,

and hazardous waste treatment

facilities. Since all of the facilities

samples had more than one on-site

operation, the data collected can not be

used for this project because data were

collected for mixed waste streams and

the waste characteristics and treatment

technology performance for the

hazardous waste treatment facilities

cannot be differentiated.

Between 1989 and 1993, EPA visited

26 of the 85 centralized waste treatment

facilities. During each visit, EPA

gathered information on waste receipts,

waste and wastewater treatment, and

disposal practices. Based on these data

and the responses to the 1991 Waste

Treatment Industry Questionnaire, EPA

selected eight of the 26 facilities for the

wastewater sampling program in order

to collect data to characterize discharges

and the performance of their treatment

system. Using data supplied by the

facilities, EPA applied four criteria in

initially choosing which facilities to

sample. The criteria were as follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 18 / January, 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules 5473

whether the wastewater treatment

system (1) was effective in removing

pollutants; (2) treated wastes received

from a variety of sources, (3) employed

either novel treatment technologies or

applied traditional treatment

technologies in a novel manner, and (4)

applied waste management practices

that increased the effectiveness of the

treatment unit. An additional facility

was sampled to characterize the wastes

received and treatment processes of a

facility that treated only non-hazardous

waste. From the data collected at the

non-hazardous waste treatment facility,

waste stream characteristics were

similar to that of a facility that treats

hazardous waste. The other 17 facilities

visited were not sampled, because they

did not meet these criteria.

During each sampling episode, facility

influent and effluent streams were

sampled. Samples were also taken at

intermediate points to assess the

performance of individual treatment

units. This information is summarized

in the Technical Development

Document. In the first two sampling

episodes, streams were analyzed for

over 480 pollutants to identify the range

of pollutants possible at these facilities.

After the analytical data were reviewed

for the first two sampling episodes, the

number of pollutants analyzed were

reduced to approximately 180 that were

detected in the initial sampling efforts.

In 1994, an additional four facilities

were visited that are not included in the

85 Centralized Waste Treatment

facilities identified in 1989. These

facilities were not in business at the

time the questionnaire was mailed.

These facilities specialized in the

treatment of bilge waters and unstable

oil-water mixtures. From these site

visits, one facility was chosen to be

sampled based on the on-site treatment

and type of oily waste accepted for

treatment. As previously discussed, the

data has not been reviewed at the time

of this proposal, but the data is included

in the regulatory record and will be

evaluated prior to promulgation.

1. Metal-Bearing Waste Treatment and

Recovery Sampling

From the ten sampling episodes

completed from 1989 to 1994, only six

sampling episodes contained data

which were used to characterize this

subcategory’s waste streams and

treatment technology performance. All

of the facilities used some form of

precipitation for treatment of the metalbearing waste streams. Only one facility

was a direct discharger and was

therefore designed to effectively treat

the conventional pollutants important

for this subcategory, TSS and Oil and

Grease.

2. Oily Waste Treatment and Recovery

Sampling

From the sampling data collected

between 1989 and 1994, five sampling

episodes contained data which are

applicable to the treatment of oily

wastes. Data for the remaining five

sampling episodes could not be used

because the facilities did not accept oily

waste for treatment or recovery.

Identification of facilities to be sampled

was difficult because most facilities in

the oily waste treatment subcategory

had other centralized waste treatment

processes on-site. Three of the four

facilities had other on-site Centralized

Waste Treatment processes. The oily

wastewater after emulsion-breaking was

commingled with other subcategory

waste streams prior to further treatment

of the oily waste stream. In all three

cases most of the pollutants of concern

that were detected prior to commingling

were at a non-detect level after

commingling. Therefore, dilution

resulted from the mixing and no further

treatment may have occurred. Data from

the three facilities could be used only to

characterize the untreated waste streams

after emulsion-breaking. Data from one

of the facilities could not be evaluated

prior to this proposal but is included in

the public record. Therefore, data from

only one facility could be used to assess

treatment performance at the facilities

in this subcategory.

3. Organic Waste Treatment and

Recovery Sampling

Similar to the case with the Oily

Waste Subcategory, identification of

facilities for assessing waste streams and

treatment technology performance was

difficult, because most organic waste

treatment facilities had other industrial

operations on-site. The centralized

waste treatment waste streams were

small in comparison to the overall site

flow. Two facilities were identified and

sampled which treated a significant

portion of off-site generated organic

waste streams. Data from one of the

facilities could not be used when

developing technology options for

proposal because the treatment system

performance was not optimal at the time

of sampling, but data from this facility

was used to characterize the raw waste

streams.

Therefore, sampling data from one

facility was used to determine the

treatment technology basis for this

subcategory.

C. 1991 Waste Treatment Industry

Questionnaire (Census of the Industry)

Under the authority of Section 308 of

the Clean Water Act, EPA sent a

questionnaire in 1991 to 455 facilities

that the Agency had identified as

possible Centralized Waste Treatment

facilities. Since the Centralized Waste

Treatment Industry is not represented

by a SIC code, identification of facilities

was difficult. Directories of treatment

facilities, Agency information, and

telephone directories were used to

identify the 455 facilities to which the

questionnaires were mailed. The

responses from 416 facilities indicated

that 89 facilities treated, or recovered

material from, industrial waste from offsite in 1989 and the remaining 327

facilities did not treat, or recover

materials from, industrial waste from

off-site. Out of the 89 facilities that

received industrial waste from off-site

for treatment, four facilities received all

of the off-site waste via pipeline. For the

reasons discussed previously, this

proposed regulation does not cover

waste transferred from the original

source of generation by pipeline.

Therefore, based on this data base, 85

facilities are currently in the scope of

this regulation. The questionnaire

specifically requested information on:

(1) the type of wastes accepted for

treatment; (2) the industrial waste

management practices used; (3) the

quantity, treatment, and disposal of

wastewater generated during industrial

waste management; (4) available

analytical monitoring data on

wastewater treatment; (5) the degree of

co-treatment (treatment of centralized

waste treatment wastewater with

wastewater from other industrial

operations at the facility); and (6) the

extent of wastewater recycling and/or

reuse at the facility. Information was

also obtained through follow-up

telephone calls and written requests for

clarification of questionnaire responses.

Information obtained by the 1991 Waste

Treatment Industry Questionnaire is

summarized in the Technical

Development Document for today’s

proposed rule.

D. Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire

(Follow-Up Questionnaire to a Subset of

the Industry)

EPA also requested a subset of

centralized waste treatment facilities to

submit wastewater monitoring data in

the form of individual data points rather

than monthly aggregates. These

wastewater monitoring data included

information on pollutant concentrations

and waste receipt data for a six week

period. The waste receipt data were
5474 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 18 / January, 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules

collected to provide information about

the types of wastes treated and the

influent waste characteristics due to the

absence of influent wastewater

monitoring data. Data were requested

from 19 facilities.

V. Development of Effluent Limitations

Guidelines and Standards

A. Industry Subcategorization

1. Development of Current

Subcategorization Scheme

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 its preliminary decision

that subcategorization is required and in

developing the subcategories set forth in

this rulemaking, EPA took into account

all the information it collected and

developed with respect to the following

factors: waste type received; treatment

process; nature of wastewater generated;

facility size, age, and location; nonwater quality impact characteristics; and

treatment technologies and costs. In this

industry, a wide variety of wastes are

treated at a typical facility. Facilities

employ different waste treatment

technologies tailored to the specific type

of waste being treated in a given day.

EPA concluded a number of factors

did not provide an appropriate basis for

subcategorization. The Agency

concluded that the age of a facility

should not be a basis for

subcategorization because many older

facilities have unilaterally improved or

modified their treatment process over

time. Facility size is also not a useful

basis for subcategorization for the

Centralized Waste Treatment Industry

because wastes can be treated to the

same level regardless of the facility size.

Likewise, facility location is not a good

basis for subcategorization; no

consistent differences in wastewater

treatment performance or costs exist

because of geographical location.

Although non-water quality

characteristics (solid waste and air

emission effects) are of concern to EPA,

these characteristics did not constitute a

basis for subcategorization.

Environmental impacts from solid waste

disposal and from the transport of

potentially hazardous wastewater are a

result of individual facility practices

and do not reflect a trend that pertains

to different segments of the industry.

Treatment costs do not appear to be a

basis for subcategorization because costs

will vary and are dependent on the

following waste stream variables: flow

rates, wastewater quality, and pollutant

loadings. Therefore, treatment costs

were not used as a factor in determining

subcategories.

EPA identified only one factor with

primary significance for subcategorizing

the Centralized Waste Treatment

Industry: the type of waste received for

treatment or recovery. This factor

encompasses many of the other

subcategorization factors. The type of

treatment processes used, nature of

wastewater generated, solids generated,

and potential air emissions directly

correlate to the type of wastes received

for treatment or recovery. Therefore,

EPA has concluded that the type of

waste received for treatment or recovery

is the appropriate basis for

subcategorization of this industry. EPA

invites comment on whether the

specific subcategories proposed today

should be further subdivided into

smaller subcategories or whether an

alternative basis for categorization

should be adopted.

2. Proposed Subcategories

Based on the type of wastes accepted

for treatment or recovery, EPA has

determined that there are three

subcategories appropriate for the

Centralized Waste Treatment Industry.

• Subcategory A: Facilities which

treat, or treat and recover metal from,

metal-bearing waste received from offsite,

• Subcategory B: Facilities which

treat, or treat and recover oil from, oily

waste received from off-site, and

• Subcategory C: Facilities which

treat, or treat and recover organics from,

other organic waste received from offsite.

a. Discharges from metal-bearing

waste treatment and recovery

operations. Metal-bearing wastes

represent the largest volume of wastes

treated at the facilities which are the

subject of this guidelines development

effort. Included within this subcategory

are facilities which treat metal-bearing

wastes received from off-site as well as

facilities which recover metals from offsite metal-bearing waste streams.

Currently, EPA has identified 56

facilities as treating metal-bearing

wastes. A small percentage of these

facilities recover metals from the wastes

for sale in commerce or for return to

industrial processes. EPA proposes to

establish limitations and standards for

those conventional, priority, and nonconventional pollutants discharged in

this subcategory. Among the metalbearing wastes typically treated at the

facilities in this subcategory are, in

some cases, highly-concentrated,

complex cyanide waste streams. In the

case of CWTs that treat complex

cyanides, based on the results of its site

visits and data sampling effort, EPA has

initially concluded that without first

achieving a given level of cyanide

reduction prior to metals treatment, the

presence of cyanide will interfere with

subsequent metals treatment, thus

jeopardizing achievement of attainable

effluent metals removals.

b. Discharges from oily waste

treatment and recovery operations. EPA

identified 35 facilities that currently

discharge wastewater from treatment

and recovery operations for oily wastes.

EPA proposes to regulate conventional,

priority, and non-conventional

pollutants in wastewater discharged

from this subcategory.

c. Discharges from organic waste

treatment operations. EPA identified 22

facilities that currently discharge

wastewater from the treatment of

organic wastes that are received at the

facility from off-site for treatment. As

explained previously, wastewater

discharges from organic recovery

process operations, such as solvent

recovery, are not included within the

scope of this regulation. EPA proposes

to regulate the conventional, priority,

and non-conventional pollutants

wastewater discharges from this

subcategory.

B. Characterization of Wastewater

This section describes current water

use and wastewater characterization at

the 85 centralized waste treatment

facilities in the U.S. All waste treatment

processes covered by this regulation

typically involve the use of water;

however, specifics for any facility

depend on the facility’s waste receipts

and treatment processes.

1. Water and Sources of Wastewater

Approximately 2.0 billion gallons of

wastewater are generated annually at

centralized waste treatment facilities. It

is difficult to determine the quantity of

wastes attributable to different sources

because generally facilities mix the

wastewater prior to treatment. EPA has,

as a general matter, however, identified

the sources described below as

contributing to wastewater discharges at

centralized waste treatment operations

that would be subject to the proposed

effluent limitations and standards.

a. Waste receipts. Most of the waste

received from customers comes in a

liquid form and constitutes a large

portion of the wastewater treated at a

facility. Other wastewater sources

include wastewater from contact with

the waste at receipt or during

subsequent handling.

b. Solubilization water. A portion of

waste receipts are in a solid form. Water
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 18 / January, 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules 5475

2Process wastewater is defined in 40 CFR 122.2

as ‘‘any water which, during manufacturing or

processing, comes into direct contact with or results

from the production or use of any raw material, byproduct, intermediate product, finished product, or

waste product.’’

may be added to the waste to render it

treatable.

c. Waste oil emulsion-breaking

wastewater. The emulsion breaking

process separates difficult water-oil

emulsions and generates a ‘‘bottom’’ or

water phase. Approximately 99.2

million gallons of wastewater were

generated from emulsion-breaking

processes in 1989.

d. Tanker truck/drum/roll-off box

washes. Water is used to clean the

equipment used for transporting wastes.

The amount of wastewater generated

was difficult to assess because the wash

water is normally added to the wastes

or used as solubilization water.

e. Equipment washes. Water is used to

clean waste treatment equipment during

unit shut downs or in between batches

of waste.

f. Air pollution control scrubber blowdown. Water or acidic or basic solution

is used in air emission control scrubbers

to control fumes from treatment tanks,

storage tanks, and other treatment

equipment.

g. Laboratory-derived wastewater.

Water is used in on-site laboratories

which characterize incoming waste

streams and monitor on-site treatment

performance.

h. Contaminated stormwater. This is

stormwater which comes in direct

contact with the waste or waste

handling and treatment areas.

(Stormwater which does not come into

contact with the wastes would not be

subject to today’s proposed limitations

and standards.)

2. Wastewater Discharge

Approximately 3 billion gallons of

wastewater were discharged at

Centralized Waste Treatment Industry

operations in 1989. In general, the

primary source of wastewater discharges

from these facilities are: waste receipts,

solubilization wastewater, tanker truck/

drums/roll-off box washes, equipment

washes, air pollution control scrubber

blow-down, laboratory-derived

wastewater, and contaminated

stormwater. Centralized waste treatment

facilities do not generate a ‘‘process

wastewater’’ in the traditional sense of

this term.2 As a service industry, there

is no manufacturing or commercial

‘‘process’’ which is generating water.

Because there are no ‘‘manufacturing

processes’’ or ‘‘products’’ for this

industry, ‘‘process’’ wastewater for this

industry will include any wastes

received for treatment (‘‘waste receipt’’)

as well as water which comes into

contact with the waste received or waste

processing area. The wastewater

resulting from contact with the wastes

or waste processing area is referred to by

the short-hand term ‘‘centralized waste

treatment wastewater.’’

The 85 facilities identified by the

1991 Waste Treatment Industry

Questionnaire can also be characterized

by their type of wastewater discharge.

Sixteen facilities discharge wastewater

directly into a receiving stream or body

of water. Another 56 facilities discharge

wastewater indirectly, i.e., discharge to

a publicly-owned treatment works

(POTW).

Thirteen facilities do not dispose of

wastewater directly to surface waters or

indirectly to POTWs. At these facilities,

(1) wastewater is disposed of by

alternate means such as on-site or offsite deep well injection or incineration

(four facilities); (2) wastewater is sent

off-site for treatment (six facilities); (3)

the process does not generate

wastewater (one facility); and (4)

wastewater is evaporated (two

facilities). One facility discharges

wastewater directly as well as on-site

deep well injection.

This regulation applies to direct and

indirect discharges only.

3. Wastewater Characterization

The Agency’s sampling program for

this industry detected over 100

pollutants (conventional, priority, and

non-conventional) in waste streams at

treatable levels. The quantity of

pollutants currently being discharged is

difficult to assess due to the lack of

monitoring data available from facilities

for the list of pollutants identified from

the Agency’s sampling program prior to

commingling of the wastewater with

non-contaminated stormwater and other

industrial wastewater before discharge.

Methodologies were developed to

estimate current performance for each

subcategory by assessing performance of

on-site treatment technologies,

wastewater permit information, and

monitoring data supplied in the 1991

Waste Treatment Industry

Questionnaire and the Detailed

Monitoring Questionnaire. For the

Metals Subcategory, a ‘‘non-process

wastewater’’ factor was used to quantify

the amount of non-contaminated

stormwater and other industrial process

water in a facility’s discharge. A

facility’s current discharge of treated

Centralized Waste Treatment

wastewater was calculated using the

monitoring data supplied multiplied by

the ‘‘non-process wastewater’’ factor.

For the Oils Subcategory, present

treatment schemes were studied. Most

facilities mixed oily wastewater with

other CWT or industrial wastewater or

stormwater. This generally resulted in

inadequate treatment of oily waste

because the pollutants detected in oily

wastewater were typically not detected

in the untreated mixed streams due to

dilution. Therefore, current performance

was estimated at the point prior to

mixing different types of wastewater.

For the Organics Subcategory, current

performance could not be estimated

from the discharge monitoring data

submitted by the facilities due to the

presence of other industrial wastewater

in the discharge. Current performance

was estimated by projecting the removal

of pollutants resulting from the

technologies used on-site. The Agency

is soliciting comments on the

approaches used to calculate the current

performance as well as requesting any

monitoring data available before the

addition of non-contaminated

stormwater or other industrial

wastewater.

C. Pollutants Not Regulated

EPA is not proposing effluent

limitations or standards for all

conventional, priority, and nonconventional pollutants in this

proposed regulation. Among the reasons

EPA may have decided not to propose

effluent limitations for a pollutant are

the following:

(a) The pollutant is deemed not

present in Centralized Waste Treatment

Industry wastewater, because it was not

detected in the influent during the

Agency’s sampling/data gathering

efforts with the use of analytical

methods promulgated pursuant to

Section 304(h) of the Clean Water Act or

with other state-of-the-art methods.

(b) The pollutant is present only in

trace amounts and is neither causing nor

likely to cause toxic effects.

(c) The pollutant was detected in the

effluent from only one or a small

number of samples and the pollutant’s

presence could not be confirmed.

(d) The pollutant was effectively

controlled by the technologies used as a

basis for limitations on other pollutants,

including those limitations proposed

today, and therefore regulated by the

limitations for the indicator pollutants

or (e) Insufficient data are available to

establish effluent limitations.

D. Available Technologies

The treatment technologies presently

employed by the industry represent the

range of wastewater treatment systems

observed at categorical industrial

operations. All 85 centralized waste

treatment facilities operate wastewater
5476 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 18 / January, 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules

treatment systems. The technologies

used include physical-chemical

treatment, biological treatment, and

advanced wastewater treatment. Based

on information obtained from the 1991

Waste Treatment Industry

Questionnaire and site visits, EPA has

concluded that a significant number of

these treatment systems need to be

upgraded to improve effectiveness and

to remove additional pollutants.

Physical-chemical treatment

technologies in use are:

• Precipitation/Filtration, which

converts soluble metal salts to insoluble

metal oxides which are then removed by

filtration;

• Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF),

which separates solid or liquid particles

from a liquid phase by introducing air

bubbles into the liquid phase. The

bubbles attach to the particles and rise

to the top of the mixture;

• Activated Carbon, which removes

pollutants from wastewater by

adsorbing them onto carbon particles;

• Multi-media/Sand Filtration, which

removes solids from wastewater by

passing it through a porous medium.

Biological treatment technologies in use

are:

• Sequential Batch Reactor, which

uses microorganisms to degrade organic

material in a batch process;

• Activated Sludge, which uses

microorganisms suspended in wellaerated wastewater to degrade organic

material;

• PACT System, a patented process

in which powder activated carbon is

added to an activated sludge system;

and

• Coagulation/Flocculation, which is

used to assist clarification of biological

treatment effluent.

Advanced wastewater treatment

technologies in use are:

• Ultrafiltration, which is used to

remove organic pollutants from

wastewater according to the organic

molecule size; and

• Reverse osmosis, which relies on

differences in dissolved solids

concentrations to remove inorganic

pollutants from wastewater.

The typical treatment sequence for a

facility depends upon the type of waste

accepted for treatment. Most facilities

treating metal-bearing wastes use

precipitation/filtration to remove

metals. Those that treat oily wastes

relied on dissolved air flotation largely

to remove oil and grease, but this

technology is typically ineffective in

removing the metal pollutants that are

in many cases also present in these

wastewater. Aerobic batch processes

and types of conventional activated

sludge systems were the most widelyfound treatment technology for the

organic-bearing wastes.

E. Rationale for Selection of Proposed

Regulations

To determine the technology basis

and performance level for the proposed

regulations, EPA developed a database

consisting of daily effluent data

collected from the Detailed Monitoring

Questionnaire and the EPA Wastewater

Sampling Program. This database is

used to support the BPT, BCT, BAT,

NSPS, PSES, and PSNS effluent

limitations and standards proposed

today.

1. BPT

a. Introduction. EPA today is

proposing BPT effluent limitations for

the three discharge subcategories for the

Centralized Waste Treatment Industry.

The BPT effluent limitations proposed

today would control identified

conventional, priority, and nonconventional pollutants when

discharged from CWT facilities.

b. Rationale for BPT limitations by

subcategory. As previously noted, the

Centralized Waste Treatment Industry

receives for treatment large quantities of

concentrated hazardous and nonhazardous industrial waste which

results in discharges of a significant

quantity of pollutants. The EPA

estimates that 176.8 million pounds per

year of pollutants are currently being

discharged directly or indirectly.

As previously discussed, Section

304(b)(1)(A) 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. A

Legislative History of the Federal Water

Pollution Control Act Amendments of

1972, p. 1468.

