[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 3, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 424-558]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-33]



[[Page 423]]

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

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Parts 413, 433, 438, 463, 464, 467, and 471



Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source 
Performance Standards for the Metal Products and Machinery Point Source 
Category; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2001 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 424]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 413, 433, 438, 463, 464, 467, and 471

[FRL-6897-6]
RIN 2040-AB79


Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New 
Source Performance Standards for the Metal Products and Machinery Point 
Source Category; Proposed Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This proposal represents the Agency's second look at Clean 
Water Act national effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment 
standards for wastewater discharges from metal products and machinery 
facilities. EPA initially proposed effluent limitations guidelines and 
pretreatment standards for a portion of this category on May 30, 1995 
(60 FR 28210). This proposal completely replaces the 1995 proposal. 
Today's proposed regulation would establish technology-based effluent 
limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards for wastewater 
discharges associated with the operation of new and existing metal 
products and machinery facilities. The metal products and machinery 
industry includes facilities that manufacture, rebuild, or maintain 
metal products, parts, or machines.
    EPA estimates that compliance with this regulation will reduce the 
discharge of conventional pollutants by at least 115 million pounds per 
year, priority pollutants by 12 million pounds per year, and 
nonconventional metal and organic pollutants by 43 million pounds per 
year for an estimated compliance cost of $1.98 billion (pre-tax, 1999$) 
annually. EPA estimates that the annual benefits of the proposal range 
from $0.4 billion to $1.1 billion. In addition, this proposal solicits 
comment on new methodologies for expanding the analysis to include 
additional categories of recreational benefits.

DATES: EPA must receive comments on the proposal by May 3, 2001. EPA is 
conducting a public meeting (9:00 AM--12:00 PM) and hearing on the 
pretreatment standards (1:00 PM--4:00 PM) for this proposed rule on 
each of the following dates: February 6, 2001 in Oakland, CA; February 
13, 2001 in Dallas, TX; and February 22, 2001 in Washington, DC.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to, Mr. Michael Ebner, Office of 
Water, Engineering and Analysis Division (4303), U.S. EPA, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460 if by mail and to Mr. 
Michael Ebner, U.S. EPA, 401 M St., SW, Room 611 West Tower, 
Washington, DC 20460 if by hand delivery. Comments may also be sent via 
E-mail to ``<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#83eef3eeade0eceeeee6edf7f0c3e6f3e2ade4ecf5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="08657865266b6765656d667c7b486d7869266f677e">[email protected]</span></a>''. Please submit any references cited 
in your comments. EPA requests an original and three copies of your 
comments and enclosures (including references). Commenters who want EPA 
to acknowledge receipt of their comments should enclose a self-
addressed, stamped envelope. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. 
For additional information on how to submit electronic comments see 
``SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, How to Submit Comments.''
    EPA will be holding public meetings and pretreatment hearings on 
today's proposal on three separate dates. The meeting in Oakland, CA 
will be held at the Oakland Mariott, City Center, 1001 Broadway, 
Oakland, CA 96607. The meeting in Dallas, TX will be held in the 
Oklahoma and Texas rooms at the EPA Region 6 Offices, 1455 Ross Avenue, 
Dallas, TX. The meeting in Washington, DC will be held in EPA's 
Auditorium, Waterside Mall, 401 M St. SW, Washington, DC.
    EPA established the public record for this proposed rulemaking 
under docket number W-99-23. It is located in the Water Docket, East 
Tower Basement, 401 M St. SW, Washington, DC 20460. The record is 
available for inspection from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
excluding legal holidays. For access to the docket materials, call 
(202) 260-3027 to schedule an appointment. You may have to pay a 
reasonable fee for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information concerning 
today's proposed rule, contact Mr. Michael Ebner at (202) 260-5397 or 
Ms. Shari Barash at (202) 260-7130. For economic information contact 
Dr. Lynne Tudor at (202) 260-5834.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

    Entities potentially regulated by this action include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Category                  Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.....................  <bullet> Facilities that manufacture,
                                maintain, or rebuild metal parts,
                                products or machines used in the
                                following sectors: Aerospace, Aircraft,
                                Bus & Truck, Electronic Equipment,
                                Hardware, Household Equipment,
                                Instruments, Job Shops, Mobile
                                Industrial Equipment, Motor Vehicles,
                                Office Machines, Ordnance, Precious
                                Metals and Jewelry, Printed Wiring
                                Boards, Railroad, Ships and Boats,
                                Stationary Industrial Equipment, and
                                Miscellaneous Metal Products.
Government...................  <bullet> State and local government
                                facilities that manufacture, maintain,
                                or rebuild metal parts, products or
                                machines (e.g., a town that operates its
                                own bus, truck, and/or snow removal
                                equipment maintenance facility).
                               <bullet> Federal facilities that
                                manufacture, maintain, or rebuild metal
                                parts, products or machines (e.g., U.S.
                                Naval Shipyards).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA does not intend the preceding table to be exhaustive, but rather it 
provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated 
by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now 
aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of 
entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine 
whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully 
examine the applicability criteria proposed in Sections III and VI.C 
and detailed further in section 438.1 of the proposed rule. If you have 
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular 
entity, consult one of the persons listed for technical information in 
the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

How To Submit Comments

    Electronic comments must be identified by the docket number W-99-23 
and must be submitted as an ASCII, or WordPerfect 5/6/7/8/9 or 
Microsoft Word 97 file avoiding the use of special characters and any 
form of encryption. EPA also will accept comments and data on disks in 
Word Perfect 5/6/7/8/9, Microsoft Word 97 or ASCII file format. 
Electronic comments on this notice may be filed online at some Federal 
Depository Libraries. No confidential business information (CBI) should 
be sent via e-mail. In the public record for

[[Page 425]]

the final MP&M regulation, EPA will respond to comments from the 1995 
Phase I proposal as well as today's proposal. Therefore, comments 
submitted on the Phase I rule do not need to resubmitted in response to 
this proposal.

Public Meeting and Pretreatment Hearing Information:

    In each location, the public meeting will be held in the morning 
and the pretreatment hearing will be held in the afternoon (see DATES 
and ADDRESSES for dates and locations of public meetings and 
pretreatment hearings). During the public meeting, EPA will present 
information on the applicability of the proposed regulation, the 
technology options selected as the basis for the proposed limitations 
and standards, and the compliance costs and pollutant reductions. EPA 
will also allow time for questions and answers during this session. 
During the pretreatment hearing, the public will have the opportunity 
to provide oral comment to EPA. EPA will not address any issues raised 
during the pretreatment hearing at that time, but these comments will 
be recorded and included in the public record for the rule. Persons 
wishing to present formal comments at the public hearing should contact 
Mr. Michael Ebner before the hearing and should have a written copy of 
their comments for submittal.

Protection of Confidential Business Information

    EPA notes that many documents in the record supporting the proposed 
rule have been claimed as CBI and, therefore, EPA has not included 
these documents in the public record. To support the rulemaking, EPA is 
presenting certain information in aggregated form or, alternatively, is 
masking facility identities in order to preserve confidentiality 
claims. Further, the Agency has withheld from disclosure some data not 
claimed as CBI because release of this information could indirectly 
reveal information claimed to be confidential.
    Facility-specific data, claimed as CBI, are available to the 
company that submitted the information. To ensure that EPA protects all 
CBI in accordance with EPA regulations, any requests for company-
specific data should be submitted to EPA on company letterhead and 
signed by the official authorized to receive such data. The request 
must list the specific data requested and include the following 
statement, ``I certify that EPA is authorized to transfer confidential 
business information submitted by my company, and that I am authorized 
to receive it.''