In addition, CWA Section 304(b)(1)(B)

requires a cost effectiveness assessment

for BPT limitations. 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.’’ A

Legislative History of the Water

Pollution Control Act Amendments of

1972, 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 concluded that the wastewater

treatment performance of the facilities it

surveyed was, with very limited

exceptions, uniformly poor. Under these

circumstances, for each subcategory,

EPA has preliminarily concluded that

only one treatment system meets the

statutory test for best practicable,

currently available technology. EPA has

determined that the performance of

facilities which mix different types of

highly concentrated CWT wastes with

non-CWT waste streams or with

stormwater are not providing BPT

treatment. The mass of pollutants being

discharged is unacceptably high, given

the demonstrated removal capacity of

treatment systems that the Agency

reviewed. Thus, comparison of EPA

sampling data and CWT industrysupplied monitoring information

establishes that, in the case of metalbearing waste streams, virtually all the

facilities are discharging large total

quantities of heavy metals. As measured

by total suspended solids (TSS) levels

following treatment, TSS concentrations

are substantially in excess of levels

observed at facilities in other industry

categories employing the same

treatment technology—10 to 20 times

greater than observed for other point

source categories.

In the case of oil discharges, most

facilities are achieving low removal of

oils and grease relative to the

performance required for other point

source categories. Further, facilities

treating organic wastes, while

successfully removing organic
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 18 / January, 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules 5477

pollutants through biological treatment,

fail to remove metals associated with

these organic wastes.

The poor pollutant removal

performance observed generally for

discharging CWT facilities is not

unexpected. As pointed out previously,

these facilities are treating highly

concentrated wastes that, in many cases,

are process residuals and sludges from

other point source categories. EPA’s

review of permit limitations for the

direct dischargers show that, in most

cases, the dischargers are subject to

‘‘best professional judgment’’

concentration limitations which were

developed from guidelines for facilities

treating and discharging much more

dilute waste streams. EPA has

concluded that treatment performance

in the industry is widely inadequate and

that the mass of pollutants being

discharged is unacceptably high, given

the demonstrated removal capability of

treatment operations that the Agency

reviewed.

(i) Subcategory A—Metals

Subcategory. The Agency is today

proposing BPT limitations for the

Metals Subcategory for 22 pollutants.

EPA considered three regulatory options

to reduce the discharge of pollutants by

centralized waste treatment facilities.

For a more detailed discussion of the

basis for the limitations and

technologies selected see the Technical

Development Document.

The three currently available

treatment systems for which the EPA

assessed performance for the Metals

Subcategory BPT are:

• Option 1—Chemical Precipitation,

Liquid-Solid Separation, and Sludge

Dewatering. Under Option 1, BPT

limitations would be based upon

chemical precipitation with a lime/

caustic solution followed by some form

of separation and sludge dewatering to

control the discharge of pollutants in

wastewater. The data reviewed for this

option showed that settling/clarification

followed by pressure filtration of sludge

yields removals equivalent to pressure

filtration. In some cases, BPT limitations

would require the current treatment

technologies in-place to be improved by

use of increased quantities of treatment

chemicals and additional monitoring of

batch processes. For metals streams

which contain concentrated cyanide

complexes, BPT limitations under

Option 1 are based on alkaline

chlorination at specific operating

conditions prior to metals treatment. As

previously noted, without treatment of

the cyanide streams prior to metals

treatment, metals removal are

significantly reduced.

• Option 2—Selective Metals

Precipitation, Pressure Filtration,

Secondary Precipitation, and SolidLiquid Separation. The second option

evaluated for BPT for centralized waste

treatment facilities would be based on

the use of numerous treatment tanks

and personnel to handle incoming waste

streams, and use of greater quantities of

caustic in the treatment chemical

mixture. (Caustic sludge is easier to

recycle.) Option 2 is based on additional

tanks and personnel to segregate

incoming waste streams and to monitor

the batch treatment processes to

maximize the precipitation of specific

metals in order to generate a metal-rich

filter cake. The metal-rich filter cake

could possibly be sold to metal smelters

to incorporate into metal products. Like

Option 1, for metals streams which

contain concentrated cyanide

complexes, under Option 2, BPT

limitations are also based on alkaline

chlorination at specific operating

conditions prior to metals treatment.

• Option 3—Selective Metals

Precipitation, Pressure Filtration,

Secondary Precipitation, Solid-Liquid

Separation, and Tertiary Precipitation.

The technology basis for Option 3 is the

same as Option 2 except an additional

precipitation step at the end of

treatment is added. For metals streams

which contain concentrated cyanide

complexes, like Options 1 and 2, for

Option 3, alkaline chlorination at

specific operating conditions would also

be the basis for BPT limitations.

The Agency is proposing to adopt

BPT effluent limitations based on

Option 3 for the Metals Subcategory.

These limitations were developed based

on an engineering evaluation of the

average of the best demonstrated

methods to control the discharges of the

regulated pollutants in this Subcategory.

EPA’s decision to base BPT

limitations on Option 3 treatment

reflects primarily an evaluation of three

factors: the degree of effluent reduction

attainable, the total cost of the proposed

treatment technologies in relation to the

effluent reductions achieved, and

potential non-water quality benefits. In

assessing BPT, EPA considered the age,

size, process, other engineering factors,

and non-water quality impacts pertinent

to the facilities treating wastes in this

subcategory. 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 CWT facility will directly

significantly affect either the character

or treatability of the CWT wastes or the

cost of treatment. Further, the treatment

process and engineering aspects of the

technologies considered have a

relatively insignificant effect because in

most cases they represent fine tuning or

add-ons to treatment technology already

in use. These factors consequently did

not weigh heavily in the development of

these guidelines. For a service industry

whose service is wastewater treatment,

the most pertinent factors for

establishing the limitations are costs of

treatment, the level of effluent

reductions obtainable, and non-water

quality effects.

Generally, for purposes of defining

BPT effluent limitations, EPA looks at

the performance of the best operated

treatment system and calculates

limitations from some level of average

performance of these ‘‘best’’ facilities.

For example, in the BPT limitations for

the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and

Synthetic Fibers Point Source Category,

EPA identified ‘‘best’’ facilities on a

BOD performance criteria of achieving a

95 percent BOD removal or a BOD

effluent level of 40 mg/l. 52 FR 42535

(November 5, 1987). For this industry,

as previously explained, EPA concluded

that treatment performance is, in

virtually all cases, poor. Without

separation of metal-bearing streams for

selective precipitation, metal removal

levels are uniformly inadequate across

the industry. Consequently, BPT

performance levels are based on data

from the one well-operated system using

selective metals precipitation that was

sampled by EPA.

The demonstrated effluent reductions

attainable through the Option 3 control

technology represent the BPT

performance attainable through the

application of demonstrated treatment

measures currently in operation in this

industry. The Agency is proposing to

adopt BPT limitations based on the

removal performance of the Option 3

treatment system for the following

reasons. First, these removals are

demonstrated by a facility in this

subcategory and can readily be applied

to all facilities in the subcategory. The

adoption of this level of control would

represent a significant reduction in

pollutants discharged into the

environment.

Second, the Agency assessed the total

cost of water pollution controls likely to

be incurred for Option 3 in relation to

the effluent reduction benefits and

determined these costs were

economically reasonable.

Third, adoption of these BPT limits

could promote the non-water quality

objectives of the CWA. Use of the

Option 3 treatment regime—which

generates a metal-rich filter cake that

may be recovered and smelted—could

reduce the quantity of waste which are

being disposed of in landfills.
5478 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 18 / January, 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules

The Agency proposes to reject Option

1 because, as discussed above, EPA

concluded that mixing disparate metalbearing waste streams is not the best

practicable treatment technology

currently in operation for this

subcategory of the industry.

Consequently, effluent levels associated

with this treatment option would not

represent BPT performance levels.

Option 2 was rejected, although similar

to Option 3, because the greater

removals obtained through addition of

tertiary precipitation at Option 3 were

obtained at a relatively insignificant

increase in costs over Option 2.

See Section V.F. for further

information regarding Monitoring to

Demonstrate Compliance with the

Regulation.

(ii). Subcategory B—Oils Subcategory.

The Agency is today proposing BPT

limitations for the Oils Subcategory for

33 pollutants. EPA identified four

regulatory options for consideration in

establishing BPT effluent reduction

levels for this subcategory of the

Centralized Waste Treatment Industry.

For a more detailed discussion of the

basis for the limitations and standards

selected see the Technical Development

Document.

The four technology options

considered for the Oils Subcategory BPT

are:

• Option 1—Emulsion-Breaking.

Under Option 1, BPT limitations would

be based on present performance of

emulsion-breaking processes using acid

and heat to separate oil-water

emulsions. At present, most facilities

have this technology in-place unless

less stable oil-water mixtures are

accepted for treatment. Stable oil-water

emulsions require some emulsionbreaking treatment because gravity or

flotation alone is inadequate to break

down the oil/water stream.

• Option 2—Ultrafiltration. Under

Option 2, BPT limitations would be

based on the use of ultrafiltration for

treatment of less concentrated, stable

oily waste receipts or for the additional

treatment of wastewater from the

emulsion-breaking process.

• Option 3—Ultrafiltration, Carbon

Adsorption, and Reverse Osmosis. The

Option 3 BPT effluent limitations are

based on the use of carbon adsorption

and reverse osmosis in addition to the

Option 2 technology. The reverse

osmosis unit removes metal compounds

found at significant levels for this

subcategory. Inclusion of a carbon

adsorption unit is necessary in order to

protect the reverse osmosis unit by

filtering out large particles which may

damage the reverse osmosis unit or

decrease membrane performance.

• Option 4—Ultrafiltration, Carbon

Adsorption, Reverse Osmosis, and

Carbon Adsorption. Option 4 is similar

to Option 3 except for the additional

carbon adsorption unit for final effluent

polishing.

The Agency is proposing BPT effluent

limitations for the Oily Waste

Subcategory based on Option 3 as well

as Option 2 treatment systems. EPA has

preliminarily concluded that both

options represent best practicable

control technologies. The technologies

are in-use in the industry and the data

collected by the Agency show that the

limitations are being achieved. In

assessing BPT, EPA considered age,

size, process, other engineering factors,

and non-water quality impacts pertinent

to the facilities treating wastes in this

subcategory. No basis could be found for

identifying different BPT limitations

based on age, size, process or other

engineering factors for the reasons

previously discussed. For a service

industry whose service is wastewater

treatment, the pertinent factors here for

establishing the limitations are costs of

treatment, the level of effluent

reductions obtainable, and non-water

quality effects.

Among the options considered by the

Agency, both Options 2 and 3 would

provide for significant reductions in

regulated pollutants discharged into the

environment over current practice in the

industry represented by Option 1. EPA

is nonetheless, concerned about the cost

of Option 3 because it is substantially

more expensive than Option 2.

However, EPA’s economic assessment

indicates, that Options 2 and 3 are

economically reasonable.

As noted, the Agency is proposing

Option 2 because it is a currently

available and cost-effective treatment

option. However, the BPT pollutant

removal performance required for a

number of specific pollutants

(particularly oil and grease and metals)

is less stringent than current BPT

effluent limitations guidelines

promulgated for other industries. EPA is

concerned about the potential for

encouraging off-site shipment of oily

waste now being treated on-site if the

limitations for this subcategory are

significantly different from those other

BPT effluent limitations currently in

effect.

EPA is proposing both options for

comment because the Agency is

concerned that, while both Options 2

and 3 are proven treatment technologies

currently available to this industry, the

additional effluent reductions

associated with Option 3 are very

expensive. EPA has preliminarily

concluded that, even though the cost of

Option 3 is significantly greater than

Option 2 (because of installation,

operation, and maintenance of reverse

osmosis equipment), the costs are not

unreasonable, given other factors. EPA

is asking for comment on whether the

effluent reduction benefits of Option 3

outweigh the high cost of the additional

removal obtained through reverse

osmosis. The Agency is particularly

interested in comments on the ancillary

effects of the less stringent Option 2

limitations.

As previously discussed, the Agency

will be re-estimating the current

performance at facilities that treat oily

waste based on comments received and

information collected in the August

1994 sampling episode and recalculating the cost and impacts of

Options 2 and 3. The data from the

August 1994 sampling episode is

included in the record for this proposal,

but was not incorporated into

calculations because it was not received

with sufficient time to review and

incorporate.

The Agency proposes to reject Option

1, because the technology does not

provide for adequate control of the

regulated pollutants. The Agency also

proposes to reject Option 4 because

Option 4 treatment technology results in

a lower level of pollutant reductions in

comparison to Option 3. Theoretically,

Option 4 should provide for the

maximum reduction of pollutants

discharged due to the addition of carbon

adsorption units, but specific pollutant

concentrations increase across the

carbon adsorption unit according to the

analytical data collected.

Even though, as previously explained,

BPT limitations are generally defined by

the average effluent reduction

performance of the best existing

treatment systems, here, as was the case

with the BPT metal-bearing wastes

limitations, the options being proposed

as the basis for BPT effluent limitations

are based upon the treatment

performance at a single facility. EPA

concluded that existing performance at

the other facilities is uniformly

inadequate because many facilities that

will be subject to the limitations for the

Oily Waste Subcategory now commingle

the oily wastewater with other wastes

prior to treatment. The Agency has

determined that the practice of mixing

waste streams before treatment results

in inadequate removal of the regulated

pollutants of concern for the Oils

Subcategory. Oily wastewater contains

significant levels of organic and metals

compounds. If the oily wastewater is

mixed with other CWT wastewater,

these organic and metals compounds are

often found at non-detectable levels
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 18 / January, 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules 5479

prior to treatment because the oily

wastewater is effectively diluted by the

other wastewater to the point that the

compounds are no longer detectible.

The treatment system on which the

Options 2 through 4 effluent limitations

are based was designed specifically for

the treatment of segregated oily

wastewater.

See Section V.F. for further

information regarding Monitoring to

Demonstrate Compliance with the

Regulation.

(iii) Subcategory C—Organics

Subcategory. The Agency is today

proposing BPT limitations for the

Organics Subcategory for 39 pollutants.

EPA identified two regulatory options

for consideration in establishing BPT

effluent reduction levels for this

subcategory of the Centralized Waste

Treatment Industry. For a more detailed

discussion of the basis for the

limitations and technologies selected

see the Technical Development

Document.

The two technology options

considered for the Organics Subcategory

BPT are:

• Option 1—Equalization, AirStripping, Biological Treatment, and

Multi-media Filtration. BPT Option 1

effluent limitations are based on the

following treatment system:

equalization, two air-strippers in series

equipped with a carbon adsorption unit

for control of air emissions, biological

treatment in the form of a sequential

batch reactor (which is operated on a

batch basis,) and finally multi-media

filtration units for control of solids.

• Option 2—Equalization, AirStripping, Biological Treatment, MultiFiltration, and Carbon Adsorption.

Option 2 is the same as Option 1 except

for the addition of carbon adsorption

units.

The Agency is proposing to adopt

BPT effluent limitations based on the

Option 1 technology for the Organics

Subcategory. The demonstrated effluent

reductions attainable through Option 1

control technology represent the best

practicable performance attainable

through the application of currently

available treatment measures. EPA’s

decision to propose effluent limitations

defined by the removal performance of

the Option 1 treatment systems is based

primarily on consideration of several

factors: the effluent reductions

attainable, the economic achievability of

the option and non-water quality

environmental benefits. Once again, the

age and size of the facilities, processes

and other engineering factors were not

considered pertinent to establishment of

BPT limitations for this subcategory.

The Agency is proposing to adopt

BPT limitations based on the removal

performance of the Option 1 treatment

system for the following reasons. First,

the cost of achieving the pollutant

discharge levels associated with the

Option 1 treatment system is reasonable.

The annualized costs for treatment are

low.

According to the data collected, the

Option 1 treatment system provides a

greater effluent pollutant reduction level

than the more expensive Option 2.

Theoretically, Option 2 should provide

for the maximum reduction of

pollutants discharged due to the

addition of carbon adsorption units, but

specific pollutants of concern increased

across the carbon adsorption unit

according to the analytical data

collected. Due to the poor performance

of carbon adsorption in EPA’s database

for this industry, Option 2 is rejected.

The poor performance may be a result

of pH fluctuations in the carbon

adsorption unit resulting in the

solubilization of metals. Similar trends

have been found for all of the data

collected on carbon adsorption units in

this industry. The EPA is soliciting

comments, additional information, and

performance data on carbon adsorption

units used within the industry.

The Agency used biological treatment

performance data from the OCPSF

regulation to establish direct discharge

limitations for BOD5 and TSS, because

the facility from which Option 1 and 2

limitations were derived is an indirect

discharger and the treatment system is

not operated to optimize removal of

conventional pollutants. EPA has

concluded that the transfer of this data

is appropriate given the absence of

adequate treatment technology for these

pollutants at the only otherwise welloperated BPT CWT facility. Given the

treatment of similar wastes at both

OCPSF and centralized waste treatment

facilities, use of the data is warranted.

Moreover, EPA has every reason to

believe that the same treatment systems

will perform similarly when treating the

wastes in this subcategory.

Once again, the selected BPT option

is based on the performance of a single

facility. Many facilities that are treating

wastes that will be subject to effluent

limitations for the Organic-Bearing

Waste Subcategory also operate other

industrial processes that generate much

larger amounts of wastewater than the

quantity of off-site generated organic

waste receipts. The off-site generated

organic waste receipts are directly

mixed with the wastewater from the

other industrial processes for treatment.

Therefore, identifying facilities to

sample for limitations development was

difficult because the waste receipts and

treatment unit effectiveness could not

be properly characterized for off-site

generated waste. The treatment system

for which Options 1 and 2 was based

upon was one of the few facilities

identified which treated organic waste

receipts separately from other on-site

industrial wastewater.

See Section V.F. for further

information regarding Monitoring to

Demonstrate Compliance with the

Regulation.

2. BCT

In today’s rule, EPA is proposing

effluent limitations guidelines and

standards equivalent to the BPT

guidelines for the conventional

pollutants covered under BPT. In

developing BCT limits, EPA considered

whether there are technologies that

achieve greater removals of

conventional pollutants than proposed

for BPT, and whether those technologies

are cost-reasonable according to the BCT

Cost Test. In all three subcategories,

EPA identified no technologies that can

achieve greater removals of

conventional pollutants than proposed

for BPT that are also cost-reasonable

under the BCT Cost Test, and

accordingly EPA proposes BCT effluent

limitations equal to the proposed BPT

effluent limitations guidelines and

standards.

EPA may also decide to adopt BPT

effluent limitations based on treatment

technologies less stringent than the

Regulatory Options that are the basis for

today’s proposal. Consequently, EPA

has also evaluated the costreasonableness of BCT limits if EPA

were to adopt BPT limitations based on

less stringent technologies. For all three

categories, this assessment does not

support the adoption of BCT limitations

for conventional pollutants that are

more stringent than BPT limitations

based on a reduced level of treatment.

3. BAT

EPA today is proposing BAT effluent

limitations for all subcategories of the

Centralized Waste Treatment Industry

based on the same technologies selected

for BPT for each subcategory. The BAT

effluent limitations proposed today

would control identified priority and

non-conventional pollutants discharged

from facilities.

EPA has not identified any more

stringent treatment technology option

which it considered to represent BAT

level of control applicable to facilities in

this industry for the metals, oils, and

organics subcategories, EPA identified

an add-on treatment technology—

carbon adsorption—that should have
5480 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 18 / January, 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules

further increased removals of pollutants

of concern. However, as explained

above, EPA’s data show increases rather

than decreases in concentrations of

specific pollutants of concern.

In the case for the Oily Waste

Subcategory, EPA is co-proposing two

options for BAT: Options 2 and 3. EPA

seeks comment on whether it should

adopt BAT limitations based on Oils

Option 3 or Oils Option 4 if the Agency

decides to adopt Option 3 for BPT

limitations for this Subcategory. Both

the Options 3 and 4 treatment systems

achieve increasingly greater levels of

pollutant removal than Option 2. Both

represent demonstrated technologies

currently in use in the industry.

However, the total costs for the industry

over Option 2 are high. Given the

statutory injunction for the Agency to

develop BAT effluent limitations that

reflect the best control measure

economically achievable, EPA believes

BAT limitations which reflect these

more stringent effluent pollutant

reduction levels may be appropriate.

This is particularly true if the additional

treatment results in significant

reduction in pollutants discharged into

the environment and thus reasonable

further progress towards the goal of the

Act—elimination of the discharge of

pollutants to navigable waters. The

Agency welcomes comment on this

issue.

EPA’s data show that the costs of both

Option 3 and Option 4 ($8.4 million and

$10.0 million, respectively) are

significantly greater than Option 2

($0.87 million). Nevertheless, the cost of

per-pound removals, $0.38 and $0.44,

respectively, are reasonable. In addition,

both Options 3 and 4 are economically

achievable because there would be not

change in the industry profitability

status as a result of the adoption of

either Option. As stated earlier, the

impact of limitations based on either

Option 1, 2, 3, or 4 is a decrease in

profitability for one direct discharger

with increased profitability for three

others. However, adoption of BAT limits

based on Oil Option 3 would provide

approximately 150,000 pounds of

additional removals of pollutants over

Option 2 while BAT limitations based

on costlier Option 4 would remove

fewer pollutants. In the circumstances,

EPA has preliminarily determined that

is should not adopt Option 4 as the

basis for BAT limits if it decides to base

BPT on Option 2.

As with BPT limitations, EPA is

proposing to require monitoring for

compliance with the limitations at a

point after treatment but prior to

combining the CWT process wastewater

with other wastewater. Many facilities

operate other processes and the addition

of this wastewater to CWT wastewater

may result in dilution due to the

difference in concentration of waste

streams. Also, if a facility discharges

non-contaminated stormwater, the

proposed regulation is requiring

monitoring of the CWT discharge prior

to the addition of non-contaminated

stormwater.

As with BPT, monitoring for

compliance with the regulation for the

Total Cyanide limitation at facilities in

the Metals Subcategory which treat

concentrated cyanide-bearing metal

waste is after cyanide pretreatment and

prior to metal treatment. This ensures

that cyanide will not interfere with

metals treatment.