Supporting Documentation

    Several key documents support the proposed regulations:
    1. ``Development Document for the Proposed Effluent Limitations 
Guidelines and Standards for the Metal Products & Machinery Point 
Source Category'' [EPA-821-B-00-005]: This document presents EPA's 
methodology and technical conclusions concerning the Metal Products & 
Machinery Point Source Category.
    2. ``Economic, Environmental, and Benefits Analysis of the Proposed 
Metal Products & Machinery Rule'' [EPA-821-B-00-008]: This document 
presents the methodology employed to assess economic and environmental 
impacts of the proposed rule and the results of the analysis.
    3. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Proposed Effluent Limitations 
Guidelines and Standards for the Metal Products & Machinery Point 
Source Category'' [EPA-821-B-00-007] This document analyzes the cost-
effectiveness of the proposed regulation.
    4. ``Statistical Support Document for the Proposed Effluent 
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Metal Products & Machinery 
Industry'' [EPA-821-B-00-006]: This document establishes the 
statistical methodology for developing numerical discharge limitations.
    Major supporting documents are available in hard copy from the 
National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP), U.S. 
EPA/NSCEP, P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA 45242-2419, (800) 490-
9198, http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom/. You can obtain electronic copies of 
this preamble and rule as well as the technical and economic support 
documents for today's proposal at http://www.epa.gov/ost/guide/mpm.

Overview

    The preamble describes the terms, 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.
    In addition, this preamble proposes to update references in the 
relevant parts of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to include the 
Metal Products & Machinery Point Source Category. References in 40 CFR 
would be updated in the Electroplating (part 413), Metal Finishing 
(part 433), Plastic Molding and Forming (part 463), Metal Molding and 
Casting (part 464), Aluminum Forming (467), and Nonferrous Metals 
Forming and Metal Powders (part 471) effluent guidelines point source 
categories.

Table of Contents

I. Legal Authority
II. Background
    A. Statutory Authorities
    B. Existing Regulation for Metals Industries
    C. 1995 Proposal for Phase I Sectors
    D. Summary of Most Significant Changes from 1995 Proposal
III. Scope of Proposal
IV. Industry Description
V. Summary of Data Collection Activities
    A. Existing Data Sources
    B. Survey Questionnaires
    C. Wastewater Sampling and Site Visits
    D. Industry Submitted Data
    E. Summary of Public Participation
VI. Industry Subcategorization
    A. Methodology and Factors Considered for Basis of 
Subcategorization
    B. Proposed Subcategories
    C. General Description of Facilities in Each Subcategory
VII. Water Use and Wastewater Characteristics
    A. Wastewater Sources and Characteristics
    B. Pollution Prevention, Recycle, Reuse, and Water Conservation 
Practices
VIII. Development of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
    A. Overview of Technology Options
    B. Determination of Long-Term Averages, Variability Factors, and 
Limitations
IX. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)
    A. General Metals Subcategory
    B. Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory
    C. Non-Chromium Anodizing Subcategory
    D. Printed Wiring Board Subcategory
    E. Steel Forming & Finishing Subcategory
    F. Oily Wastes Subcategory
    G. Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory
    H. Shipbuilding Dry Dock Subcategory
X. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)
    A. July 9, 1986 BCT Methodology
    B. Discussion of BCT Option for Metal-Bearing Wastewater
    C. Discussion of BCT Option for Oily Wastewater
XI. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
    A. General Metals Subcategory
    B. Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory
    C. Non-Chromium Anodizing Subcategory
    D. Printed Wiring Board Subcategory
    E. Steel Forming & Finishing Subcategory
    F. Oily Wastes Subcategory
    G. Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory
    H. Shipbuilding Dry Dock Subcategory
XII. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
    A. Need for Pretreatment Standards
    B. Overview of Technology Options for PSES
    C. Overview of Low Flow Exclusions
    D. General Metals Subcategory

[[Page 426]]

    E. Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory
    F. Non-Chromium Anodizing Subcategory
    G. Printed Wiring Board Subcategory
    H. Steel Forming & Finishing Subcategory
    I. Oily Wastes Subcategory
    J. Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory
    K. Shipbuilding Dry Dock Subcategory
XIII. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and Pretreatment 
Standards for New Sources (PSNS)
    A. NSPS for the General Metals Subcategory
    B. PSNS for the General Metals Subcategory
    C. NSPS for the Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory
    D. PSNS for the Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory
    E. NSPS for the Non-Chromium Anodizing Subcategory
    F. PSNS for the Non-Chromium Anodizing Subcategory
    G. NSPS for the Printed Wiring Board Subcategory
    H. PSNS for the Printed Wiring Board Subcategory
    I. NSPS for the Steel Forming and Finishing Subcategory
    J. PSNS for the Steel Forming and Finishing Subcategory
    K. NSPS for the Oily Wastes Subcategory
    L. PSNS for the Oily Wastes Subcategory
    M. NSPS for the Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory
    N. PSNS for the Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory
    O. NSPS for the Shipbuilding Dry Dock Subcategory
    P. PSNS for the Shipbuilding Dry Dock Subcategory
XIV. Issues Related to the Methodology Used to Determine POTW 
Performance
    A. Assessment of Acceptable POTWs
    B. Assessment of Acceptable Data
    C. Assessment of Removals When Effluent Is Below the Analytical 
Method Minimum Level
XV. Methodology for Estimating Costs & Pollutant Reductions
XVI. Economic Impact and Social Cost Analysis
    A. Introduction
    B. Facility Level Impacts
    C. Firm Level Impacts
    D. Impacts on Governments
    E. Community Level Impacts
    F. Foreign Trade Impacts
    G. Impacts on New Facilities
    H. Social Costs
XVII. Cost Effectiveness Analysis
    A. Methodology
    B. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Indirect Dischargers
    C. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Direct Dischargers
XVIII. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
    A. Air Pollution
    B. Solid Waste
    C. Energy Requirements
XIX. Water Quality, Sewage Sludge, and Other Environmental Impacts
    A. Introduction
    B. Beneficial Impacts of the MP&M Proposed Rule
XX. Benefit Analysis
    A. Overview of Benefits
    B. Reduced Human Health Risk
    C. Ecological, Recreational, and Nonuser Benefits
    D. Productivity Changes: Cleaner Sewage Sludge (Biosolids)
    E. Total Estimated Benefits of the Proposed MP&M Rule
    F. Benefit-Cost Comparison
XXI. Regulatory Implementation
    A. Compliance Dates
    B. Implementation of Limitations and Standards
    C. Monitoring Flexibility
    D. Pollution Prevention Alternative for the Metal Finishing Job 
Shops Subcategory
    E. Upset and Bypass Provisions
    F. Variances and Modifications
    G. Relationship of Effluent Limitations and Pretreatment 
Standards to NPDES Permits and Local Limits
    H. Best Management Practices
XXII. Related Acts of Congress, Executive Orders, and Agency 
Initiatives
    A. Paperwork Reduction Act
    B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as Amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA)
    D. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Plain Language Directive
    K. Executive Order 13158: Marine Protected Areas
    L. Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA)
XXIII. Solicitation of Data and Comments
XXIV. Guidelines for Submission of Analytical Data
    A. Types of Data Requested
    B. Analytes Requested
    C. Quality Assurance/ Quality Control (QA/QC) Requirements
Appendix A to the Preamble:Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Other Terms 
Used in This Document.

I. Legal Authority

    EPA is proposing this regulation under the authorities of sections 
301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 402 and 501 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 
Sections 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342 and 1361 and under 
authority of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA), 42 U.S.C. 
13101 et seq., Pub L. 101-508, November 5, 1990.