See Section V.F. for further

information regarding Monitoring to

Demonstrate Compliance with the

Regulation.

4. New Source Performance Standards

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 treatment

systems could meet tighter controls than

existing sources because of the

opportunity to incorporate the most

efficient processes and treatment

systems into plant design. Therefore,

Congress directed EPA to consider the

best demonstrated process changes, inplant controls, operating methods and

end-of-pipe treatment technologies that

reduce pollution to the maximum extent

feasible.

EPA is proposing NSPS that would

control the same conventional, priority,

and non-conventional pollutants

proposed for control by the BPT effluent

limitations. The technologies used to

control pollutants at existing facilities

are fully applicable to new facilities.

Furthermore, EPA has not identified any

technologies or combinations of

technologies that are demonstrated for

new sources that are different from

those used to establish BPT/BCT/BAT

for existing sources. Therefore, EPA is

establishing NSPS subcategories similar

to the subcategories for existing

facilities and proposing NSPS

limitations that are identical to those

proposed for BPT/BCT/BAT. Again, the

Agency is requesting comments to

provide information and data on other

treatment systems that may be pertinent

to the development of standards for this

industry.

EPA is specifically considering

whether it should adopt NSPS for the

Oil Subcategory which reflect either

Option 3 or Option 4 treatment

technologies. EPA does not believe there

would be any barriers to entry in this

industry associated with adoption of

Option 3 or 4. One currently operating

facility has demonstrated the

performance of these control

technologies—EPA is assessing whether

or not to adopt NSPS for the Oil

Subcategory that reflects this more

stringent level of control. EPA is

soliciting comments on this issue.

See Section V.F. for further

information regarding Monitoring to

Demonstrate Compliance with the

Regulation.

5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing

Sources

Indirect dischargers in the Centralized

Waste Treatment Industry, like the

direct dischargers, accept for treatment

wastes containing many priority and

non-conventional pollutants. As in the

case of direct dischargers, indirect

dischargers may be expected to

discharge many of these pollutants to

POTWs at significant mass and

concentration levels. EPA estimates that

indirect dischargers annually discharge

approximately 85 million pounds of

pollutants.

Section 307(b) requires EPA to

promulgate pretreatment standards to

prevent pass-through of pollutants from

POTWs to waters of the U.S. or to

prevent pollutants from interfering with

the operation of POTWs. EPA is

establishing PSES for this industry to

prevent pass-through of the same

pollutants controlled by BAT from

POTWs to waters of the U.S.

a. Pass-through analysis. Before

proposing pretreatment standards, the

Agency examines whether the

pollutants discharged by the industry

pass through a POTW or interfere with

the POTW operation or sludge disposal

practices. 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 well-operated

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

standards for indirect dischargers be

equivalent to standards for direct

dischargers and (2) that the treatment
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 18 / January, 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules 5481

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 plant with the POTW removal. EPA

takes this approach because a

comparison of mass or concentration of

pollutants in a POTW effluent with

pollutants in a BAT facility’s effluent

would not take into account the mass of

pollutants discharged to the POTW from

non-industrial sources nor the dilution

of the pollutants in the POTW effluent

to lower concentrations from the

addition of large amounts of nonindustrial wastewater. The volatile

override test is the last step in

determining is a pollutant will ‘‘passthrough.’’ If a pollutant has a Henry’s

Law Constant greater than 2.4×10¥5

atm-m3/mole, or 10¥3mg/m3/mg/m3, it

is determined to ‘‘pass-through’’ and

will be regulated by PSES regardless of

the percent removal data.

For past effluent guidelines, a study of

50 well-operated POTWs was used for

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 influent levels less

than 10 times the minimum level and

the corresponding effluent values,

except in the cases where none of the

influent concentrations exceeded 10

times the minimum level. In the latter

case, where no influent data exceeded

10 times the minimum level, the data

were edited to eliminate influent values

less than 20 μg/l and the corresponding

effluent values. 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 also averaged 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. Based on this analysis, 78 of the

87 pollutants regulated under

Regulatory Option 1 (the combinations

of Metals Option 3, Oils Option 2, and

Organics Option 1) and 51 of the 87

pollutants regulated under Regulatory

Option 2 (the combinations of Metals

Option 3, Oils Option 3, and Organics

Option 1) for BAT passed through

POTWs and are proposed for regulation

for PSES. The pollutants determined not

to ‘‘pass-through’’ are listed in Table

V.E–1.

TABLE V.E–1.—POLLUTANTS THAT DO

NOT PASS-THROUGH POTWS FOR

THE CENTRALIZED WASTE TREATMENT INDUSTRY

Subcategory Pollutant

Metals subcategory ... Barium.

Oils Subcategory—

Option 2.

Nickel, Zinc,

Tripropyleneglycol

Methyl Ether.

Organics Subcategory.Phenol, 2-Propanone,

Lead, Pyridine,

Zinc.

b. Options considered. The Agency

today is proposing to establish

pretreatment standards for existing

sources (PSES) based on the same

technologies as proposed for BPT and

BAT for 78 of the 87 priority and nonconventional pollutants regulated under

BAT for Regulatory Option 1 (the

combinations of Metals Option 3, Oils

Option 2, and Organics Option 1) and

81 of the 87 priority pollutants regulated

under BAT for Regulatory Option 2 (the

combinations of Metals Option 3, Oils

Option 3, and Organics Option 1) .

These standards would apply to existing

facilities in all subcategories of the

Centralized Waste Treatment Industry

that discharge wastewater to publiclyowned treatment works (POTWs). These

limitations were developed based on the

same technologies as proposed today for

BPT/BAT, as applicable to each of the

affected subcategories. PSES set at these

points would prevent pass-through of

pollutants, help control sludge

contamination and reduce air emissions.

EPA estimated the cost and economic

impact of installing BPT/BAT PSES

technologies at the indirect discharging

facilities. The total estimated

annualized cost in 1993 for all the

subcategories is approximately $22.9

million (if PSES is Oils Option 3) and

approximately $2.78 million (if PSES is

Oils Option 2). EPA concluded the cost

of installation of these control

technologies, in the case of metalbearing and organic-bearing waste

streams, is clearly economically

achievable. EPA’s assessment shows

none of the indirect discharging

facilities in these subcategories go from

a profitable to unprofitable status as a

result of the installation of the necessary

technology.

EPA is asking for comment on

whether it should adopt Oils Option 3

as PSES for this subcategory, given that

annual costs are approximately ten

times greater than Option 2. EPA is

particularly interested in comments on

whether Option 3 is economically

achievable, given the EPA economic

assessment showing that despite its high

cost, it results only in a slight increase

in the number of facilities going from a

profitable to unprofitable status. In the

case of Oils Option 2, four of 31 indirect

dischargers would go from a profitable

to unprofitable status and for Option 3,

six would experience a change from a

profitable to unprofitable status.

Additional information is provided in

the Economic Impact Analysis.

The Agency considered the age, size,

processes, other engineering factors, and

non-water quality environmental

impacts pertinent to facilities in

developing PSES. The Agency did not

identify any basis for establishing

different PSES limitations based on age,

size, processes, or other engineering

factors. As previously explained for

BPT, adoption of standards based on the

proposed technologies for metal-bearing

wastes and organic-bearing wastes

would have important non-water quality

effects. The metals standards should

reduce landfill disposal of metals

treatment residuals and the organic

waste streams would reduce

volatilization of organic compounds.

c. Monitoring to Demonstrate

Compliance with the Regulation. See

Section V.F.

6. Pretreatment Standards for New

Sources

Section 307(c) of the Act requires EPA

to promulgate pretreatment standards

for new sources (PSNS) at the same time

it promulgates new source performance

standards (NSPS). 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.

As set forth in Section VIII.E.4(a) of

this preamble, EPA determined that a

broad range of pollutants discharged by

Centralized Waste Treatment Industry

facilities pass-through POTWs. The

same technologies discussed previously

for BAT, NSPS, and PSES are available

as the basis for PSNS.

EPA is proposing that pretreatment

standards for new sources be set equal

to NSPS for priority and non-
5482 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 18 / January, 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules

conventional pollutants for all

subcategories. The Agency is proposing

to establish PSNS for the same priority

and non-conventional pollutants as are

being proposed for NSPS. In addition,

given the potential for dilution and the

consequent impracticality of monitoring

at the point of discharge, EPA is again

proposing that monitoring to

demonstrate compliance with these

standards be required immediately

following treatment of the regulated

streams.

EPA considered the cost of the

proposed PSNS technology for new

facilities. EPA concluded that such costs

are not so great as to present a barrier

to entry, as demonstrated by the fact

that currently operating facilities are

using these technologies. Again, EPA is

requesting comment on whether it

should adopt PSNS for the Oily Waste

Subcategory that reflects effluent

reduction levels achievable through

either Option 3 or Option 4 treatment

systems. The Agency considered energy

requirements and other non-water

quality environmental impacts and

found no basis for any different

standards than the selected PSNS.

F. Monitoring To Demonstrate

Compliance With the Regulation

The effluent limitations EPA is

proposing today apply only to

discharges resulting from treatment of

the subcategory wastes and not to

mixtures of subcategory wastes with

other wastes or mixtures of different

subcategory wastes. In addition, these

effluent limitations do not apply to

discharges from the treatment of

subcategory wastes that are mixed prior

to or after treatment with other

wastewater streams prior to discharge.

EPA has concluded that it is impractical

and infeasible to set limits for the

pollutants proposed to be regulated in

this category at the point of discharge

for mixed waste streams, given the

potential for mixing to avoid

achievement of the required effluent

reductions.

Thus, many facilities in this industry

may operate other processes which

generate wastes requiring treatment and

may add these wastes to CWT wastes

before treatment and discharge. This

may result in dilution rather than

required treatment of CWT wastes due

to the difference in concentration of

waste streams. In addition, if a facility

discharges its non-contaminated

stormwater, implementation of this

proposal requires a facility to monitor

the CWT discharge prior to the addition

of non-contaminated stormwater.

Similarly, for facilities which treat

concentrated cyanide-bearing metal

wastes, the limitations for Total Cyanide

are based on cyanide levels that are

demonstrated to be achieved after

cyanide pretreatment and prior to

metals precipitation. Separate

pretreatment of cyanide in metalbearing waste streams is necessary in

order to ensure that cyanide will not

interfere with metals treatment.

Consequently, EPA has preliminarily

determined that it will require

compliance monitoring immediately

following treatment of subcategory

waste streams (e.g., metal-bearing, oily,

or organic-bearing, as appropriate)

unless the facility can demonstrate that

it is achieving the required effluent

reduction associated with separate

treatment of the waste streams in a

mixed waste treatment system. (See

further discussion of this issue below at

Section VIII.)

G. Determination of Long-Term

Averages, Variability Factors, and

Limitations for BPT

The proposed effluent limitations and

standards in today’s notice are based

upon statistical procedures that estimate

long-term averages and variability

factors. The following sections describe

the statistical methodology used to

develop long-term averages, variability

factors, and limitations for BPT. The

limitations for BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES,

and PSNS are based upon the

limitations for BPT for all pollutants.

The proposed limitations for

pollutants for each option, as presented

in today’s notice, are provided as daily

maximums and maximums for monthly

averages. In most cases, the daily

maximum limitation for a pollutant in

an option is the product of the pollutant

long-term average and the group daily

variability factor. In most cases, the

maximum for monthly average

limitation for a pollutant for an option

is the product of the pollutant long-term

average and the group monthly

variability factor. The procedures used

to estimate the pollutant long-term

averages and group variability factors

are briefly described below. A more

detailed explanation is provided in the

statistical support document.

The long-term averages, variability

factors, and limitations were based upon

pollutant concentrations collected from

two sources: EPA sampling episodes

and the 1991 Detailed Monitoring

Questionnaire. These data sources are

described in Sections IV.B. and IV.D.

(Data from the same facility but from

different sources were analyzed as

though each source provided

information about a different facility.)

The long-term average for each

pollutant was calculated for each

facility by arithmetically averaging the

pollutant concentrations. The pollutant

long-term average for an option was the

median of the long-term averages from

selected facilities with the BPT

technology basis for the option.

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, or mean, of the

distribution of the daily values. The

monthly variability factor for each

pollutant at each facility is the

estimated 95th percentile of the

distribution of monthly averages of the

daily concentration values divided by

the expected value of the monthly

averages. The number of measurements

used to calculate the monthly averages

corresponds to the number of days that

the pollutant is assumed to be

monitored during the month. For

example, the volatile organic

compounds are expected to be

monitored once a week (which is

approximately four times a month);

therefore, the monthly variability factor

was based upon the distribution of fourday averages. Certain pollutants such as

BOD5 are expected to be monitored

daily; therefore, the monthly variability

factor was based upon the distribution

of 20-day averages (most facilities

operate only on weekdays of which

there are approximately 20 in each

month). The assumed monitoring

frequency of each pollutant is identified

in Table V.G–1.

TABLE V.G–1.—MONITORING FREQUENCIES USED TO ESTIMATE

MONTHLY VARIABILITY FACTORS

Assumed Daily Monitoring Frequency

Aluminum Manganese.

Antimony Mercury.

Arsenic Molybdenum.

Barium Nickel.

BOD5 Oil and Grease.

Cadmium Silver.

Chromium Tin.

Cobalt Titanium.

Copper TOC.

Iron Total Cyanide.

Lead TSS.

Magnesium Zinc.

Assumed Weekly Monitoring Frequency

Hexavalent ChromiumMethylene Chloride.

1,1,1,2-

Tetrachloroethane

m-Xylene.

1,1,1-Trichloroethane n-Decane.

1,1,2-Trichloroethane n-Docosane.

1,1-Dichloroethane n-Dodecane.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 18 / January, 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules 5483

TABLE V.G–1.—MONITORING FREQUENCIES USED TO ESTIMATE

MONTHLY VARIABILITY FACTORS—

Continued

1,2,3-

Trichloropropane

n-Eicosane.

1,2-Dibromoethane n-Hexacosane.

1,2-Dichloroethane n-Hexadecane.

trans-1,2-

dichloroethene

n-Octadecane.

2,3-Dichloroaniline n-Tetradecane.

2-Propanone o&p-Xylene.

4-chloro-3-methyl

phenol

o-Cresol.

4-Methyl-2-Pentanone Phenol.

Acetophenone Pyridine.

Benzene p-Cresol.

Benzoic Acid Tetrachloroethene.

Butanone Tetrachloromethane.

Carbon Disulfide Toluene.

Chloroform Trichloroethene.

Diethyl ether Tripropyleneglycol

methyl ether.

Hexanoic Acid

Ethylbenzene Vinyl Chloride.

The variability factors for each option

were developed for groups of pollutants

in three steps. These steps are described

here for the daily variability factors.

Similar steps were used to develop

monthly variability factors. The first

step was to develop a daily variability

factor for each pollutant at each facility

by fitting a modified delta-lognormal

distribution to the daily pollutant

concentration values from each facility.

(For monthly variability factors, the

modified delta-lognormal distribution

was fit to the monthly averages.) The

second step was to develop one daily

variability factor for each pollutant for

each option by averaging the daily

variability factors for the selected

facilities with the technology basis for

the option. The third step was to

develop ‘‘group’’ daily variability factors

for each option. Each group contained

pollutants that were chemically similar.

The daily variability factor for each

group was the median of the daily

variability factors obtained in the

second step for the pollutants in the

group and option. In some cases, none

of the daily variability factors for the

pollutants within a group could be

estimated. In some of these cases, the

daily variability factor for the group was

transferred from the other groups in the

option that used the same fraction in the

chemical analysis. This transferred

group daily variability factor was the

median of the daily variability factors

from the other groups. In the remaining

cases where the group daily variability

factors could not be estimated, the

group daily variability factors were

transferred from chemically similar

pollutants or from other options within

the subcategory. The development of

daily and monthly variability factors is

described further in the statistical

support document.

Because EPA is assuming that some

pollutants (BOD5, TSS, oil and grease,

metals, total cyanide, and TOC) will be

monitored daily, the 20-day variability

factors were based on the distribution of

20-day averages. If concentrations

measured on consecutive days are

positively correlated, then

autocorrelation would have an effect on

the 20-day variability factors (long-term

averages are not affected by

autocorrelation). However, the

centralized waste treatment data used to

calculate the 20-day variability factors

were, in most cases, not consecutive

daily measurements. Therefore, at this

time, EPA does not have sufficient data

to examine in detail and incorporate (if

statistically significant) any

autocorrelation between concentrations

measured on adjacent days.

Furthermore, EPA believes that

autocorrelation may not be present in

daily measurements from wastewater

from this industry. Unlike other

industries, where the industrial

processes are expected to produce the

same type of wastewater from one day

to the next, the wastewater from

Centralized Waste Treatment Industry is

generated from treating wastes from

different sources and industrial

processes. The wastes treated on a given

day will often be different than the

waste treated on the following day.

Because of this, autocorrelation would

not be expected to be present in

measurements of wastewater from the

Centralized Waste Treatment Industry.

In Section VIII.B.7, EPA requests

additional wastewater monitoring data.

EPA will use these data to further

evaluate autocorrelation in the data for

the pollutants that will be monitored

daily.

H. Regulatory Implementation

1. Applicability

The regulation proposed today is just

that—a proposed regulation. While

today’s proposal represents EPA’s best

judgment at this time, the effluent

limitations and standards may still

change based on additional information

or data submitted by commenters or

developed by the Agency.

Consequently, the permit writer should

consider the proposed limits in

developing permit limits. Although the

information provided in the

Development Document may provide

useful information and guidance to

permit writers in determining best

professional judgment permit limits, the

permit writer will still need to justify

any permit limits based on the

conditions at the individual facility.

2. 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).
5484 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 18 / January, 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules

3. Variances and Modifications

The CWA requires application of the

effluent limitations established pursuant

to Section 301 or the pretreatment

standards of Section 307 to all direct

and indirect dischargers. However, the

statute provides for the modification of

these national requirements in a limited

number of circumstances. Moreover, the

Agency has established administrative

mechanisms to provide an opportunity

for relief from the application of

national effluent limitations guidelines

and pretreatment standards for

categories of existing sources for

priority, conventional and nonconventional pollutants.

a. Fundamentally Different Factors

Variances. EPA will develop effluent

limitations or standards different from

the otherwise applicable requirements if

an individual existing discharging

facility is fundamentally different with

respect to factors considered in

establishing the 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 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 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 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

one or more of these factors, the facility

in question is fundamentally different

from the facilities and factors

considered by the EPA in developing

the nationally applicable effluent

guidelines. The regulation also lists four

other factors (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 discharger at 40 CFR 403.13.

The conditions for approval of a request

to modify applicable pretreatment

standards and factors considered are the

same as those for direct dischargers.

The legislative history of Section

301(n) underscores the necessity for the

FDF variance applicant to establish

eligibility for the variance. EPA’s

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

explicit in imposing this burden upon

the applicant. The applicant must show

that the factors relating to the discharge

controlled by the applicant’s permit

which are claimed to be fundamentally

different are, in fact, fundamentally

different from those factors considered

by the EPA in establishing the

applicable guidelines. The pretreatment

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 PSES.

b. Economic Variances. Section 301(c)

of the CWA authorizes a variance from

the otherwise applicable BAT effluent

guidelines for non-conventional

pollutants due to economic factors. The

request for a variance from effluent

limitations developed from BAT

guidelines must normally be filed by the

discharger during the public notice

period for the draft permit. Other filing

time periods may apply, as specified in

40 CFR 122.21(l)(2). Specific guidance

for this type of variance is available

from EPA’s Office of Wastewater

Management.

c. Water Quality Variances. Section

301(g) of the CWA authorizes a variance

from BAT effluent guidelines for certain

nonconventional pollutants due to

localized environmental factors. These

pollutants include ammonia, chlorine,

color, iron, and total phenols.

d. 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 modification 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 nonsubstantive changes. The conditions for

minor modification are described in 40

CFR 122.63.

e. Removal credits. As described

previously, many industrial facilities

discharge large quantities of pollutants

to POTWs where their wastewater mix

with wastewater from other sources,

domestic sewage from private

residences and run-off from various

sources prior to treatment and discharge

by the POTW. Industrial discharges

frequently contain pollutants that are

generally not removed as effectively by

treatment at the POTWs as by the

industries themselves.

The introduction of pollutants to a

POTW from industrial discharges may

pose several problems. These include

potential interference with the POTW’s

operation or pass-through of pollutants
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 18 / January, 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules 5485

3Under Section 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).

if inadequately treated. As discussed,

Congress, in Section 307(b) of the Act,

directed EPA to establish pretreatment

standards to prevent these potential

problems. Congress also recognized that,

in certain instances, POTWs could

provide some or all of the treatment of

an industrial user’s wastewater that

would be required pursuant to the

pretreatment standard. Consequently,

Congress established a discretionary

program for POTWs to grant ‘‘removal

credits’’ to their indirect dischargers.

The 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.

Section 307(b) of the CWA establishes

a three-part test for obtaining removal

credit authority for a given pollutant.

Removal credits may be authorized only

if (1) the POTW ‘‘removes all or any part

of such toxic pollutant,’’ (2) the POTW’s

ultimate discharge would ‘‘not violate

that effluent limitation, or standard

which would be applicable to that toxic

pollutant if it were discharged’’ directly

rather than through a POTW and (3) the

POTW’s discharge would ‘‘not prevent

sludge use and disposal by such

[POTW] in accordance with Section

[405]. . . .’’ Section 307(b).