II. Background

A. Statutory Authorities

1. Clean Water Act
    Congress adopted the Clean Water Act (CWA) to ``restore and 
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the 
nation's waters'' (Section 101(a), 33 U.S.C. 1251(a)). To achieve this 
goal, the CWA prohibits the discharge of pollutants into navigable 
waters except in compliance with the statute. The CWA confronts the 
problem of water pollution on a number of different fronts. Its primary 
reliance, however, is on establishing restrictions on the types and 
amounts of pollutants discharged from various industrial, commercial, 
and public sources of wastewater.
    Congress recognized that regulating only those sources that 
discharge effluent directly into the nation's waters would not be 
sufficient to achieve the CWA's goals. Consequently, the CWA requires 
EPA to promulgate nationally applicable pretreatment standards which 
restrict pollutant discharges for those who discharge wastewater 
indirectly through sewers flowing to publicly-owned treatment works 
(POTWs) (Sections 307(b) and (c), 33 U.S.C. 1317(b) and (c)). EPA 
establishes national pretreatment standards for those pollutants in 
wastewater from indirect dischargers which may pass through or 
interfere with POTW operations. Generally, the Agency develops 
pretreatment standards to ensure that wastewater from direct and 
indirect industrial dischargers are subject to similar levels of 
treatment. In addition, EPA requires POTWs 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. EPA 
establishes these limitations and standards by regulation for 
categories of industrial dischargers and bases them on the degree of 
control that can be achieved using various levels of pollution control 
technology.
a. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)--Sec. 
304(b)(1) of the CWA
    In the guidelines for an industry category, EPA defines BPT 
effluent limits for conventional, toxic,\1\ and non-

[[Page 427]]

conventional pollutants. In specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number of 
factors. EPA first considers the cost of achieving effluent reductions 
in relation to the effluent reduction benefits. The Agency also 
considers the age of the equipment and facilities, the processes 
employed and any required process changes, engineering aspects of the 
control technologies, non-water quality environmental impacts 
(including energy requirements), and such other factors as the Agency 
deems appropriate (CWA 304(b)(1)(B)). Traditionally, EPA establishes 
BPT effluent limitations based on the average of the best performances 
of facilities within the industry of various ages, sizes, processes or 
other common characteristics. Where existing performance is uniformly 
inadequate, EPA may require higher levels of control than currently in 
place in an industrial category if the Agency determines that the 
technology can be practically applied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In the initial stages of EPA CWA regulation, EPA efforts 
emphasized the achievement of BPT limitations for control of the 
``classical'' pollutants (e.g., TSS, pH, BOD<INF>5</INF>). However, 
nothing on the face of the statute explicitly restricted BPT 
limitation to such pollutants. Following passage of the Clean Water 
Act of 1977 with its requirement for point sources to achieve best 
available technology limitations to control discharges of toxic 
pollutants, EPA shifted its focus to address the listed priority 
toxic pollutants under the guidelines program. BPT guidelines 
continue to include limitations to address all pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)--Sec. 
304(b)(2) of the CWA
    In general, BAT effluent limitations guidelines represent the best 
existing economically achievable performance of direct discharging 
plants in the industrial subcategory or category. The factors 
considered in assessing BAT include the cost of achieving BAT effluent 
reductions, the age of equipment and facilities involved, the processes 
employed, engineering aspects of the control technology, potential 
process changes, non-water quality environmental impacts (including 
energy requirements), and such factors as the Administrator deems 
appropriate. The Agency retains considerable discretion in assigning 
the weight to be accorded to these factors. An additional statutory 
factor considered in setting BAT is economic achievability. Generally, 
EPA determines the economic achievability on the basis of the total 
cost to the industrial subcategory and the overall effect of the rule 
on the industry's financial health. The Agency may base BAT limitations 
upon effluent reductions attainable through changes in a facility's 
processes and operations. As with BPT, where existing performance is 
uniformly inadequate, EPA may base BAT upon technology transferred from 
a different subcategory within an industry or from another industrial 
category. In addition, the Agency may base BAT upon process changes or 
internal controls, even when these technologies are not common industry 
practice.
c. 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. BCT 
is not an additional limitation, but replaces Best Available Technology 
(BAT) for control of conventional pollutants. In addition to other 
factors specified in Section 304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires that EPA 
establish BCT limitations after consideration of a two-part ``cost-
reasonableness'' test. EPA explained its methodology for the 
development of BCT limitations in July 1986 (51 FR 24974).
    Section 304(a)(4) designates the following as conventional 
pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD<INF>5</INF>), total 
suspended solids (TSS), fecal coliform, pH, and any additional 
pollutants defined by the Administrator as conventional. The 
Administrator designated oil and grease as an additional conventional 
pollutant on July 30, 1979 (44 FR 44501).
d. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)--Sec. 306 of the CWA
    NSPS reflect effluent reductions that are achievable based on the 
best available demonstrated control technology. New facilities have the 
opportunity to install the best and most efficient production processes 
and wastewater treatment technologies. As a result, NSPS should 
represent the greatest degree of effluent reduction attainable through 
the application of the best available demonstrated control technology 
for all pollutants (i.e., conventional, non-conventional, and priority 
pollutants). In establishing NSPS, the CWA directs EPA 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 pass 
through, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the 
operation of publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). The CWA authorizes 
EPA to establish pretreatment standards for pollutants that pass 
through POTWs or interfere with treatment processes or sludge disposal 
methods at POTWs. Pretreatment standards are technology-based and 
analogous to BAT effluent limitations guidelines.
    The General Pretreatment Regulations, which set forth the framework 
for implementing categorical pretreatment standards, are found at 40 
CFR part 403. Those regulations contain a definition of pass through 
that addresses localized rather than national instances of pass through 
and establish pretreatment standards that apply to all non-domestic 
dischargers. See 52 FR 1586, January 14, 1987.
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. 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. Pollution Prevention Act
    The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA) (42 U.S.C. 13101 et 
seq., Pub. L. 101-508, November 5, 1990) makes pollution prevention the 
national policy of the United States. The PPA identifies an 
environmental management hierarchy in which pollution ``should be 
prevented or reduced whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be 
prevented should be recycled in an environmentally safe manner, 
whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled 
should be treated in an environmentally safe manner whenever feasible; 
and disposal or release into the environment should be employed only as 
a last resort* * *'' (42 U.S.C. 13103). In short, preventing pollution 
before it is created is preferable to trying to manage, treat or 
dispose of it after it is created. According to the PPA, source 
reduction reduces the generation and release of hazardous substances, 
pollutants, wastes, contaminants or residuals at the source, usually 
within a process. The term source reduction ``* * * includes equipment 
or technology modifications, process or procedure modifications, 
reformulation or redesign of products, substitution of raw materials, 
and improvements in housekeeping, maintenance, training, or inventory

[[Page 428]]

control. The term `source reduction' does not include any practice 
which alters the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics or 
the volume of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant through 
a process or activity which itself is not integral to or necessary for 
the production of a product or the providing of a service.'' In effect, 
source reduction means reducing the amount of a pollutant that enters a 
waste stream or that is otherwise released into the environment prior 
to out-of-process recycling, treatment, or disposal.