EPA has promulgated removal credit

regulations in 40 CFR 403.7. The United

States Court of Appeals for the Third

Circuit has interpreted the statute to

require EPA to promulgate

comprehensive sewage sludge

regulations before any removal credits

could be authorized. NRDC v. EPA, 790

F.2d 289, 292 (3rd Cir. 1986) cert.

denied. 479 U.S. 1084 (1987). Congress

made this explicit in the Water Quality

Act of 1987 which provided that EPA

could not authorize any removal credits

until it issued the sewage sludge use

and disposal regulations required by

Section 405(d)(2)(a)(ii).

Section 405 of the CWA requires EPA

to promulgate regulations that establish

standards for sewage sludge when used

or disposed for various purposes. These

standards must include sewage sludge

management standards as well as

numerical limits for pollutants that may

be present in sewage sludge in

concentrations which may adversely

affect public health and the

environment. Section 405 requires EPA

to develop these standards in two

phases. On November 25, 1992, EPA

promulgated the Round One sewage

sludge regulations establishing

standards, including numerical

pollutant limits, for the use or disposal

of sewage sludge. 58 FR 9248. EPA

established pollutant limits for ten

metals when sewage sludge is applied to

land, for three metals when it is

disposed of on a surface disposal site

and for seven metals and a total

hydrocarbon operational standard, a

surrogate for organic pollutant

emissions, when sewage sludge is

incinerated. These requirements are

codified at 40 CFR Part 503.

The Phase One regulations partially

fulfilled the Agency’s commitment

under the terms of a consent decree that

settled a citizens suit to compel

issuance of the sludge regulations.

Gearhart, et al. v. Reilly, Civil No. 89–

6266–JO (D. Ore). Under the terms of

that decree, EPA must propose and take

final action on the Round Two sewage

sludge regulations by December 15,

2001.

At the same time EPA promulgated

the Round One regulations, EPA also

amended its pretreatment regulations to

provide that removal credits would be

available for certain pollutants regulated

in the sewage sludge regulations. See 58

FR 9386. The amendments to 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. See 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. See 40

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

(3) When a POTW disposes of its

sewage sludge in a municipal solid

waste landfill that meets the criteria of

40 CFR Part 258 (MSWLF), removal

credits may be available for any

pollutant in the POTW’s sewage sludge.

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

given compliance with the requirements

of EPA’s removal credit regulations,3

following promulgation of the

pretreatment standards being proposed

here, 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

amendment to the Part 403 regulations

(58 FR 9382–83), EPA has interpreted

these sections to authorize removal

credits for a pollutant only in one of two

circumstances. Removal credits may be

authorized for any categorical pollutant

(1) for which EPA has 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 of

in sewage sludge. The pollutants

described in paragraphs (1)–(3) above
5486 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 18 / January, 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules

4 In the Round One sewage sludge regulation,

EPA concluded, on the basis of risk assessments,

that certain pollutants (see Appendix G to Part 403)

did not pose an unreasonable risk to human health

and the environment and did not require the

establishment of sewage sludge pollutant limits. As

discussed above, so long as the concentration of

these pollutants in sewage sludge are lower than a

prescribed level, removal credits are authorized for

such pollutants.

include all those pollutants that EPA

either specifically regulated in Part 503

or evaluated for regulation and

determined would not adversely affect

sludge use and disposal.

Consequently, in the case of a

pollutant for which EPA did not

perform a risk assessment in developing

the Phase One sewage sludge

regulations, removal credit for

pollutants will only be available when

the Agency determines either a safe

level for the pollutant in sewage sludge

or that regulation of the pollutant is

unnecessary to protect public health

and the environment from the

reasonably anticipated adverse effects of

such a pollutant.4 Therefore, any person

seeking to add additional categorical

pollutants to the list for which removal

credits are now available would need to

submit information to the Agency to

support such a determination. The basis

for such a determination may include

information showing the absence of

risks for the pollutant (generally

established through an environmental

pathway risk assessment such as EPA

used for Phase One) or data establishing

the pollutant’s presence in sewage

sludge at low levels relative to risk

levels or both. Parties, however, may

submit whatever information they

conclude is sufficient to establish either

the absence of any potential for harm

from the presence of the pollutant in

sewage sludge or data demonstrating a

‘‘safe’’ level for the pollutant in sludge.

Following submission of such a

demonstration, EPA will review the data

and determine whether or not it should

propose to amend the list of pollutants

for which removal credits would be

available.

EPA has already begun the process of

evaluating a number of pollutants for

adverse potential to human health and

the environment when present in

sewage sludge. In May, 1993, pursuant

to the terms of the consent decree in the

Gearhart case, the Agency notified the

United States District Court for the

District of Oregon that, based on the

information then available at that time,

it intended to propose 31 pollutants for

regulation in the Round Two sewage

sludge regulations. These are acetic acid

(2,4-dichlorophenoxy), aluminum,

antimony, asbestos, barium, beryllium,

boron, butanone, carbon disulfide,

cresol (p-), cyanides (soluble salts and

complexes), dioxins/dibenzofurans (all

monochloro to octochloro congeners),

endsulfan-II, fluoride, manganese,

methylene chloride, nitrate, nitrite,

pentachloro-nitrobenzene, phenol,

phthalate (bis-2-ethylhexyl),

polychlorinated biphenyls (co-planar),

propanone (2-), silver, thallium, tin,

titanium, toluene,

trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2, 4, 5-),

trichlorphenoxypropionic acid ([2—(2,

4, 5-)], and vanadium.

The Round Two regulations are not

scheduled for proposal until December,

1999 and promulgation in December

2001. However, given the necessary

factual showing, as detailed above, EPA

could conclude before the contemplated

proposal and promulgation dates that

regulation of some of these pollutants is

not necessary. In those circumstances,

EPA could propose that removal credits

should be authorized for such pollutants

before promulgation of the Round Two

sewage sludge regulations. However,

given the Agency’s commitment to

promulgation of effluent limitations and

guidelines under court-supervised

deadlines, it may not be possible to

complete review of removal credit

authorization requests by the time EPA

must promulgate these guidelines and

standards.

4. 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 the 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.

For determination of effluent limits

where there are multiple categories and

subcategories, the effluent guidelines

are applied using a flow-weighted

combination of the appropriate

guideline for each category or

subcategory. Where a facility treats a

CWT waste stream and process

wastewater from other industrial

operations, the effluent guidelines

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

PSES limit for the CWT subcategory and

the other industrial operations to derive

the appropriate limitations. However, as

stated above, 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 regardless

of the limitation derived using the flowweighted combinations.

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 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

assure compliance. Authority to address

internal waste streams is provided in 40

CFR 122.44(I)(1)(iii) and 122.45(h).

Today’s proposed integrated rule

establishes several internal monitoring

points to ensure compliance with the

effluent guideline limitations. Permit

writers may establish additional internal

monitoring points to the extent

consistent with EPA’s regulations.

5. Implementation for Facilities with

Operations in Multiple Subcategories

According to the 1991 Waste

Treatment Industry Questionnaire,

thirty percent of facilities in the

Centralized Waste Treatment Industry

have been identified as accepting waste

that is included in two or more of the

subcategories being proposed for

regulation here. In other words, the

facilities actively accept a variety of

waste types. This is not to be confused

with the fact that metal-bearing waste

streams may include low level organics

or that oily wastes may include metals

due to the origin of the waste stream

accepted for treatment.

The limitations and standards EPA is

today proposing are based on treatment

of wastes that have not been

commingled for treatment without the

appropriate pretreatment. EPA’s

sampling program and other data in the

record demonstrate that mixing of

wastes before treatment does not

provide appropriate pollutant removals

but may merely mask the absence of

removal through dilution.

Consequently, the proposal required

monitoring immediately following the

treatment of the regulated waste stream

to demonstrate compliance. Wastes
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 18 / January, 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules 5487

treated in the Centralized Waste

Treatment Industry have been

characterized as concentrated, difficult

to treat wastewater, sludges, off-spec

products, etc. and are often unlike waste

streams found at other categorical

industries. Therefore, special attention

should be taken when facilities

determine which waste streams are

accepted for treatment.

If a facility accepts for treatment a

mixture of waste types, it is still subject

to limitations and standards (and

monitoring to demonstrate compliance)

that reflect the treatment performance

achievable for the unmixed streams. In

other words, if a facility accepts for

treatment metal-bearing and oily waste,

the facility must comply with the

limitations and standards based on a

treatment system which employs

emulsion-breaking, ultrafiltration, and

carbon adsorption to ‘‘adequately treat’’

the oily waste for the oils and organics

constituents. Similarly, discharges from

the metal-bearing stream must comply

with the limitations and standards

defined by a treatment system

employing selective metals

precipitation. Compliance with the

limitations and standards must be

demonstrated following treatment. EPA

has concluded that if oily wastes that

have not been pretreated are mixed with

the metal-bearing waste stream for

selective metals precipitation, the unit

will not meet the required performance

level for metals.

The effluent guideline would be

applied by using a flow-weighted

combination of BPT/BAT/PSES

limitations for the subcategories of

concern to derive the facility limit. The

permit writer may establish limitations

and standards based on separate

treatment for each subcategory’s

operation.

Mixing of dissimilar waste streams

may result in dilution of pollutants

because the waste streams do not

contain the same pollutants or may

result in dilution of the stream to the

point that pollutants are non-detectible.

For waste streams which contain the

same pollutants at similar

concentration, pretreatment may not be

necessary.

The Agency attempted to establish

one set of limitations for facilities in all

subcategories, but due to the fact that

performances levels and the pollutants

of concern are not the same for all

subcategories, this task could not be

done. The Agency solicits comment on

its approach to multiple subcategory

facilities. EPA is requesting commenters

to supply additional data which they

may have that would aid in

characterizing the efficiency of waste

treatment systems for facilities which

commingle waste from multiple

subcategories prior to treatment.

EPA considered and rejected another

approach which did not require

monitoring to demonstrate compliance

with CWT limitations and standards in

the case of facilities which mixed

categorical waste streams with CWT

wastes. Rather, for such facilities,

permit writers would require the facility

to identify the sources of the CWT

wastestreams and then develop facility

limits applying the combined waste

stream formula, using the applicable

guidelines and limitations for the CWT

waste source. If CWT wastes were

treated separately at such a facility, then

the permit writer would just apply the

CWT limitations and standards in

developing the limits. EPA is asking for

comment on whether to reconsider such

an approach.

VI. Costs and Impacts of Regulatory

Alternatives

A. Costs

The Agency estimated the cost for

CWT facilities to achieve each of the

effluent limitations and standards

proposed today. These estimated costs

are summarized in this section and

discussed in more detail in the

Technical Development Document. All

cost estimates in this section are

expressed in terms of 1993 dollars. The

cost components reported in this section

represent estimates of the investment

cost of purchasing and installing

equipment, the annual operating and

maintenance costs associated with that

equipment, additional costs for

discharge monitoring, and costs for

facilities to modify existing RCRA

permits. In Sections VI.B., costs are

expressed in terms of a different cost

component, total annualized cost. The

total annualized cost, which is used to

estimate economic impacts, better

describes the actual compliance cost

that a company will incur, allowing for

interest, depreciation, and taxes. A

summary of the economic impact

analysis for the proposed regulation is

contained in Section VI.B. of today’s

notice. See also the economic impact

analysis.

1. BPT Costs

The Agency estimated the cost of

implementing the proposed BPT

effluent limitations guidelines and

standards by calculating the engineering

costs of meeting the required effluent

reductions for each direct discharging

CWT. This facility-specific engineering

cost assessment for BPT began with a

review of present waste treatment

technologies. For facilities without

treatment technology in-place

equivalent to the BPT technology, EPA

estimated the cost to upgrade its

treatment technology, to use additional

treatment chemicals to achieve the new

discharge standards, and to employ

additional personnel, where applicable

for the option. The only facilities given

no cost for compliance were facilities

with the treatment-in-place prescribed

for that option. The Agency believes

that this approach overestimates the

costs to achieve the proposed BPT

because many facilities can achieve BPT

level discharges without using all of the

components of the technology basis

described in Section V.E. The Agency

solicits comment on these costing

assumptions. Table VI.A–1 summarizes,

by subcategory, the capital expenditures

and annual O&M costs for implementing

BPT. Costs are presented for Regulatory

Option 1 (the combination of Metals

Option 3, Oils Option 2, and Organics

Option 1) and Regulatory Option 2 (the

combination of Metals Option 3, Oils

Option 3, and Organics Option 1). The

capital expenditures for the process

change component of BPT are estimated

to be $17.7 million with annual O&M

costs of $14.3 million for Regulatory

Option 1 and $20.6 million with annual

O&M costs of $21.7 million for

Regulatory Option 2.
5488 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 18 / January, 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules

TABLE VI.A–1.—COST OF IMPLEMENTING BPT REGULATIONS

[In millions of 1993 dollars]

Subcategory No. of

facilities 1

Capital

costs

Annual

O&M costs

Metals Treatment and Recovery ................................................................................................................... 12 15.4 10.5

Oils Treatment and Recovery—Regulatory Option 1 ................................................................................... 4 1.02 0.779

Oils Treatment and Recovery—Regulatory Option 2 ................................................................................... 4 3.84 8.15

Organics Treatment ....................................................................................................................................... 6 1.32 3.06

Regulatory Option 1 ...................................................................................................................................... 16 17.7 14.3

Regulatory Option 2 ...................................................................................................................................... 16 20.6 21.7

1There are 16 direct dischargers. Because some direct dischargers include operations in more than one subcategory, the sum of the facilities

with operations in any one subcategory exceeds the total number of facilities.

2. BCT/BAT Costs

The Agency estimated that there

would be no cost of compliance for

implementing BCT/BAT, because the

technology is identical to BPT and the

costs are included with BPT.

3. PSES Costs

The Agency estimated the cost for

implementing PSES with the same

assumptions and methodology used to

estimate cost of implementing BAT.

Table VI.A–2 summarizes, by

subcategory, the capital expenditures

and annual O&M costs for implementing

PSES. Costs are presented for Regulatory

Option 1 (the combination of Metals

Option 3, Oils Option 2, and Organics

Option 1) and Regulatory Option 2 (the

combination of Metals Option 3, Oils

Option 3, and Organics Option 1). The

capital expenditures for the process

change component of PSES are

estimated to be $43.8 million with

annual O&M costs of $26.8 million for

Regulatory Option 1 and $52.6 million

with annual O&M costs of $45.9 million

for Regulatory Option 2.

TABLE VI.A–2.—COST OF IMPLEMENTING PSES REGULATIONS

[In millions of 1993 dollars]

Subcategory No. of

facilities1

Capital

costs

Annual

O&M costs

Metals Treatment and Recovery ................................................................................................................. 44 28.5 23.0

Oils Treatment and Recovery—Regulatory Option 1 ................................................................................. 31 4.21 2.37

Oils Treatment and Recovery—Regulatory Option 2 ................................................................................. 31 13.0 21.5

Organics Treatment ..................................................................................................................................... 16 11.1 1.41

Regulatory Option 1 .................................................................................................................................... 56 43.8 26.8

Regulatory Option 2 .................................................................................................................................... 56 52.6 45.9

1There are 16 direct dischargers. Because some direct dischargers include operations in more than one subcategory, the sum of the facilities

with operations in any one subcategory exceeds the total number of facilities.

B. Pollutant Reductions

The Agency estimated the reduction

in the mass of pollutants that would be

discharged from CWT facilities after the

implementation of the regulations being

proposed today.

1. Conventional Pollutant Reductions

EPA has calculated how much

adoption of the proposed BPT/BCT

limitations would reduce the total

quantity of conventional pollutants that

are discharged. To do this, for each

subcategory, the Agency developed an

estimate of the long- term average

loading (LTA) of BOD5, TSS, and Oil

and Grease that would be discharged

after the implementation of BPT. Next,

these BPT/BCT LTAs for BOD5, TSS,

and Oil and Grease were multiplied by

1989 wastewater flows for each direct

discharging facility in the subcategory to

calculate BPT/BCT mass discharge

loadings for BOD5, TSS, and Oil and

Grease for each facility. The BPT/BCT

mass discharge loadings were subtracted

from the estimated current loadings to

calculate the pollutant reductions for

each facility. Each subcategory’s BPT/

BCT pollutant reduction was summed to

estimate the total facility’s pollutant

reduction for those facilities treating

wastes in multiple subcategories.

Subcategory reductions, obviously, were

obtained by summing individual

subcategory results. The Agency

estimates that the proposed regulations

will reduce BOD5 discharges by

approximately 34.5 million pounds per

year for Regulatory Option 1 (the

combination of Metals Option 3, Oils

Option 2, and Organics Option 1) and

36.9 million pounds per year for

Regulatory Option 2 (the combination of

Metals Option 3, Oils Option 3, and

Organics Option 1); TSS discharges by

approximately 30.3 million pounds per

year for both Regulatory Options; and

Oil and Grease discharges by

approximately 52.4 million pounds per

year for Regulatory Option 1 (the

combination of Metals Option 3, Oils

Option 2, and Organics Option 1) and

56.9 million pounds per year for

Regulatory Option 2 (the combination of

Metals Option 3, Oils Option 3, and

Organics Option 1).

2. Priority and Nonconventional

Pollutant Reductions

a. Methodology. Today’s proposal, if

promulgated, will also reduce

discharges of priority and nonconventional pollutants. Applying the

same methodology used to estimate

conventional pollutant reductions

attributable to application of BPT/BCT

control technology, EPA has also

estimated priority and non-conventional

pollutant reductions for each facility by

subcategory. Because EPA has proposed

BAT limitations equivalent to BPT,

there are obviously no further pollutant

reductions associated with BAT

limitations.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 18 / January, 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules 5489

Current loadings were estimated by

using data collected by the Agency in

the field sampling program and from the

questionnaire data supplied by the

industry. For many facilities, data were

not available for all pollutants of

concern or without the addition of other

non-CWT wastewater. Therefore,

methodologies were developed to

estimate current performance for each

subcategory assessing performance of

on-site treatment technologies, by using

wastewater permit information and

monitoring data supplied in the 1991

Waste Treatment Industry

Questionnaire and the Detailed

Monitoring Questionnaire as described

in Section V.B.

b. Direct Facility Discharges (BPT/

BAT) The estimated reductions in

pollutants directly discharged in treated

final effluent resulting from

implementation of BPT/BAT are listed

in Table VI.B–1. Pollutant reductions

are presented for Regulatory Option 1

(the combination of Metals Option 3,

Oils Option 2, and Organics Option 1)

and Regulatory Option 2 (the

combination of Metals Option 3, Oils

Option 3, and Organics Option 1). The

Agency estimates that proposed BPT/

BAT regulations will reduce direct

facility discharges of priority, and nonconventional pollutants by 5.0 million

pounds per year for Regulatory Option

1 and 8.0 million pounds per year for

Regulatory Option 2.

TABLE VI.B–1.—REDUCTION IN DIRECT

DISCHARGE OF PRIORITY AND

NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS

AFTER IMPLEMENTATION OF BPT/

BAT REGULATIONS

[Units=lbs/year]

Subcategory Metal compounds

Organic

compounds

Metals Treatment

and Recovery .... 871,832 245,525

Oils Treatment and

Recovery—Regulatory Option 1 294,543 556,627

Oils Treatment and

Recovery—Regulatory Option 2 319,847 610,937

Organics Treatment .................. 3,065,679 10

Regulatory Option

1 ........................ 4,232,054 802,153

Regulatory Option

2 ........................ 7,617,580 1,413,091

1The organic compounds pollutant reduction

for the Organics Subcategory was estimated

to be 0, because all facilities had the treatment-in-place for removal of organic compounds.

c. PSES Effluent Discharges to

POTWs. The estimated reductions in

pollutants indirectly discharged to

POTWs resulting from implementation

of PSES are listed in Table VI.B–2.

Pollutant reductions are presented for

Regulatory Option 1 (the combination of

Metals Option 3, Oils Option 2, and

Organics Option 1) and Regulatory

Option 2 (the combination of Metals

Option 3, Oils Option 3, and Organics

Option 1). The Agency estimates that

proposed PSES regulations will reduce

indirect facility discharge to POTWs by

6.5 million pounds per year for

Regulatory Option 1 and 12 million

pounds per year for Regulatory Option

2.

TABLE VI.B–2.—REDUCTION IN INDIRECT DISCHARGE OF PRIORITY AND

NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS

AFTER IMPLEMENTATION OF PSES

REGULATIONS

[Units=lbs/year]

Subcategory Metal compounds

Organic

compounds

Metals Treatment

and Recovery .... 428,040 120,545

Oils Treatment and

Recovery—Regulatory Option 1 709,834 1,341,439

Oils Treatment and

Recovery—Regulatory Option 2 771,668 1,474,708

Organics Treatment .................. 415,812 3,521,560

Regulatory Option

1 ........................ 1,553,686 4,983,544

Regulatory Option

2 ........................ 2,741,166 9,979,812

C. Economic Impact Assessment

1. Introduction

EPA’s economic impact assessment is

set forth in a report titled ‘‘Economic

Impact Analysis of Proposed Effluent

Limitations Guidelines and Standards

for the Centralized Waste Treatment

Industry’’ (hereinafter ‘‘EIA’’). This

report estimates the economic and

financial effects of compliance with the

proposed regulation in terms of facility

and company profitability and assesses

the economic effect of compliance on

six regional markets. Community

impacts and the effects on local

communities and new centralized waste

treatment (CWT) facilities are also

presented. The EIA also includes a

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis detailing

the effects on small businesses for this

industry.

As discussed previously, a total of 85

Centralized Waste Treatment facilities

owned and operated by 57 companies

are potentially subject to the proposed

regulation. EPA has projected that 72 of

these facilities will incur costs as a

result of this regulation. The economic

impact on each of the 72 direct and

indirect dischargers was calculated

based on the cost of compliance with

the required effluent discharge levels for

the appropriate subcategory. Impacts on

direct dischargers were calculated for

compliance with the proposed BPT/

BCT/BAT; impacts on indirect

dischargers were calculated for

compliance with PSES.

Because two options are being

proposed for the Oils Subcategory, EPA

calculated the cost of compliance with

each option. Regulatory Option 1 (the

combination of Metals Option 3, Oils

Option 2, and Organics Option 1) is

estimated to have a total annualized cost

of $49.1 million, and Regulatory Option

2 (the combination of Metals Option 3,

Oils Option 3, and Organics Option 1)

is estimated to have a total annualized

cost of $76.8 million. In Table VI.C–1,

the total annualized costs for BPT/BCT/

BAT and PSES are presented in 1993

dollars.

TABLE VI.C–1.— TOTAL ANNUALIZED

COSTS (106 $1993)

Option

BPT/

BCT/

BAT

PSES Total

Option 1 .................. 14.2 34.9 49.1

Option 2 .................. 21.8 55.0 76.8

EPA also conducted an analysis of the

cost-effectiveness of the alternative

treatment technology options

considered by the Agency. The results

of this cost-effectiveness analysis are

expressed in terms of the incremental

costs per pound of toxic-equivalent

removed. Toxic-equivalents weights are

used to account for the differences in

toxicity among the pollutants removed.

The number of pounds of a pollutant

removed by each option is multiplied by

a toxic weighting factor. The toxic

weighting factor is derived using

ambient water quality criteria and

toxicity values. The toxic weighting

factors are standardized by relating

them to copper. Cost-effectiveness is

calculated as the ratio of incremental

annualized costs of an option to the

incremental pounds-equivalent removed

by that option. The report, ‘‘CostEffectiveness of Proposed Effluent

Limitations Guidelines and Standards

for the Centralized Waste Treatment

Industry’’ (hereinafter, ‘‘CostEffectiveness Report’’), is included in

the record of this rulemaking.
5490 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 18 / January, 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules

The Agency recognizes that its data

base, which represents conditions in

1989, may not precisely reflect current

conditions in the industry today. EPA

recognizes that the questionnaire data

were obtained several years ago and

thus may not precisely mirror present

conditions at every facilities.

Nevertheless, EPA concluded that the

data provide a sound and reasonable

basis for assessing the overall ability of

the industry to achieve compliance with

the regulations. The purpose of the

impact analysis is to characterize the

impact of the proposed regulation for

the industry as a whole and for major

groupings within the industry.

2. Baseline Industry Analysis

Of the 85 Centralized Waste

Treatment facilities, 53 facilities are

strictly commercial, accepting waste

generated by other for treatment and

management for a fee. Fourteen facilities

are non-commercial, ‘‘captive’’ facilities

that accept waste from off-site for

treatment exclusively from facilities

under the same ownership. The

remaining 16 are mixed commercial/

non-commercial facilities. They manage

their own company’s wastes and accept

some waste from other sources for a fee.

For the purposes of this analysis, 15

mixed commercial/non-commercial

facilities have been included with the

commercial facilities because a majority

of their operations are commercial. The

one remaining mixed commercial/noncommercial facility has been included

with the non-commercial facilities

because most of the operations are noncommercial.

The companies that own CWT

facilities range from large, multi-facility

manufacturing companies to small

companies that own only a single

facility (see Table VI.C–2). Of these 57

companies, 13 are small businesses (i.e.,

companies with less than $6 million in

annual revenues). For the commercial

facilities, the ability of companies to

continue to support unprofitable

operations will depend on company

size, as well as baseline financial status.

The baseline economic analysis

(presented in Table VI.C–2) evaluated

each facility’s financial operating

condition prior to incurring compliance

costs for this regulation. In 1989, about

20 percent of the commercial CWT

facilities were unprofitable. Several

others were only marginally profitable.

The industry had expanded capacity

during the 1980s, but since the late

1980s, there has been a reduction in

demand for these services perhaps due

to pollution prevention efforts by

industrial waste generators. EPA staff

learned in conversations with personnel

at a number of these facilities that,

while some of these facilities were now

profitable, most of the remaining

unprofitable facilities were still in

operation three years after the

questionnaire. The continued operation

of such a large share of unprofitable

facilities in the industry raises a

significant issue. It suggests that the

traditional tools of economic analysis

used to project potential closures in an

industry due to the costs of compliance

may not accurately predict real world

behavior in a market where owners have

historically demonstrated a willingness

to continue operating unprofitable

facilities.

TABLE VI.C–2.—BASELINE CONDITIONS IN THE CWT INDUSTRY

Discharge status

Number of CWT Facilities by Commercial and Discharge Status Commercial

Profit >0 Profit <0 Noncommercial Total

Direct ............................................................................................................................... 5 2 9 16

Indirect ............................................................................................................................. 35 15 6 56

Zero ................................................................................................................................. 8 5 0 13

Total ...................................................................................................................... 48 22 15 85

COMPANIES OWNING CWT FACILITIES

Number of

companies

Number of

facilities

Small Companies (sales < $6 million) ............................................................................................................................ 13 13

All Other Companies (sales > $6 million) ....................................................................................................................... 44 72

LIKELIHOOD OF COMPANY BANKRUPTCY a

Small companiesAll other

companies Total

Likely ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 5 6

Indeterminate ........................................................................................................................................... 3 13 16

Unlikely .................................................................................................................................................... 8 18 26

12 36 48

Several reasons may explain why

unprofitable facilities remain in

operation rather than being closed by

their owners. First, most facilities are

regulated under RCRA. Closure of a

RCRA facility requires that the site

undergo RCRA clean-up procedure prior

to closure, which would entail

expensive long-term monitoring and

possibly clean-up of the site. According

to information received from facilities,

owners may find it less costly to keep

unprofitable facilities in operation

rather than incurring the costs of RCRA

closure. Second, many facilities stay in

business hoping that new

environmental regulation, such as the

upcoming RCRA Phase 3 rule, may
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 18 / January, 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules 5491

create more business for facilities.

Finally, some facilities perform a service

for the rest of their company, such as

generating a metal-rich sludge which

may be incorporated into the parent

companies smelting processes.

For these reasons and because of the

captive nature of many facilities,

company-level impacts are a more

appropriate indicator of economic

achievability, as they measure the

decision making process of companies

and the resources available to achieve

compliance. Facility-level changes in

revenues where applicable and costs are

computed as inputs to the company

level analysis.

3. Economic Impact Methodology

Standard economic and financial

analysis methods are used to assess the

economic effects of the proposed

regulation. These methods incorporate

an integrated view of Centralized Waste

Treatment facilities, the companies that

own these facilities, the markets the

facilities serve, and the communities

where they are located.

Faced with increased costs of the

proposed regulation, owners of CWT

facilities have three choices: (1) Comply

with the guidelines and incur the costs,

(2) if a facility has operations in more

than one subcategory, close the most

affected operation, or (3) close the

facility. Conventional economic

reasoning argues that companies will

make their decision based on an

assessment of the benefits and costs of

the facility to the company.

For commercial CWT facilities, the

cost and benefits are readily

observable—benefits to the company are

the total revenues received; costs to the

company include the payments made to

the factors of production (labor,

materials, etc.) plus the opportunity

costs of self-owned resources (e.g., the

land and capital equipment). As

previously discussed, the cost

associated with closure of a RCRA

facility have caused facilities to remain

open even when experiencing economic

and financial difficulties.

For captive facilities, there is no

quantifiable measure of benefits to the

company of having the capacity to

manage the wastes in a facility owned

by the company because there is no

easily defined relationship between the

wastes and the products that generate

the wastes. Clearly, however, companies

do weigh the benefits and costs of

operating a CWT facility, and the

benefits in this case may include lower

expected future liability costs, more

control over the costs and scheduling of

treatment, and certainty that treatment

capacity exists for their wastes.

According to conversations with

captive facilities, most are in business

solely for the purpose of lower liability

costs associated with the selfmanagement of hazardous wastes.

Changes in the costs of treatment in

CWT facilities may be expected to result

in an increase in the price of services,

which will feed back to the revenue side

of commercial facilities. Overall, as long

as generators have alternatives to

commercial treatment (e.g., on site

treatment, pollution prevention) the

quantity of services traded may be

expected to fall as a result of the

guidelines and standards. But for some

services, such as cyanide treatment or

treatment of concentrated metals

sludges, there are no other alternatives

to commercial treatment.

Changes in the economic conditions

in the CWT industry may impact the

viability of the companies that own

CWTs. Specifically, some companies

that are already marginal or that operate

a single unprofitable facility may go out

of business either by simply liquidating

their assets, or by declaring bankruptcy.

Finally, the communities where the

CWT facilities are located may be

impacted. Obviously, if facilities cut

back operations, employment and

income may fall sending ripple effects

throughout the local community. On the

other hand, there may be increased

employment associated with operating

the pollution controls associated with

the regulation resulting in increased

community employment and income. At

the same time, for the communities in

which CWTs are located, water quality

may be expected to improve.

4. Application of the Market Analysis

For the market analysis, EPA

characterized each facility individually

based on the quantity of each type of

waste treatment service they provide,

their revenues and costs, employment,

market share for each type of service

provided, ownership, releases, and

location in terms of the community

where they are located and the regional

market they serve. Six regional markets

are defined.

Costs of CWT facilities include both

those that vary with the quantity of

CWT services provided (variable costs)

and those whose value is fixed. Pergallon variable costs are assumed

constant to the capacity output rate.

Revenues from CWT operations are

estimated by multiplying the market

price of the CWT service by the quantity

of waste treated in the CWT service.

Most CWT facilities also have revenues

from other sources, which are treated as

exogenous.

The demand for CWT services is

characterized based on the

responsiveness of quantity demanded to

price. CWT services are intermediate

goods demanded because they are

inputs to production of other goods and

services. The sensitivity of quantity

demanded to price for an intermediate

good depends on the demand

characteristics (elasticity) of the good or

service it is used to produce, the share

of manufacturing costs represented by

CWT costs, and the availability of

substitutes for CWT services. The

elasticity of demand for manufactured

products varies widely. CWT services

costs as a share of manufacturing costs

is generally quite small. Substitutes for

CWT services include other types of offsite waste management such as

underground injection, on-site

treatment, or pollution prevention.

Overall, the change in quantity

demanded for CWT services is assumed

to be approximately proportional to any

price change (e.g., a one percent

increase in the price of a CWT service

is expected to reduce the quantity

demanded for the service by about one

percent).

The markets for CWT services are

regional. This market characterization is

based on responses to the questionnaire

and is consistent with the theory of

economic geography. Within each

market, there are a relatively small

number of suppliers and a relatively

large number of demanders. Thus the

market structure is treated as being

imperfectly competitive. This implies

that the competition each facility faces

is limited to facilities in its region so

that all suppliers have a degree of

market power.

This characterization of facilities,

companies and markets is incorporated

in a model that takes the engineering

estimates of the costs of compliance

with the effluent limitations guidelines

and standards and projects impacts on

facilities, companies, markets and

communities. Each CWT faced with

higher costs of providing CWT services

may find it economical to reduce the

quantity of waste it treats. This decision

is simultaneously modeled for all

facilities within a regional market, to

develop consistent estimates of the

facility and market impacts. Changes in

the quantity of CWT services offered

result in changes in the inputs used to

produce these services (most

importantly, labor).

For commercial facilities, the EIA

thus projects changes in employment at

CWT facilities. Changes in facility

revenues and costs result in changes in

the revenues and costs of the companies

owning the facilities, and thus changes
5492 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 18 / January, 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules

in company profits. Increased borrowing

and changes in the assets owned by the

companies, together with changes in

profits, result in changes in overall

company financial health. The EIA

projects changes in the likelihood of

company bankruptcy as a result of the

effluent limitations guidelines and

standards. These effects are separately

calculated for small businesses. Changes

in employment are specified by location

to determine the community impacts.

For non-commercial facilities,

financial viability was determined on a

company level. This is because the noncommercial facilities are generally cost

centers for their companies. They do not

explicitly receive revenues for their

services. They exist to perform a service

for the rest of the company and are not

expected to be ‘‘profitable’’ as a unit.

These facilities are included in the

market analysis because prices charged

for their commercial operations may

change. Companies with some

commercial operations will raise prices

to cover the variable costs of the

treatment and help pay for some of their

fixed costs (e.g. underwrite the company

waste treatment costs). Thus, no change

in the quantity of CWT wastes treated

are projected for non-commercial aspect

of these facilities nor are market effects

analyzed for the products of the parent

company, since the share of waste

treatment costs in the marketed

products are minimal.

5. Results of the Economic Impact

Analysis

Results may be reported at the facility,

company, market, or community level.

All facilities are either direct or indirect

dischargers. Most companies own either

facilities that are direct dischargers or

indirect dischargers, although two

companies own both direct and indirect

discharging facilities. Market level

impacts are the combined result of both

types of dischargers simultaneously

complying with the regulation. Because

markets for CWT services combine

facilities that are direct dischargers and

facilities that are indirect dischargers, it

is not possible to break the market-level

impacts into impacts of BPT/BCT/BAT

as distinguished from impacts of PSES.

Community-level impacts are also

reported based on the combined impacts

of BPT/BCT/BAT and PSES. Companylevel impacts are reported separately for

BPT/BCT/BAT and PSES.

The impacts of complying with BAT

controls under Regulatory Options 1

and 2 for the 57 companies operating

CWT facilities are shown in Table VI.C–

3 (for companies owning facilities that

discharge directly) and Table VI.C–4 (for

companies owning facilities that

discharge indirectly).

TABLE VI.C—3.—IMPACTS OF THE BPT/BCT/BAT REGULATORY OPTIONS a

Company impacts of compliance with BPT/BCT/BAT

regulatory options

Likelihood of bankruptcy

Option 1 Option 2

Small companies Others Total Small companies Others Total

Likely ............................................................................... 0 1 1 0 1 1

Indeterminate ................................................................... 0 2 2 0 2 2

Unlikely ............................................................................ 0 11 11 0 11 11

aTwo companies own both direct and indirect dischargers. Company-level impacts combine the effects of complying with BPT/BCT/BAT and

PSES controls. These two companies appear in both tables.

TABLE VI.C–4.—IMPACTS OF THE PSES REGULATORY OPTIONS a

Company impacts of compliance with the PSES regulatory options

Likelihood of bankruptcy

Option 1 Option 2

Small companies Others Total Small companies Others Total

Likely ............................................................................... 4 5 9 2 6 8

Indeterminate ................................................................... 2 10 12 0 10 10

Unlikely ............................................................................ 5 13 18 9 12 27

aTwo companies own both direct and indirect dischargers. Company-level impacts combine the effects of complying with BPT/BCT/BAT and

PSES controls. These two companies appear in both tables.

6. Market Impacts of EPA Regulatory

Options

The markets for CWT services are

regional. Within each region, markets

for overall types of treatment such as

metal recovery or metal treatment may

be further subdivided into smaller

markets on the basis of the per-gallon

cost of treatment. The price changes and

quantity changes projected at the

regional and service level with each

option are combined into an overall

national value for the CWT services. In

all cases, EPA’s assessment projects that

the prices of these services will increase

and utilization of service will fall. Thus,

EPA would expect, if the limitations

and standards are promulgated as

proposed, a reduction in the absolute

quantity of wastes commercially treated

in addition, of course, to the

improvement in treatment. These

market-level adjustments in the quantity

of wastes that are treated are reflected in

the reduction in the quantity of services

provided by individual commercial

CWTs. In some cases, with less waste

being managed by these facilities, it is

possible that some commercial facilities

could close. If demanders of waste

management services are assumed to

have fewer substitutes for CWT services

than assumed here, then prices would

increase more than projected here,

quantities would fall less and the

facility and company level impacts

(discussed below) would be smaller.

Under Option 1, price increases range

from 3 to 35 percent, while quantities of

waste treated decrease by between 3

percent and 20 percent. Under Option 2,

price increases range from 3 to 42

percent, while quantity decreases range

from 3 percent to 65 percent. The larger

price increases occur in the Oils
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 18 / January, 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules 5493

Recovery and Oils Treatment Markets.

These higher price increases occur

because of the poor treatment operations

currently in place (only one facility in

the Oils Recovery treats the wastewater

generated from the oil recovery process).

Price increases may occur in this market

because the present market has

inadequate treatment for the wastes

generated.

Significant price increases have

potential effects on the users of CWT

services. In order to account for impacts

on the users of CWT services, EPA

estimated the consumer surplus share of

dead weight loss of the proposed

regulation to be $6.8 million 1993

dollars for Regulatory Option 1 (the

combination of Metals Option 3, Oils

Option 2, and Organics Option 1) and

$13.4 million 1993 dollars for

Regulatory Option 2 (the combination of

Metals Option 3, Oils Option 3, and

Organics Option 1). These costs are not

additive to the direct implementation

costs of the proposed regulation due to

differences in the technique for

calculating the consumer surplus costs.

But the costs indicate the burden is not

excessive in the context of the rule.

7. Impacts of BPT/BCT/BAT

Complying with the BPT/BCT/BAT

effluent limitations guidelines and

standards will increase the cost of

treating CWT wastes at affected direct

dischargers. This in turn will reduce the

number of facilities providing CWT

services, resulting in an increase in the

market price of the treatment services

and a decrease in use of CWT services.

EPA projects that changes in the prices

of CWT services, combined with

facility-specific changes in the costs of

treatment and the quantities of waste

treated, will result in changes in facility

costs and revenues from services sold.

These changes result in changes in the

revenues and costs of companies

owning CWT facilities. In addition,

changes in the liabilities and assets of

companies owning CWT facilities result

from the borrowing and purchasing of

capital equipment associated with

complying with the regulation. Thus,

overall company viability may change

as a result of complying with the

effluent limitations guidelines and

standards. The Agency conducted an

analysis using a multi-discriminant

function called the Z-score, which

combines several financial ratios, to

estimate changes in the likelihood of

company bankruptcy that result from

compliance with the guidelines and

standards. As shown in Table VI.C–3,

one company owning a direct discharger

is predicted to be likely to become

bankrupt under both Regulatory Options

1 and 2. However, this company was

also predicted to be bankrupt at baseline

(see Table VI.C–2), so the Regulatory

Options for BPT/BCT/BAT do not have

an incremental adverse effect on the

viability of companies owning direct

dischargers.

8. Impacts of PSES

Complying with the PSES standards

will increase the cost of treating CWT

wastes at affected indirect dischargers.

This in turn will reduce the supply of

CWT services, resulting in an increase

in the market price and a decrease in

use of CWT services. Changes in the

prices of CWT services, combined with

facility-specific changes in the costs of

treatment and the quantities of waste

treated, result in changes in facility

costs and revenues from services sold.

These changes result in changes in the

revenues and costs of companies

owning CWT facilities. In addition,

changes in the liabilities and assets of

companies owning CWT facilities result

from the borrowing and purchases of

capital equipment associated with

complying with the regulation. Thus,

overall company viability may change

as a result of complying with the

effluent limitations guidelines and

standards. As with BPT/BCT/BAT, the

Agency used the Z-score to estimate

changes in the likelihood of company

bankruptcy that result from compliance

with the guidelines and standards. As

shown in Table VI.C–4, EPA projects

that nine companies owning indirect

dischargers will likely become bankrupt

under Regulatory Option 1, and eight

companies owning indirect dischargers

are likely to become bankrupt under

Regulatory Option 2. At baseline, EPA

analysis shows that five companies

owning indirect dischargers are

bankrupt. Thus, the PSES controls are

predicted to result in only an

incremental impact on company

viability.

With the PSES controls under

Regulatory Option 1, four additional

companies owning indirect dischargers

are predicted to become bankrupt.

Under Regulatory Option 2, three

additional companies owning indirect

dischargers are predicted to become

bankrupt. Although the costs are higher

in general under Regulatory Option 2,

the data show that the companies

owning indirect dischargers that incur

these higher costs are better able to

withstand the impacts.

To the extent that predicted

bankruptcies result in closure of CWT

facilities, the cost of such closure are

attributable to this action. EPA has not

calculated the cost of closure for the

treatment operations although for

RCRA-permitted facilities, under some

circumstances, such costs may be

significant. The EPA solicits comment

on the probability for closure of such

facilities impacted by the proposed

regulation and the costs associated with

closure of the treatment operations.

9. Community Impacts of the Regulatory

Options

Overall, the communities in which

CWT facilities are located are expected

to experience fairly small, and generally

positive, increases in employment as a

result of the Regulatory Options. In

addition to the negative employment

changes estimated for facilities

becoming unprofitable under Options 1

and 2, employment increases may occur

in some facilities due to the operational

changes related to the new regulations

or due to the increase in volume of

waste treated. These changes in

employment may be positive for CWT

facilities made better off by the

regulation (for example, those who sell

more services), or they may be negative

for facilities becoming less profitable

but not moving from profitable to

unprofitable. Nationwide, facilities

becoming unprofitable reduce their

employment by 44 employees under

Regulatory Option 1 and by 52

employees under Regulatory Option 2.

Combined with market-related increases

and decreases in employment at other

facilities, the total market-related

reduction in employment under

Regulatory Option 1 is estimated to be

378 employees. Under Regulatory

Option 2, the national market-related

reduction employees is estimated to be

501 employees.

These decreases in employment result

from market adjustments to the

proposed regulations must be compared

to the employment increases estimated

to be required for operation and

maintenance of the controls. A large

percentage of the costs estimated for

facilities is attributed to the high annual

operating and maintenance costs. The

Agency estimates that the proper

handling and treatment of the

concentrated wastes will require

additional personnel and tanks to

segregate and monitor the wastes being

treated. Therefore, under Regulatory

Option 1, the labor requirements of the

controls are estimated to be 710

employees. Under Regulatory Option 2,

the labor requirements are estimated to

be 735 employees. Overall, employment

is projected to increase by 333

employees under Regulatory Option 1

and by 234 employees under Regulatory

Option 2. Thus, we expect communitylevel impacts to be small and generally

positive.
5494 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 18 / January, 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules

5Further, EPA’s toxic weighting factors do not

provide environmental ‘‘credit’’ for removal of

certain regulated pollutants. Thus, for example, the

toxic weighting factors do not account for removals

of the conventional pollutant, oil and grease.

Consequently, a comparison of the difference in

cost-effectiveness associated with oil subcategory

Regulatory Options 1 and 2 does not account for the

significantly greater removals of oil and grease

achieved through Regulatory Option 2 treatment

technology.

10. Foreign Trade Impacts

The EIA does not project any foreign

trade impacts as a result of the effluent

limitations guidelines and standards.

Although most of the affected CWT

facilities treat waste that is considered

hazardous under RCRA, international

trade in CWT services for treatment of

hazardous wastes is virtually

nonexistent.

11. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

The Agency performed an initial

regulatory flexibility analysis to assess

the relative severity of impacts on small

entities, specifically small companies,

owning CWT facilities. Small

companies are defined as those having

sales less than $6 million, which is the

Small Business Administration

definition of a small business for SIC

code 4953, Refuse Systems. This is the

SIC code that most CWTs listed in their

questionnaire responses. Thirteen of the

84 facilities not owned by the Federal

Government are small companies

according to this definition. One facility

is owned by the Federal Government.

To determine whether the impacts on

small companies are ‘‘significant,’’ EPA

used the following criteria:

(1) Annual compliance costs increase

total costs of production for small

entities for the relevant process or

product by more than 5 percent.

(2) Compliance costs as a percentage

of sales for small entities are at least 10

percent higher than compliance costs as

a percentage of sales for large entities.

(3) The requirements of the regulation

are likely to result in closures of small

entities.

Six of the thirteen small companies

are estimated to have compliance costs

exceeding 5 percent of baseline CWT

costs. Larger companies, however, have

both a higher absolute number and a

higher percentage of companies

incurring compliance costs that exceed

5 percent of baseline CWT costs. Thus,

small businesses are affected less than

other facilities.

The median value for the ratio of

compliance costs to sales for small

companies is very small: 0.6 percent.

However, the median value for larger

companies is even smaller: less than

0.001 percent. Thus, the ratio for small

companies is more than 10 percent

higher than the ratio for larger

companies. While this suggests that

small companies are more affected in

comparison to the larger companies, the

overall level of impact is very low for

all size categories.

The analysis does not estimate facility

closures, but it does assess the impact

of the Regulatory Options on the

likelihood of company bankruptcy. As

shown in Tables VI.C–3 and VI.C–4,

three of four additional companies

predicted to become ‘‘likely’’ to incur

bankruptcy under Regulatory Option 1

are small. Of the three additional

companies becoming likely to incur

bankruptcy as a result of Option 2, one

is small. Thus, under Regulatory Option

1, small businesses incur relatively

larger impacts according to this

measure, but under Regulatory Option

2, small businesses do not incur

relatively larger impacts.

Overall, while companies in all size

categories are affected, small companies

may experience impacts that are

somewhat greater relative to those

incurred by larger companies.

The Agency considered less stringent

control options for each subcategory.

However, given the concentrated and

difficult-to-treat wastes handled at CWT

facilities, the Agency does not believe a

less stringent level of control is BPT/

BCT/BAT. From discussions with

permit writers for CWT facilities, under

the present treatment standards, many

instances of water contamination and

odor releases occur because of

Centralized Waste Treatment facilities

as well as contamination of sludge at

POTWs. In comparison to other

promulgated effluent guidelines, this

industry has some of the most

concentrated and toxic waste streams.

Therefore, a stringent level of control is

deemed necessary.

12. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

For each of the Regulatory Options,

cost-effectiveness is calculated as the

ratio of the incremental annual costs in

1981 dollars to the incremental poundsequivalent of pollutants removed. The

estimated pounds-equivalent removed

were calculated by weighting the

number of pounds of each pollutant by

the relative toxic weighting factor for

each pollutant. The use of poundsequivalent gives correspondingly more

weight to more highly toxic pollutants.

Thus, for a given expenditure and

pounds of pollutants removed, the cost

per pound-equivalent removed would

be lower when more highly toxic

pollutants are removed than when less

toxic pollutants are removed. The

analysis employed toxic weighting

factors for weighting different pollutants

according to their relative toxicity.5

Table VI.C–5 and Table VI.C–6 show the

Total Cost-Effectiveness for each

subcategory option for BPT/BAT and

PSES, respectively.

TABLE VI.C–5.—BPT/BAT COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS

Option Total costs

($1981)

Total removals

(lb. eq.)

Cost-effectiveness

($/lb. eq.)

Incremental

cost-effectiveness

($/lb. eq.)

Metals Subcategory

1 ....................................................................................................................... 2,278,827 1,085,922 5.54

2 ....................................................................................................................... 8,541,863 1,142,279 51.52 111.13

3 ....................................................................................................................... 8,840,764 1,148,324 61.79 49.45

Oils Subcategory

1 ....................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 ........................

2 ....................................................................................................................... 628,228 113,500 5.54 5.54

3a ..................................................................................................................... 6,143,622 119,256 51.52 958.19
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 18 / January, 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules 5495

TABLE VI.C–5.—BPT/BAT COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS—CONTINUED

Option Total costs

($1981)

Total removals

(lb. eq.)

Cost-effectiveness

($/lb. eq.)

Incremental

cost-effectiveness

($/lb. eq.)

4 ....................................................................................................................... 7,262,456 117,540 61.79 ¥652.04

Organics Subcategory

1 ....................................................................................................................... 293,131 843,908 0.35

2 ....................................................................................................................... 2,280,094 25,585 89.12 ¥2.43

a Due to the use of pounds equivalent for the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, the pollutant removals do not include the incremental Oil & Grease

removal of 1,308,503 lb/year for Oils Option 3. The incremental cost associated with the removal of Oil and Grease ($0.39/pound removed) is

commensurate with other effluent limitations guidelines and standards, such as the $9.77/pound of TSS and Oils and Grease promulgated for the

Offshore Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category (EPA 821–R–93–003).

TABLE VI.C–6.—PSES COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS

Option Total costs

($1981)

Total removals

(lb.eq.)

Cost effectiveness ($/lb.eq.)

Incremental

cost effectiveness ($/lb.eq.)

Metals Subcategory

1 ....................................................................................................................... 2,410,819 156,945 15.36 ........................

2 ....................................................................................................................... 17,790,208 164,492 108.15 2,037.92

3 ....................................................................................................................... 18,676,537 165,056 113.15 1,569.66

Oils Subcategory

1 ....................................................................................................................... 0 0 ........................ ........................

2 ....................................................................................................................... 2,021,483 146,606 13.79 13.79

3 b ..................................................................................................................... 16,570,113 148,780 111.37 6,692.49

4 ....................................................................................................................... 19,864,864 148,264 133.98 ¥6,376.47

Organics Subcategory

1 ....................................................................................................................... 1,837,897 47,409 38.77 ........................

2 ....................................................................................................................... 3,722,098 41,227 90.28 ¥304.83

D. Water Quality Analyses

The water quality benefits of

controlling discharges from CWTs to

surface waters and POTWs were

evaluated in national analyses of direct

and indirect dischargers. CWT effluents

contain priority, nonconventional, and

conventional pollutants. Discharge of

these pollutants into freshwater and

estuarine ecosystems may alter aquatic

habitats, affect aquatic life, and

adversely impact human health. Many

of these pollutants are either human

carcinogens, human systemic toxicants,

or aquatic life toxicants. In addition,

many of these pollutants are persistent

and bioaccumulate in aquatic

organisms. These pollutants can also

affect POTW operations and cause

POTW sludge contamination. Four

direct CWT wastewater dischargers and

eight POTWs receiving wastewater from

13 indirect CWT dischargers are

currently impairing receiving stream

water quality (i.e., are listed on EPA’s

304(l) short list of impaired water

bodies). In addition, seven cases of

impairment of POTW operations have

also been documented. (All 66

pollutants proposed for regulation have

at least one toxic effect (human health

carcinogen and/or systemic toxicant or

aquatic toxicant)).

Discharge of conventional pollutants

such as TSS, Oil & Grease, and BOD 5

can have adverse effects on human

health and 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

alters benthic spawning grounds and

feeding habitats. Oil & Grease can have

lethal effect on fish, by coating surface

of gills causing asphyxia, or depleting

oxygen levels due to excessive

biological oxygen demand, or by

reducing stream reaeration because of

surface film. Oil and grease can also

have detrimental effects on waterfowl

by destroying the buoyancy and

insulation of their feathers.

Bioaccumulation of oil substances can

cause human health problems including

tainting of fish and bioaccumulation of

carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic

compounds. High BOD 5 levels can also

deplete of oxygen levels resulting in

mortality or other adverse effects on

fish. But the effects of conventional

pollutants and pollutant parameters,

such as TOC and COD, are not

calculated when modelling the effect of

the proposed regulation on the water

quality of receiving streams and POTW

operations. The Agency solicits

comment on possible approaches for

calculating the effect of conventional

pollutants and pollutant parameters,

such as TOC and COD, on the water

quality of receiving streams and POTW

operations in terms of inhibition or

sludge contamination.
5496 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 18 / January, 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules

The effects of direct wastewater

dischargers of toxic pollutants

(excluding conventional pollutants and

pollutant parameters) on receiving

stream water quality are evaluated at

current and proposed BPT/BAT

treatment levels for today’s proposed

rule. The potential impacts of indirect

wastewater dischargers on POTWs in

terms of inhibition of POTW operation,

contamination of sludge and the effects

of POTWs effluents on receiving stream

water quality are also evaluated at

current discharge levels and proposed

PSES levels. Water quality models are

used to project pollutant in-stream

concentrations based on estimated

releases at current and proposed

treatment levels; the in-stream

concentrations are then compared to

EPA-published water quality criteria or

to documented toxic effect levels where

EPA water quality criteria are not

available for certain pollutants. POTW

models are used to estimate potential

POTW inhibition and sludge

contamination.

The effects on receiving stream water

quality for 15 direct and 45 indirect

CWT facilities discharging up to 113

pollutants to 15 receiving streams and

33 POTWs respectively, are evaluated.

These analyses are first performed on

subcategory-specific basis for the three

CWT subcategories (i.e., metals, oils,

and organics subcategories). The

subcategory-specific analyses, however,

consider only impacts of discharges

from individual subcategories, and

therefore, underestimate overall water

quality impacts for facilities with

multiple subcategory operations. Over

40% of facilities in the Centralized

Waste Treatment Industry have

operations in multiple subcategories. In

order to evaluate overall benefits of the

proposed BPT/BAT/PSES proposed

options for pollutants (excluding

conventional pollutants and pollutant

parameters), the water quality and

POTW analyses are also performed for

multiple subcategory combinations, as

appropriate for individual facilities.

The subcategory-specific modeling

results for pollutants (excluding

conventional and pollutant parameters)

show that the proposed BPT/BAT/PSES

limitations reduce current excursions of

chronic aquatic life and/or human

health criteria or toxic effect levels as

follows: (1) for the Metals Subcategory

from 19 receiving streams to four

streams; (2) for the Oils Subcategory

from seven receiving streams to one

stream for both co-proposed options;

and (3) for the Organics Subcategory

from 14 receiving streams to five

streams. For the multiple subcategory

combinations (as applicable to

individual facilities), the modeling

shows current excursions of chronic

aquatic life and/or human health criteria

or toxic effect levels projected for 30

receiving streams reduced to ten

receiving streams for both co-proposed

regulatory options.

The potential impacts of 45 indirect

dischargers, which discharge up to 113

pollutants (excluding conventional

pollutant and pollutant parameters) into

33 POTWs are also evaluated in terms

of inhibition of POTW operations and

contamination of sludge. Both, the

subcategory-specific analyses for these

three CWT subcategories (i.e., metals,

oils, and organics subcategories), and for

the multiple subcategory combinations,

as appropriate for individual facilities,

are performed. The subcategory-specific

modeling results show the proposed

PSES reduce and/or eliminate current

potential POTW inhibition and sludge

contamination problems as follows: (1)

in the Metals Subcategory from 9

POTWs with potential inhibition

problems to two POTWs, and from 11

POTWs with potential sludge

contamination problems to one POTW;

and (2) in the Oils Subcategory from ten

POTWs with potential inhibition

problems to three POTWs and from one

POTW with potential sludge

contamination problem to none for both

co-proposed options. No potential

POTW inhibition or sludge

contamination problems are projected

for the Organics Subcategory at any

level. For the multiple subcategory

combinations, the modeling shows the

proposed PSES to reduce current POTW

inhibition problems projected for 17

POTWs to six POTWs, and potential

current sludge contamination problems

projected for 13 POTWs to one POTW.

The POTW inhibition and sludge

values used in this analysis are not, in

general, regulatory values. They are

based upon engineering and health

estimates contained in guidance or

guidelines published by EPA and other

sources. Thus, EPA generally is not

basing its regulatory approach for

proposed pretreatment discharge levels

upon the finding that some pollutants

interfere with POTWs by impairing their

treatment effectiveness or causing them

to violate applicable limits for their

chosen disposal methods. (Rather, the

proposed discharge limits are based

upon a determination of pass through as

explained earlier in preamble).

However, the values used in this

analysis help indicate the potential

benefits for POTW operations and

sludge disposal that may result from the

compliance with proposed pretreatment

discharge levels.

E. Non-Water Quality Environmental

Impacts

The elimination or reduction of one

form of pollution may create or

aggravate other environmental

problems. Therefore, Sections 304(b)

and 306 of the Act call for EPA to

consider non- water quality

environmental impacts of effluent

limitations guidelines and standards.

Accordingly, EPA has considered the

effect of these regulations on air

pollution, solid waste generation, and

energy consumption.

1. Air Pollution

CWT facilities generate wastewater

that contain significant concentrations

of organic compounds, some of which

are also on the list of Hazardous Air

Pollutants (HAP) in title 3 of the Clean

Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990.

These wastewater typically passthrough a series of collection and

treatment units that are open to the

atmosphere and allow wastewater

containing organic compounds to

contact ambient air. Atmospheric

exposure of the organic-containing

wastewater may result in significant

volatilization of both volatile organic

compounds (VOC), which contribute to

the formation of ambient ozone, and

HAP from the wastewater.

VOC and HAP are emitted from

wastewater beginning at the point where

the wastewater first contacts ambient

air. Thus, VOC and HAP from

wastewater may be of concern

immediately as the wastewater is

discharged from the process unit.

Emissions occur from wastewater

collection units such as process drains,

manholes, trenches, sumps, junction

boxes, and from wastewater treatment

units such as screens, settling basins,

and equalization basins, biological

aeration basins, air or steam strippers

lacking air emission control devices,

and any other units where the

wastewater is in contact with the air.

Today’s proposed regulations for the

Organics Subcategory are based on the

use of air stripping equipped with a

carbon adsorption air emission control

device for controlling volatile organic

compounds. For the Metals and Oils

Subcategories, where low levels of

volatile organic compounds were

detected, treatment technologies are

equipped air scrubbers to control

emissions.

No adverse air impacts are expected

to occur due to the proposed

regulations. Based on raw wastewater

loading estimates, air emissions of

volatile pollutants would decrease by

2.0 million pounds per year due to the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 18 / January, 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules 5497

use of air stripping equipped with

carbon adsorption air emission control

devices. The proposed regulation,

however, does not require air stripping

equipped with carbon adsorption air

emission control devices or any specific

technology, but only establishes the

amount of pollutant that can be

discharged to navigable waters.

2. Solid Waste

Solid waste would be generated due

to the following technologies, if

implemented to meet proposed

regulations, selective metals

precipitation, ultrafiltration, reverse

osmosis, carbon adsorption, and air

stripping. The solid wastes generated

due to the implementation of the

technologies discussed above were

costed for off-site disposal. These costs

were included in the economic

evaluation of the proposed technologies.

The filter cake from selective metals

precipitation will generally contain

metal-bearing waste. Even though the

filter cake generated from selective

metals precipitation may be recycled

due to its high metal content, the EPA

developed costs for disposal of the filter

cake in Subtitle C and D landfills. EPA

would expect that some portion of the

metal-rich filter cake will be recycled.

EPA estimates that 39 million pounds of

filter cake will be generated annually by

56 facilities.

Reverse osmosis of oily streams

results in the generation of a

concentrated residual stream. The

concentrate contains oily and metalbearing wastes. The EPA estimates that

58 million gallons of reverse osmosis

concentrate will be generated annually

by 35 facilities.

Ultrafiltration of oily streams results

in the generation of a concentrated

residual stream which contain oily and

organic waste. The EPA estimates that

4.1 million gallons of ultrafiltration

concentrate will be generated annually

by 35 facilities.

Granular activated carbon adsorption

treatment of waste results in the

generation of exhausted or spent

activated carbon. Approximately 1.6

million pounds of activated carbon will

be exhausted or spent annually by 35

facilities. The activated carbon may be

regenerated on-site or off-site by

vendors. The EPA costed regeneration of

the spent activated carbon by off-site

vendors.

Air stripping of waste streams results

in the generation of contaminated offgas, which requires the application of an

air pollutant control device such as a

catalytic oxidizer. When the catalytic

oxidizer becomes deactivated, the spent

catalyst must be replaced.

Approximately 168.5 pounds annually

of spent catalytic oxidizer are used.

3. Energy Requirements

EPA estimates that the attainment of

BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS

will increase energy consumption by a

small increment over present industry

use. The main energy requirement in

today’s proposed rule is for the

operation of ultrafiltration units.

Ultrafiltration units operate at high

pressures to separate the waste stream.

The ultrafiltration unit would require

9.4 million kilowatthours per year.

Energy requirements will also increase

due to reverse osmosis and liquid

filtration units. Reverse osmosis and

liquid filtrations units would require

approximately 4.1 and 4.9 million

kilowatthours per year, respectively.

Overall, an increase of 22.0 million

kilowatthours per year would be

required for the proposed regulation

which equates to 40 barrels of oil per

day. The United States currently

consumes 19 million barrels of oil per

day.

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket and Public Record

The public record for this rulemaking

is available for public review at EPA

Headquarters, 401 M Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20460 in the Office of

Water Docket, Room L102 (in the

basement of Waterside Mall). The

Docket is staffed by an EPA contractor,

Labat-Anderson, Inc., and interested

parties are encouraged to call for an

appointment. The telephone number for

the Water Docket is (202) 260–3027. The

EPA information regulation (40 CFR

Part 2) provides that a reasonable fee

may be charged for photocopying.

EPA notes that many documents in

the record supporting these proposed

rules have been claimed as confidential

business information and, therefore, are

not included in the record that is

available to the public in the Water

Docket. To support the rulemaking, EPA

is presenting certain information in

aggregated form or is masking facility

identities to preserve confidentiality

claims. Further, the Agency has

withheld from disclosure some data not

claimed as confidential business

information because release of this

information could indirectly reveal

information claimed to be confidential.

B. Clean Water Act Procedural

Requirements

As required by the Clean Water Act,

EPA will conduct a public hearing on

the pretreatment standards portion of

the proposed rule. The public hearing

will be conducted on March 24, 1995,

from 8:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. in the Lake

Michigan Conference Room at the U.S.

EPA Region V Building, 77 West

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL.

C. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866, [58 FR

51735 (October 4, 1993)] the Agency

must determine whether the regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to OMB review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely

to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(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’’ because it may adversely affect

a sector of the economy. 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.

EPA has concluded that costs on the

economy of this proposed rule will be

less than $100 million annually, and it

has not prepared an RIA.

D. Executive Order 12875

In developing the proposed CWT

effluent limitations guidelines and

standards, EPA has already invested

substantial time in discussions with

permit writers, the affected industries

and environmental groups. As

previously noted, in March of this year,

EPA held a public meeting, attended by

industry, states, and local permitting

authorities to discuss its efforts. The

Agency also has had discussions

concerning the regulation at the 1994

Pretreatment Coordinators Workshop

attended by state and local permitting

authorities, various industrial trade

association meetings, and effluent

guideline task force meetings.
5498 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 18 / January, 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules

On October 26, 1993, President

Clinton issued Executive Order No.

12875, ‘‘Enhancing the

Intergovernmental Partnership.’’ This

order is intended to reduce the

imposition of unfunded mandates upon

State, local and tribal governments. The

order requires Federal agencies like EPA

that impose unfunded mandates upon

such governments through regulation

either (1) to assure that the Federal

government provides the necessary

funds for compliance or (2) to describe

the extent of the Agency’s prior

consultations with affected units of

governments and the nature of their

concerns. The order calls for

intergovernmental consultation to begin

as early as possible in the regulatory

development process, preferably before

the publication of the notice of

proposed rulemaking. Consultation may

continue after publication but must

occur prior to the formal promulgation

of the regulatory action containing the

proposed mandate.

The rulemaking process to develop

the CWT limitations guidelines and

standards antedates the issuance of E.O.

12875 by a number of years as explained

above. To meet its obligations under

E.O. 12875, following publication of the

regulation, EPA plans extensive

outreach efforts to state and local

governments. EPA will develop

estimates of the upfront and recurring

costs likely incurred by State, local or

tribal governments in complying with

the proposal, if adopted.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5

U.S.C. 601 et. seq., requires EPA and

other agencies to prepare an initial

regulatory flexibility analysis for

regulations that have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. EPA projects that today’s

proposed rule, if promulgated, could

affect small businesses. The initial

regulatory flexibility analysis for these

proposed rules is incorporated into the

economic impact analysis and is

discussed in Section VI.A. Briefly, the

small entity analysis estimates the

economic impacts of the new

requirements on small companies and

describes the potential disparate

impacts between the groups of large and

Centralized Waste Treatment facilities.

The analysis also presents the Agency’s

consideration of alternatives that might

minimize the impacts on small entities.

The reasons why EPA is proposing

this rule are presented in Section II. The

legal basis for today’s rule is presented

in Legal Authority. The number of small

entities and the approach for defining

small entities are summarized in

Section VI.A. and the economic effects

on small entities detailed in the

economic impact analysis report for this

rulemaking. This assessment has led the

Agency to conclude that small

businesses are not disproportionately

impacted by the proposed rule.

Reporting and other compliance

requirements are summarized in

Sections VI. and VII. and detailed in the

technical development document.

While the Agency has not identified any

duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting

Federal rules, a discussion of other

related rulemakings is presented in

Section II.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

The proposed effluent guidelines and

standards contain no information

collection activities and, therefore, no

information collection request (ICR) has

been submitted to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for

review and approval under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

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

VIII. 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.

B. Specific Data and Comment

Solicitations

EPA has solicited comments and data

on many individual topics throughout

this preamble. The Agency incorporates

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. Applicability of Regulation for

Facilities Which Mix Centralized Waste

Treatment Waste Streams With Other

Industrial Waste Prior to Treatment or

After Minimal Treatment

The Agency is asking for comment on

whether the guidelines and standards

should apply to categorical facilities

which receive limited quantities of CWT

waste streams for treatment. The Agency

considered two approaches for this

proposal.

The first approach EPA considered

would have limited the applicability of

the guidelines and standards to facilities

which treat only the defined CWT

wastes without any mixing of wastes

with other categorical wastes. EPA,

however, has rejected this approach for

the proposal because of concern that

this would create a loophole. If CWT

wastes could be mixed with other

wastes for treatment and escape

regulation as CWT wastes, there exists

significant possibility that economically

achievable reduction of CWT pollutant

discharge levels will not be met. The

Agency believes that if the guidelines

and standards do not apply to CWT

wastes mixed with other waste streams

there is significant potential for

blending waste streams to avoid

otherwise required effluent reduction

levels.

Under the approach EPA is proposing,

CWT wastes that are mixed with other

categorical waste streams or other waste

streams will be subject to CWT effluent

limitations and standards. Even under

this second approach, however, there

exists significant potential to avoid

achieving CWT effluent reduction levels

by mixing wastes. Therefore, in order to

ensure that facilities mixing CWT

wastes and non-CWT waste streams

actually treat the CWT wastes, the

Agency is also proposing to require

separate monitoring for compliance

with CWT standards or limitations

waste streams (or alternatively, a

demonstration that treatment of mixed

CWT wastes and other waste streams

achieves the required pollutant

reductions). (See discussion below.) In

the absence of a requirement for

separate monitoring for compliance of

CWT waste streams, promulgation of the

CWT guideline could have the perverse

result of, in fact, discouraging

centralized treatment by encouraging

categorical facilities to accept CWT

waste streams that are diluted with

other waste streams before treatment.

The result would be no treatment for the

CWT wastes and no achievement of

effluent reduction obtainable at facilities

treating only CWT wastes. The Agency

is asking for comment on this approach.

2. Monitoring To Demonstrate

Compliance With CWT Limitations and

Standards

EPA is today proposing to require

each CWT facility that discharges

wastewater resulting from the treatment

of CWT wastes to monitor to

demonstrate compliance with
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 18 / January, 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules 5499

6However, a facility which receives wastes by

pipeline from a facility which receives off-site

wastes by truck, barge, etc. but does not treat the

wastes is still a CWT facility. The interposition of

an intermediate collection agent between generators

of CWT waste and a CWT treatment facility does

not convert the treatment facility into a non-CWT

facility.

applicable subcategory limitations and

standards.

As discussed above, commingling of

disparate waste streams may, in many

cases, allow achievement of discharge

limits without any real reduction in the

quantity of discharges of certain

pollutants. In fact, EPA has data that

show that CWT facilities which

commingle subcategory waste do not

achieve the reductions in pollutant

discharges that separate treatment

yields. One facility at which EPA

sampled mixes oily wastewater after

chemical emulsion breaking with metalbearing wastewater. EPA measured the

oily wastewater after emulsion breaking

and before mixing with the other

subcategory wastes and found

measurable levels of regulated organic

compounds. Samples of the mixed

wastewater showed non-detectable

levels of the organic compounds. The

treatment for mixed wastewater

included no treatment for organics

removal. Thus, this facility clearly

provides no reduction in organic

pollutant discharges other than that

provided by chemical emulsion

breaking of the surface oil. Separate

treatment of oily wastes would,

however, remove significant quantities

of organic pollutants. EPA has

preliminarily concluded that the

reduced removals that may be

associated with the mixing of waste

streams is inconsistent with the

requirements of the Act. EPA,

consequently, as previously discussed,

is requiring that the CWT demonstrate

to the POTW or permitting authority

that it is achieving removal of regulated

pollutants that are equivalent to that

which would be obtained if the wastes

are treated separately.

EPA’s proposal today does not require

separate treatment of CWT and nonCWT wastewater. Rather, EPA requires

monitoring or other data establishing

that the required effluent levels are met.

The Agency has concluded, however,

that separate treatment is economically

achievable and the Agency has

concluded that mixing waste will not

achieve the pollutant reduction

associated with best available

technology. Consequently, as explained

above, EPA is proposing to require

monitoring for compliance at a point

immediately following treatment of the

CWT waste stream. In the case of

facilities that mix CWT wastes with

other wastes (or mix different

subcategories of CWT waste streams) for

treatment, EPA has proposed to require

a facility to demonstrate that treatment

processes employed result in reduction

in the quantity of pollutants discharged

that is equivalent to that achieved by

separate treatment.

The Agency has concluded it has the

authority to adopt such a requirement.

Under the Clean Water Act, effluent

limitations must ensure the

achievement of the discharge levels

associated with BPT/BCT/BAT

technology. The data collected by the

Agency establishes that today’s

proposed BPT/BCT/BAT limitations and

standards are available at a cost not

incommensurate with the expected

effluent reduction and no more stringent

limitations are economically achievable.

Without a requirement to demonstrate

compliance with the limitations and

standards, EPA cannot ensure that the

limitations and standards will be met.

3. Estimation of Industry Size

From the information obtained from

the 1991 Waste Treatment Industry

Questionnaire, EPA estimates that there

are 85 facilities in the Centralized Waste

Treatment Industry. Permit writers and

industry representatives believe this is

an underestimation of the present

industry size. EPA’s estimation of The

industry size is based on data provided

from questionnaire mailed to facilities

that EPA identified using information

available to it in 1989. As stated earlier,

facilities names were gathered from

various sources, because no SIC code

exists for the industry. Therefore, there

may have been CWT facilities not

included on the questionnaire mailing

list. EPA solicits information on the

number, name, and location of facilities

within the industry.

4. Exclusion of Pipeline Centralized

Waste Treatment Facilities From Scope

of Rule

The Agency proposes to exclude from

this regulation facilities which receive

all waste from off-site by pipeline from

the source of waste generation.6 Based

on the information gathered in the 1991

Waste Treatment Industry

Questionnaire, such facilities are

fundamentally different from those that

are the subject of today’s proposal.

These pipeline facilities receive steady

flows of relatively consistent pollutant

profiles from facilities that in most cases

are subject to categorical regulations. By

contrast, centralized waste treatment

facilities receive concentrated wastes

with highly variable pollutant content,

such as sludges, tank bottoms, off-spec

products, and process residuals. Permit

writers should use the building block

approach in conjunction with the

appropriate guidelines for the facilities

discharging to the pipeline facility to

derive the appropriate BPJ effluent

limitations for these facilities. The

Agency solicits comment on excluding

such facilities from this scope of this

rule as well as comment on this

approach to permitting pipeline

facilities.

5. De minimis Level for Scope of

Regulation

According to comments received from

the May 1994 Effluent Guidelines Plan

(59 FR 25859), the EPA should consider

establishing a de minimis level for the

scope of the regulations due to possible

management practices at manufacturing

facilities. Manufacturers may receive

small quantities of waste from off-site to

treat in a wastewater treatment system

due to a site’s ability to handle the

waste properly in comparison to the site

at which the waste is generated.

Information collected from the 1991

Waste Treatment Industry

Questionnaire was not designed to

collect this information due to the

method of creating the mailing list. EPA

solicits additional data to determine if a

de minimis level should be established

and information on the appropriate

level.

6. Characterization of Waste Received

by Oils Subcategory Facilities

In the EPA sampling program for the

Oils Subcategory, the EPA focused on

facilities which treat concentrated,

stable oil-water emulsions which are

difficult to treat, because the majority of

facilities identified in 1989 with on-site

treatment accepted this type of waste.

EPA requests information on the type of

oily waste (stable, unstable, etc.)

accepted for treatment by facilities in

the Oils Subcategory as well as the

constituents found in the waste.

7. Methodology for Estimating Current

Performance

Many facilities in the Centralized

Waste Treatment Industry commingle

waste receipts from off-site with other

on-site generated wastewater, such as

non-contaminated stormwater and other

industrial wastewater, prior to

discharging. This mixing of waste may

occur prior to or after treatment of the

waste receipts. Because the

commingling occurs prior to the

discharge point, monitoring data

collected by facilities at the discharge

point cannot be used to estimate the

current treatment performance of certain
5500 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 18 / January, 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules

centralized waste treatment operations.

Under the approach EPA is proposing,

in the case of the introduction of

stormwater after treatment but before

discharge, the allowable discharges from

such a facility would be based on the

guideline limitations and standards

before the introduction of the

stormwater. In the case of the

stormwater or other wastes introduced

before treatment, as discussed

previously, the EPA used several

methods to estimate current industry

performance. EPA solicits comment on

the methodologies used to estimate

current discharge performance. EPA

also requests discharge monitoring data

from facilities prior to commingling the

Centralized Waste Treatment

wastewater with other sources of

wastewater. These data will be used to

assess current discharge performance

and to statistically analyze the

autocorrelation of concentrations

measured on consecutive days (See

Section V.G. for an explanation of

autocorrelation). Before submitting

discharge monitoring data, please

contact Debra DiCianna at (202) 260–

7141 to ensure that the data provided

include information to support its use

for calculating current performance and

possible limitations.

8. Implementation of Regulation for

Multiple Subcategory Facilities

Forty percent of the facilities in the

Centralized Waste Treatment Industry

receive flows that fall within two or

more of the proposed subcategories for

this industry. Since waste receipts in

this industry are concentrated and

difficult to treat, the Agency believes

that the defined levels of effluent

reductions will not be met if waste

receipts from different categories are

treated in a single treatment system.

EPA has concluded that separate

pretreatment steps are necessary in

order to treat the waste receipts

adequately for its constituents prior to

commingling the wastes. For example, if

oily wastes and metal-bearing wastes are

mixed, selective metals precipitation

will not remove certain constituents (i.e.

n-decane, oil and grease) which would

be removed if the oily waste is

pretreated before precipitation. As

discussed above, the approach which

EPA has proposed would require

monitoring to demonstrate compliance

after oily waste treatment and after

metal-bearing treatment. The EPA

solicits comment on other approaches

for implementing the proposal in order

to address the problem of discharges

from treatment of mixed subcategory

wastes. EPA also requests data on the

performance of treatment systems which

are designed to treat waste that may be

characterized in more than one

subcategory.

9. Applicability of Guideline to POTWs

Treating CWT Wastes

EPA is soliciting comment today also

on how to treat wastes received for

treatment at a POTW by tanker truck,

trailer/roll-off bins or barges or other

forms of shipment. EPA is aware that

there are several POTWs receiving

wastes for treatment that are not

discharged to the POTW through sewers

or pipes. EPA welcomes additional

information and data on the subject.

The CWA provides that pretreatment

standards apply to all discharges which

pass through or interfere with POTW

operations and all POTWs must comply

with effluent limitations based on

secondary treatment requirements and

any more stringent limitations,

including those necessary to meet water

quality standards, treatment standards,

or schedules of compliance established

pursuant to any other Federal law or

regulation. CWA Sections 301(a)(1) and

307(b). Under RCRA, under certain

conditions, a POTW may accept

hazardous waste for treatment. A POTW

is deemed to have a permit for treatment

of hazardous waste if, among other

things, the POTW complies with the

conditions of its NPDES permit and

certain RCRA regulatory requirements

(e.g., use of the RCRA manifest system,

maintaining certain records). In

addition, the waste must meet ‘‘all

Federal State, and local pretreatment

requirements which would be

applicable to the waste if it were being

discharged into the POTW through a

sewer, pipe or similar conveyance.’’ 40

CFR 270.61(c)(4). Under this provision,

therefore, EPA has concluded that a

POTW cannot accept wastes for

treatment via any form of shipment

which are RCRA hazardous wastes

unless these wastes comply with

pretreatment requirements in today’s

guideline. Moreover, it is EPA’s view

that whether the CWT wastes are

hazardous or non-hazardous, the

pretreatment standard would apply to

the CWT wastes. As proposed today, the

pretreatment standards apply to the

introduction of a pollutant to a POTW

irrespective of the mechanism for

introducing that pollutant to the POTW.

EPA is soliciting comment on how

widespread is the practice of POTW

treatment of wastes received from offsite via any form of shipment as well as

its tentative conclusion that today’s

proposal would apply to such wastes.

10. Treatment of Incidental Organic

Pollutants Detected in the Metals

Subcategory

During the EPA sampling program,

EPA collected analytical data on the

presence of organic pollutants in the

Metals Subcategory. Various organic

pollutants were detected at low

concentrations in the untreated CWT

wastewater. EPA sampled treatment

technologies to control the discharge of

organic pollutants. In most

circumstances, the organic pollutants

detected at low concentrations in the

treatment facility influent were found at

non-detectable levels prior to any

treatment for the organic pollutants.

Because the initial concentrations of

organic pollutants were very low, the

addition of treatment chemicals and

other sources of CWT wastewater

caused the concentrations to become

lower and thereby non-detectable. As

previously discussed, EPA sampled

carbon adsorption units to use as addon technologies for the removal of

organic compounds, but treatment

performance for carbon adsorption units

was found to be uniformly poor

throughout the industry. EPA solicits

comment on the necessity of control on

low level organic pollutants for the

Metals subcategory and technologies

appropriate for the control of low level

organics as well as analytical data to

characterize the performance of such

treatment technologies.

11. Additional Technologies for the

Control of Concentrated CyanideBearing Wastes

The BPT effluent limitations and

standards for the pretreatment control of

cyanide in the Metals Subcategory is

based on the use of alkaline chlorination

at specific operating conditions which

enable the destruction of concentrated

cyanide complexes. Two additional

treatment technologies were sampled in

the process of developing the proposed

regulation. Performance by one

treatment technology was uniformly

inadequate for the treatment of

concentrated cyanide waste. The

additional treatment technology

sampled performed well in the

treatment of concentrated cyanide

complexes, but is propriatary

information. EPA solicits information

on additional treatment technologies

applicable to the treatment of

concentrated cyanide complexes that

are commercially available.

12. Probability and Cost of RCRAPermitted Facilities Undergoing Closure

The Agency has predicted that a few

companies may undergo bankruptcy as
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 18 / January, 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules 5501

a result of the proposed rulemaking. The

predicted bankruptcies may result in

closure of CWT facilities and the cost of

such closure is attributable to this

action. For RCRA permitted facilities,

the cost of such closure may be

significant. EPA solicits comment on the

probability of closure of such facilities

impacted by the proposed regulation

and the costs associated with closure of

the treatment operations.

13. Assessing the Effects of

Conventional Pollutants

A large portion of the pollutant

reductions for the proposed regulation

are for conventional pollutants,

especially oil and grease. Due the

present methodology for the

environmental assessment, the impacts

of conventional pollutants are not taken

into account for the proposed

regulation. The Agency solicits

comment on possible approaches for

assessing the effect of conventional

pollutants and pollutant parameters,

such as TOC and COD, on the water

quality of receiving streams and POTW

operations in terms of inhibition and

sludge contamination.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 437

Environmental protection, Hazardous

waste, Waste treatment and disposal,

Water pollution control.

Dated: December 15, 1994.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code

of Federal Regulations is proposed to be

amended by adding part 437 as follows:

PART 437—THE CENTRALIZED

WASTE TREATMENT INDUSTRY

POINT SOURCE CATEGORY

General Provisions

Sec.

437.1 General definitions.

437.2 Applicability.

437.3 Monitoring requirements.

Subpart A—Metals Treatment and Recovery

Subcategory

Sec.

437.10 Applicability; description of the

Metals Subcategory.

437.11 Specialized definitions.

437.12 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by

the application of best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

437.13 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by

the application of the best conventional

pollutant control technology (BCT).

437.14 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by

the application of best available

technology economically achievable

(BAT).

437.15 New source performance standards

(NSPS).

437.16 Pretreatment standards for existing

sources (PSES).

437.17 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS).

Subpart B—Oils Treatment and Recovery

Subcategory

Sec.

437.20 Applicability; description of the Oils

Subcategory.

437.21 Specialized definitions.

437.22 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by

the application of best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

437.23 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by

the application of the best conventional

pollutant control technology (BCT).

437.24 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by

the application of best available

technology economically achievable

(BAT).

437.25 New source performance standards

(NSPS).

437.26 Pretreatment standards for existing

sources (PSES).

437.27 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS).

Subpart C—Organics Treatment or

Recovery Subcategory

Sec.

437.30 Applicability; description of the

Organics Subcategory.

437.31 Specialized definitions.

437.32 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by

the application of best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

437.33 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by

the application of the best conventional

pollutant control technology (BCT).

437.34 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by

the application of best available

technology economically achievable

(BAT).

437.35 New source performance standards

(NSPS).

437.36 Pretreatment standards for existing

sources (PSES).

437.37 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS).

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

1317, and 1361.

General Provisions

§ 437.1 General definitions.

In addition to the definitions set forth

in 40 CFR part 401, the following

definitions apply to this part:

(a) Centralized waste treatment

facility—Any facility that treats any

hazardous or non-hazardous industrial

wastes received from off-site by tanker

truck, trailer/roll-off bins, drums, barge,

or other forms of shipment. A

‘‘centralized waste treatment facility’’

includes: A facility that treats waste

received from off-site exclusively; and a

facility that treats wastes generated onsite as well as waste received from offsite.

(b) Centralized waste treatment

wastewater—Water that comes in

contact with wastes received from offsite for treatment or recovery or that

comes in contact with the area in which

the off-site wastes are received, stored or

collected.

(c) Conventional pollutants—The

pollutants identified in section 304(a)(4)

of the CWA and the regulations

thereunder (biochemical oxygen

demand (BOD5), total suspended solids

(TSS), oil and grease, pH, and fecal

coliform).

(d) Facility—A facility is all

contiguous property owned, operated,

leased or under the control of the same

person. The contiguous property may be

divided by public or private right-ofway.

(e) Metal-bearing wastes—Wastes that

contain metal pollutants from

manufacturing or processing facilities or

other commercial operations. These

wastes may include, but are not limited

to, the following: process wastewater,

process residuals such as tank bottoms

or stills and process wastewater

treatment residuals, such as treatment

sludges.

(f) New source—‘‘New source’’ is

defined at 40 CFR 122.2 and 122.29.

(g) Non-conventional pollutants—

Pollutants that are neither conventional

pollutants nor priority pollutants.

(h) Off-site—‘‘Off-site’’ means outside

the boundaries of a facility.

(i) Oily wastes—Wastes that contain

oil and grease from manufacturing or

processing facilities or other commercial

operations. These wastes may include,

but are not limited to, the following:

spent lubricants, cleaning fluids,

process wastewater, process residuals

such as tank bottoms or stills and

process wastewater treatment residuals,

such as treatment sludges.

(j) On-site—‘‘On-site’’ means within

the boundaries of a facility.

(k) Organic wastes—Wastes that

contain organic pollutants from

manufacturing or processing facilities or

other commercial operations. These

wastes may include, but are not limited

to, process wastewater, process

residuals such as tank bottoms or stills

and process wastewater treatment

residuals, such as treatment sludges.
5502 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 18 / January, 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules

(l) Pipeline—‘‘Pipeline’’ means an

open or closed conduit used for the

conveyance of material. A pipeline

includes a channel, pipe, tube, trench or

ditch.

(m) POTW—Publicly-owned

treatment works as defined at 40 CFR

403.3 (o).

(n) Priority pollutants—The pollutants

designated by EPA as priority in 40 CFR

part 423, appendix A.

(o) Process wastewater—‘‘Process

wastewater’’ is defined at 40 CFR 122.2.

§ 437.2 Applicability.

(a) Notwithstanding anything to the

contrary in subchapter N of this chapter,

the provisions of this part are applicable

to that portion of wastewater discharges

from a centralized waste treatment

facility that result from the treatment or

recovery of metals, oil, and organics

from metal-bearing wastes, oily wastes

and organic-bearing wastes received

from off-site. The provisions of this Part

are also applicable to that portion of

wastewater discharge from a CWT

facility contact water. The provisions of

this part do not apply to that portion of

wastewater discharges from a CWT

facility that results from the treatment of

wastes that are generated on-site which

are subject to other applicable

provisions of Subchapter N of this

chapter.

(b) The provisions of this part do not

apply to wastewater discharges at a

centralized waste treatment facility that

result from the following treatment

operations: thermal destruction,

incineration, stabilization,

solidification, the blending of fuel and

recycling of solvents from hazardous

and non-hazardous industrial wastes

received from off-site.

(c) The provisions of this part do not

apply to discharges from a centralized

waste treatment facility that result from

the treatment or recovery of wastes

received by pipeline from a facility that

generates the waste.

§ 437.3 Monitoring requirements.

The following monitoring

requirements apply to this part:

(a) The ‘‘monthly average’’ regulatory

values shall be the basis for the monthly

average effluent limitations in direct

discharge permits and pretreatment

standards. Compliance with the

monthly average discharge limit is

required regardless of the number of

samples analyzed and averaged.

(b) Any centralized waste treatment

facility that discharges wastewater that

results from the treatment of metalbearing waste, oily waste, or organicbearing waste must monitor as follows:

(1) A centralized waste treatment

facility must monitor to demonstrate

compliance with applicable Subcategory

A, B, or C limitations or standards.

(2) When a Centralized Waste

Treatment facility: is subject to effluent

limitations, new source performance

standards or pretreatment standards in

more than one Subpart of this Part (or

any other Part of Subchapter N of this

chapter), and (after treatment) mixes

waste whose wastewater treatment

discharges are subject to more than one

Subpart of this Part (or any other Part

of Subchapter N of this chapter), the

owner or operator of the Centralized

Waste Treatment facility must monitor

for compliance with the limitations for

each Subpart of this Part after treatment

and before mixing of the waste for

discharge with any other Subpart

wastes, process wastewater subject to

another effluent limitation or standard

in Subchapter N of this chapter, or

stormwater. A Centralized Waste

Treatment facility is not required to

monitor for compliance after treatment

and before mixing of Subpart wastes

that are mixed with other wastes for

treatment and discharge if the following

condition is met. The owner or operator

of the Centralized Waste Treatment

facility must demonstrate to the POTW

or permitting authority that the

Centralized Waste Treatment facility

treating and discharging effluent from

the mixture of wastes is capable of

achieving the effluent limitation or

standard for each Subpart.

(3) When a Centralized Waste

Treatment facility: is subject to effluent

limitations, new source performance

standards or pretreatment standards in

more than one Subpart of this Part (or

any other Part of Subchapter N of this

chapter), and (prior to treatment) mixes

waste whose wastewater treatment

discharges are subject to more than one

Subpart of this Part (or any other Part

of Subchapter N), the owner or operator

of the Centralized Waste Treatment

facility must demonstrate to the POTW

or permitting authority that the

Centralized Waste Treatment facility

treating and discharging effluent from

the mixture of wastes is capable of

achieving the effluent limitation or

standard for each Subpart.

(4) A centralized waste treatment

facility must monitor for cyanide after

cyanide treatment and before dilution

with other waste streams. Periodic

analysis for cyanide is not required for

a centralized waste treatment facility in

the metal-bearing waste subcategory

when the following condition is met:

The owner or operator of the facility

certifies in writing to the POTW or

permit issuing authority that the

centralized waste treatment system is

not treating wastes that contain more

than 68 mg/l of Total Cyanide.

Subpart A—Metals Treatment and

Recovery Subcategory

§ 437.10 Applicability; description of the

Metals Subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are

applicable to that portion of wastewater

discharges from a centralized waste

treatment facility that result from the

treatment of, or recovery of metals from,

metal-bearing waste received from offsite and CWT facility contact water.

§ 437.11 Specialized definitions.

The general definitions, abbreviations,

and methods of analysis set forth in 40

CFR part 401 and § 437.01 shall apply

to this subpart.

§ 437.12 Effluent limitations representing

the degree of effluent reduction attainable

by the application of 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

the following table representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable

by the application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT). These limitations apply to the

pretreatment of metal-bearing waste

which contain cyanide and the metals

treatment effluent.

IN-FACILITY BPT LIMITATIONS FOR CYANIDE PRETREATMENT.—METALS

SUBCATEGORY (MG/L)

Pollutant or pollutant

parameter

Maximum

for any

one day

Monthly

average

Total Cyanide ........... 350 130

BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS—METALS

SUBCATEGORY (mg/l)

Pollutant or pollutant

parameter

Maximum for

any one

day

Monthly

average

Conventional Pollutants:

Oil and Grease ..... 45 11

TSS ....................... 55 18

Priority and Non-Conventional Pollutants:

Aluminum .............. 0.72 0.16

Antimony ............... 0.14 0.031

Arsenic .................. 0.076 0.017

Barium ................... 0.14 0.032

Cadmium ............... 0.73 0.16

Chromium ............. 0.77 0.17
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 18 / January, 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules 5503

BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS—METALS

SUBCATEGORY (mg/l)—Continued

Pollutant or pollutant

parameter

Maximum for

any one

day

Monthly

average

Cobalt .................... 0.73 0.16

Copper .................. 1.0 0.23

Hexavalent Chromium .................. 0.14 0.077

Iron ........................ 2.4 0.54

Lead ...................... 0.37 0.082

Magnesium ........... 9.9 2.2

Manganese ........... 0.18 0.039

Mercury ................. 0.013 0.0030

Nickel .................... 5.4 1.2

Silver ..................... 0.028 0.0063

Tin ......................... 0.20 0.044

Titanium ................ 0.021 0.0047

Total Cyanide ........ 4.4 1.2

Zinc ....................... 1.2 0.27

§ 437.13 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 subject to this subpart must

achieve the effluent limitations

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application

of the best conventional pollutant

control technology (BCT). The

limitations for TSS and Oil and Grease

shall be the same as those specified in

§ 437.12 for the best practicable control

technology currently available (BPT).

§ 437.14 Effluent limitations representing

the degree of effluent reduction attainable

by the application of best available

technology economically achievable (BAT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve the effluent limitations

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application

of the best available technology

economically achievable (BAT). The

limitations shall be the same as those

specified in § 437.12 for the best

practicable control technology currently

available (BPT) for the priority and nonconventional pollutants listed.

§ 437.15 New source performance

standards (NSPS).

Any new source subject to this

subpart must achieve new source

performance standards (NSPS). These

limitations apply to the metals

treatment effluent. The limitations shall

be the same as those specified in

§ 437.12 for the best practicable control

technology currently available (BPT).

§ 437.16 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 (or any source that

introduces hazardous or non-hazardous

waste into a POTW from off-site by

tanker truck, trailer/roll-off bins, drums,

barge or other form of shipment) must:

Comply with 40 CFR part 403; and

achieve the following pretreatment

standards for existing sources (PSES).

IN-FACILITY PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR CYANIDE

PRETREATMENT.—METALS SUBCATEGORY (mg/l)

Pollutant or pollutant

parameter

Maximum for

any one

day

Monthly

average

Total Cyanide ........... 350 130

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS.—METALS

SUBCATEGORY (mg/l)

Pollutant or pollutant

parameter

Maximum for

any one

day

Monthly

average

Aluminum .................. 0.72 0.16

Antimony ................... 0.14 0.031

Arsenic ...................... 0.076 0.017

Cadmium .................. 0.73 0.16

Chromium ................. 0.77 0.17

Cobalt ....................... 0.73 0.16

Copper ...................... 1.0 0.23

Hexavalent Chromium ..................... 0.14 0.077

Iron ........................... 2.4 0.54

Lead .......................... 0.37 0.082

Magnesium ............... 9.9 2.2

Manganese ............... 0.18 0.039

Mercury ..................... 0.013 0.0030

Nickel ........................ 5.4 1.2

Silver ......................... 0.028 0.0063

Tin ............................. 0.20 0.044

Titanium .................... 0.021 0.0047

Total Cyanide ........... 4.4 1.2

Zinc ........................... 1.2 0.27

§ 437.17 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 (or any

new source that introduces hazardous or

non-hazardous waste into a POTW from

off-site by tanker truck, trailer/roll-off

bins, drums, barge or other form of

shipment) must: Comply with 40 CFR

part 403; and achieve the pretreatment

standards for new sources (PSNS). The

limitations shall be the same as those

specified in § 437.16 for the

pretreatment standards for existing

sources (PSES).

Subpart B—Oils Treatment and

Recovery Subcategory

§ 437.20 Applicability; description of the

Oils Subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are

applicable to that portion of wastewater

discharges from a centralized waste

treatment facility that result from the

treatment of, or recovery of oils from,

oily waste received from off-site and

CWT facility contact water.

§ 437.21 Specialized definitions

The general definitions, abbreviations,

and methods of analysis set forth in 40

CFR part 401 and § 437.01 shall apply

to this subpart.

§ 437.22 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 following effluent

limitations representing the degree of

effluent reduction attainable by the

application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS.—OILS SUBCATEGORY (mg/l)

Pollutant or pollutant parameter

Option 2 Option 3

Maximum for

any one day

Monthly averageMaximum for

any one day

Monthly average

Conventional Pollutants:

Oil and Grease ................................................................................................. 30,000 5,900 240 64
5504 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 18 / January, 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules

BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS.—OILS SUBCATEGORY (mg/l)—Continued

Pollutant or pollutant parameter

Option 2 Option 3

Maximum for

any one day

Monthly averageMaximum for

any one day

Monthly average

TSS .................................................................................................................. 24 8.2 4.0 1.4

Priority and Non-Conventional Pollutants:

1,1,1-Trichloroethane ....................................................................................... 1.6 1.0 0.18 0.12

2-Propanone ..................................................................................................... 41 22 130 44

4-Chloro-3-Methyl Phenol ................................................................................ 5.2 4.4 0.96 0.54

Aluminum ......................................................................................................... 2.3 0.57 0.085 0.038

Barium .............................................................................................................. 0.10 0.026 0.0027 0.0012

Benzene ........................................................................................................... 9.0 6.8 1.8 1.4

Butanone .......................................................................................................... 3.7 2.0 13 4.3

Cadmium .......................................................................................................... 1.5 0.37 0.0046 0.0020

Chromium ......................................................................................................... 2.2 0.54 0.010 0.0045

Copper .............................................................................................................. 2.0 0.50 0.016 0.0073

Ethylbenzene .................................................................................................... 1.1 0.86 0.085 0.066

Iron ................................................................................................................... 75 19 0.40 0.18

Lead ................................................................................................................. 5.0 1.2 0.076 0.034

Manganese ....................................................................................................... 5.4 1.3 0.043 0.019

Methylene Chloride .......................................................................................... 3.9 2.0 2.2 0.91

m-Xylene .......................................................................................................... 1.6 1.2 0.074 0.058

Nickel ................................................................................................................ 120 29 2.2 0.99

n-Decane .......................................................................................................... 0.18 0.096 0.19 0.067

n-Docosane ...................................................................................................... 0.18 0.096 0.19 0.067

n-Dodecane ...................................................................................................... 0.18 0.096 0.19 0.067

n-Eicosane ....................................................................................................... 0.18 0.096 0.19 0.067

n-Hexacosane .................................................................................................. 0.18 0.096 0.19 0.067

n-Hexadecane .................................................................................................. 0.18 0.096 0.19 0.067

n-Octadecane ................................................................................................... 0.18 0.096 0.19 0.067

n-Tetradecane .................................................................................................. 0.18 0.096 0.19 0.067

o&p-Xylene ....................................................................................................... 0.86 0.65 0.045 0.035

Tetrachloroethene ............................................................................................ 0.23 0.14 0.032 0.016

Tin .................................................................................................................... 0.82 0.20 0.12 0.056

Toluene ............................................................................................................ 17 13 1.8 1.4

Tripropyleneglycol Methyl Ether ....................................................................... 280 150 160 57

Zinc ................................................................................................................... 22 5.6 0.54 0.24

§ 437.23 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 subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the degree of

effluent reduction attainable by the

application of the best conventional

pollutant control technology (BCT). The

limitations for TSS and Oil and Grease

shall be the same as those specified in

§ 437.22 for the best practicable control

technology currently available (BPT).

§ 437.24 Effluent limitations representing

the degree of effluent reduction attainable

by the application of best available

technology economically achievable (BAT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the degree of

effluent reduction attainable by the

application of the best available

technology economically achievable

(BAT). The limitations shall be the same

as those specified in § 437.22 for the

best practicable control technology

currently available (BPT) for the priority

and non-conventional pollutants listed.

§ 437.25 New source performance

standards (NSPS).

Any new source subject to this

subpart must achieve the following new

source performance standards (NSPS).

These limitations apply to the oils

treatment effluent. The limitations shall

be the same as those specified in

§ 437.22 for the best practicable control

technology currently available (BPT).

§ 437.26 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 (or any source that

introduces hazardous or non-hazardous

waste into a POTW from off-site by

tanker truck, trailer/roll-off bins, drums,

barge or other form of shipment) must:

comply with 40 CFR part 403; and

achieve the following pretreatment

standards for existing sources (PSES).
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 18 / January, 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules 5505

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS.—OILS SUBCATEGORY (mg/l)

Pollutant or pollutant parameter

Option 2 Option 3

Maximum for

any one

day

Monthly

average

Maximum

for any

one day

Monthly

average

1,1,1-Trichloroethane .......................................................................................................................... 1.6 1.0 0.18 0.12

2-Propanone ........................................................................................................................................ 41 22 130 44

4-Chloro-3-Methyl Phenol ................................................................................................................... 5.2 4.4 0.96 0.54

Aluminum ............................................................................................................................................. 2.3 0.57 0.085 0.038

Barium ................................................................................................................................................. 0.10 0.026 0.0027 0.0012

Benzene .............................................................................................................................................. 9.0 6.8 1.8 1.4

Butanone ............................................................................................................................................. 3.7 2.0 13 4.3

Cadmium ............................................................................................................................................. 1.5 0.37 0.0046 0.0020

Chromium ............................................................................................................................................ 2.2 0.54 0.010 0.0045

Copper ................................................................................................................................................. 2.0 0.50 0.016 0.0073

Ethylbenzene ....................................................................................................................................... 1.1 0.86 0.085 0.066

Iron ...................................................................................................................................................... 75 19 0.40 0.18

Lead ..................................................................................................................................................... 5.0 1.2 0.076 0.034

Manganese .......................................................................................................................................... 5.4 1.3 0.043 0.019

Methylene Chloride ............................................................................................................................. 3.9 2.0 2.2 0.91

m-Xylene ............................................................................................................................................. 1.6 1.2 0.074 0.058

Nickel ................................................................................................................................................... NA NA 2.2 0.99

n-Decane ............................................................................................................................................. 0.18 0.096 0.19 0.067

n-Docosane ......................................................................................................................................... 0.18 0.096 0.19 0.067

n-Dodecane ......................................................................................................................................... 0.18 0.096 0.19 0.067

n-Eicosane ........................................................................................................................................... 0.18 0.096 0.19 0.067

n-Hexacosane ..................................................................................................................................... 0.18 0.096 0.19 0.067

n-Hexadecane ..................................................................................................................................... 0.18 0.096 0.19 0.067

n-Octadecane ...................................................................................................................................... 0.18 0.096 0.19 0.067

n-Tetradecane ..................................................................................................................................... 0.18 0.096 0.19 0.067

o&p-Xylene .......................................................................................................................................... 0.86 0.65 0.045 0.035

Tetrachloroethene ............................................................................................................................... 0.23 0.14 0.032 0.016

Tin ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.82 0.20 0.12 0.056

Toluene ................................................................................................................................................ 17 13 1.8 1.4

Tripropyleneglycol Methyl Ether .......................................................................................................... NA NA 160 57

Zinc ...................................................................................................................................................... NA NA 0.54 0.24

NA= No pretreatment standards are developed: pollutant was determined not to ‘‘pass-through.’’

§ 437.27 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 (or any

new source that introduces hazardous or

non-hazardous waste into a POTW from

off-site by tanker truck, trailer/roll-off

bins, drums, barge or other form of

shipment) must: Comply with 40 CFR

part 403; and achieve pretreatment

standards for new sources (PSNS). The

limitations shall be the same as those

specified in § 437.26 of this subpart for

the pretreatment standards for existing

sources (PSES).

Subpart C—Organics Treatment or

Recovery Subcategory

§ 437.30 Applicability; description of the

Organics Subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are

applicable to that portion of wastewater

discharges from a centralized waste

treatment facility that result from the

treatment of, or recovery of organics

from, organic-bearing waste received

from off-site and CWT facility contact

water.

§ 437.31 Specialized definitions.

The general definitions, abbreviations,

and methods of analysis set forth in 40

CFR part 401 and § 437.01 shall apply

to this subpart.

§ 437.32 Effluent limitations representing

the degree of effluent reduction attainable

by the application of best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the degree of

effluent reduction attainable by the

application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT).

BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS.—

ORGANICS SUBCATEGORY (mg/l)

Pollutant or pollutant

parameter

Maximum for

any one

day

Monthly

average

Conventional Pollutants:

BOD5 ......................... 163 53

Oil and Grease ......... 13 4.9

TSS ........................... 216 61

Priority and Non-Conventional Pollutants:

1,1,1,2-

Tetrachloroethane . 0.013 0.011

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.021 0.018

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.21 0.17

1,1-Dichloroethane .... 0.037 0.027

1,2,3-

Trichloropropane ... 0.016 0.014

1,2-Dibromoethane ... 0.014 0.011

1,2-Dichloroethane .... 0.031 0.025

2,3-Dichloroaniline .... 0.17 0.14

Butanone ................... 1.1 0.84

2-Propanone ............. 1.6 1.3

4-Methyl-2-Pentanone 0.093 0.074

Acetophenone ........... 0.048 0.022

Aluminum .................. 1.3 0.75

Antimony ................... 0.42 0.24

Barium ....................... 3.8 2.2

Benzene .................... 0.014 0.011
5506 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 18 / January, 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules

BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS.—

ORGANICS SUBCATEGORY (mg/l)—

Continued

Pollutant or pollutant

parameter

Maximum for

any one

day

Monthly

average

Benzoic Acid ............. 0.49 0.24

Carbon Disulfide ....... 0.16 0.11

Chloroform ................ 0.56 0.48

Diethyl Ether ............. 0.070 0.056

Hexanoic Acid ........... 0.51 0.25

Lead .......................... 0.16 0.095

Methylene Chloride ... 1.1 0.97

Molybdenum ............. 0.98 0.57

m-Xylene ................... 0.014 0.011

o-Cresol .................... 0.051 0.025

Phenol ....................... 0.79 0.38

Pyridine ..................... 0.71 0.24

p-Cresol .................... 0.098 0.040

Tetrachloroethene ..... 0.73 0.53

Tetrachloromethane .. 0.013 0.011

Toluene ..................... 0.014 0.011

trans-1,2-

dichloroethene ....... 0.15 0.11

Trichloroethene ......... 1.2 0.86

Vinyl Chloride ............ 0.071 0.052

Zinc ........................... 0.43 0.25

§ 437.33 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 subject to this subpart must

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the degree of

effluent reduction attainable by the

application of the best conventional

pollutant control technology (BCT). The

limitations for BOD5. TSS, and Oil and

Grease shall be the same as those

specified in § 437.32 of this subpart for

the best practicable control technology

currently available (BPT).

§ 437.34 Effluent limitations representing

the degree of effluent reduction attainable

by the application of best available

technology economically achievable (BAT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart must

achieve limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable

by the application of the best available

technology economically achievable

(BAT). The limitations shall be the same

as those specified in § 437.32 for the

best practicable control technology

currently available (BPT) for the priority

and non-conventional pollutants listed.

§ 437.35 New source performance

standards (NSPS).

Any new source subject to this

subpart must achieve the following new

source performance standards (NSPS).

These limitations apply to the organics

treatment effluent. The limitations shall

be the same as those specified in

§ 437.32 for the best practicable control

technology currently available (BPT).

§ 437.36 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 (or any source that

introduces hazardous or non-hazardous

waste into a POTW from off-site by

tanker truck, trailer/roll-off bins, drums,

barge or other form of shipment) must:

comply with 40 CFR part 403; and

achieve the following pretreatment

standards for existing sources (PSES).

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS—

ORGANICS SUBCATEGORY (mg/l)

Pollutant or pollutant

parameter

Maximum for

any one

day

Monthly

average

1,1,1,2-

Tetrachloroethane ..... 0.013 0.011

1,1,1-Trichloroethane ... 0.021 0.018

1,1,2-Trichloroethane ... 0.21 0.17

1,1-Dichloroethene ....... 0.037 0.027

1,2,3-Trichloropropane . 0.016 0.014

1,2-Dibromoethane ....... 0.014 0.011

1,2-Dichloroethane ....... 0.031 0.025

2,3-Dichloroaniline ........ 0.17 0.14

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS—

ORGANICS SUBCATEGORY (mg/l)—

Continued

Pollutant or pollutant

parameter

Maximum for

any one

day

Monthly

average

4-Methyl-2-Pentanone .. 0.093 0.074

Acetophenone .............. 0.048 0.022

Aluminum ...................... 1.3 0.75

Antimony ....................... 0.42 0.24

Barium .......................... 3.8 2.2

Benzene ....................... 0.014 0.011

Benzoic Acid ................. 0.49 0.24

Butanone ...................... 1.1 0.84

Carbon Disulfide ........... 0.16 0.11

Chloroform .................... 0.56 0.48

Diethyl Ether ................. 0.070 0.056

Hexanoic Acid .............. 0.51 0.25

Methylene Chloride ...... 1.1 0.97

Molybdenum ................. 0.98 0.57

m-Xylene ...................... 0.014 0.011

o-Cresol ........................ 0.051 0.025

p-Cresol ........................ 0.098 0.040

Tetrachloroethene ........ 0.73 0.53

Tetrachloromethane ..... 0.013 0.011

Toluene ......................... 0.014 0.011

trans-1,2-dichloroethene 0.15 0.11

Trichloroethene ............. 1.2 0.86

Vinyl Chloride ............... 0.071 0.052

§ 437.37 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 (or any

new source that introduces hazardous or

non-hazardous waste into a POTW from

off-site by tanker truck, trailer/roll-off

bins, drums, barge or other form of

shipment) must: comply with 40 CFR

part 403; and achieve pretreatment

standards for new sources (PSNS). The

limitations shall be the same as those

specified in § 437.36 for the

pretreatment standards for existing

sources (PSES).

[FR Doc. 95–47 Filed 1–26–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P