B. Existing Regulation for Metals Industries

    EPA has established effluent guidelines regulations for thirteen 
industrial categories which may perform operations that are sometimes 
found in MP&M facilities. These effluent guidelines are:
    <bullet> Electroplating (40 CFR part 413);
    <bullet> Iron and Steel Manufacturing (40 CFR part 420);
    <bullet> Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing (40 CFR part 421);
    <bullet> Ferroalloy Manufacturing (40 CFR part 424);
    <bullet> Metal Finishing (40 CFR part 433);
    <bullet> Battery Manufacturing (40 CFR part 461);
    <bullet> Metal Molding & Casting (40 CFR part 464);
    <bullet> Coil Coating (40 CFR part 465);
    <bullet> Porcelain Enameling (40 CFR part 466);
    <bullet> Aluminum Forming (40 CFR part 467);
    <bullet> Copper Forming (40 CFR part 468);
    <bullet> Electrical and Electronic Components (40 CFR part 469); 
and
    <bullet> Nonferrous Metals Forming and Metal Powders (40 CFR part 
471).
    In 1986, the Agency reviewed coverage of these regulations and 
identified a significant number of metals processing facilities 
discharging wastewater that these 13 regulations did not cover. Based 
on this review, EPA performed a more detailed analysis of these 
facilities that were not subject to national effluent guidelines and 
pretreatment standards. This analysis identified the discharge of 
significant amounts of pollutants. This analysis resulted in the 
decision to develop national limitations and standards for the 
``Machinery Manufacturing and Rebuilding'' (MM&R) point source 
category. In 1992, EPA changed the name of the category to ``Metal 
Products and Machinery'' (MP&M) to clarify coverage of the category (57 
FR 19748).
    EPA recognizes that in some cases unit operations performed in 
industries covered by the existing effluent guidelines are the same as 
unit operations performed at MP&M facilities. In general, when unit 
operations and their associated wastewater discharges are already 
covered by an existing effluent guideline, they will remain covered 
under that effluent guideline. (See Sec. 438.1(b)). However, for the 
existing Electroplating (40 CFR 413) and Metal Finishing (40 CFR 433) 
effluent guidelines some facilities will be covered by this proposal. 
EPA is proposing to replace the existing Electroplating (40 CFR 413) 
and Metal Finishing (40 CFR 433) effluent guidelines with the MP&M 
regulations for all facilities in the Printed Wiring Board subcategory 
(see proposed rule Sec. 438.40) and the Metal Finishing Job Shops 
subcategory (see proposed rule Sec. 438.20). (See Table II.B-1 for 
clarification for details and Section VI.C for a discussion of 
subcategory-specific applicability).
    When a facility covered by an existing metals effluent guidelines 
(other than Electroplating or Metal Finishing) discharges wastewater 
from unit operations not covered under that existing metals guideline 
but covered under MP&M, the facility will need to comply with both 
regulations. (See Sec. 438.1(c)). In those cases, the permit writer or 
control authority (e.g., Publicly Owned Treatment Works) will combine 
the limitations using an approach that proportions the limitations 
based on the different in-scope production levels (for production-based 
standards) or wastewater flows. POTWs refer to this approach as the 
``combined wastestream formula'' (40 CFR 403.6(e)), while NPDES permit 
writers refer to it as the ``building block approach.'' Permit writers 
and local control authorities currently issue permits and control 
mechanisms for many facilities in other effluent guidelines categories 
where overlaps with more than one effluent limitation guidelines 
regulation occur (e.g., Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic 
Fibers; Pesticide Manufacturing; Pesticide Formulating, Packaging and 
Repackaging; and Pharmaceutical Manufacturing). See Sections III and 
VI.C of this preamble for additional discussion of applicability.

                          Table II.B-1.--Clarification of Coverage by MP&M Subcategory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Proposing to continue      Proposing to cover
                                      Proposing to continue to   to cover under 40 CFR    under  40 CFR Part 438
             Subcategory               cover under 40 CFR Part      Part 433  (Metal        (Metal Products &
                                        413  (Electroplating)          Finishing)               Machinery)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals......................  Existing facilities that  Existing facilities      All new and existing
                                       are currently covered     that are currently       direct dischargers in
                                       by 413 AND are indirect   covered (or new          this subcategory
                                       dischargers that          facilities that would    regardless of annual
                                       introduce less than or    be covered) by 433 AND   wastewater discharge
                                       equal to 1 million        are indirect             volume and all new and
                                       gallons per year into a   dischargers that         existing indirect
                                       POTW.                     introduce less than or   dischargers in this
                                                                 equal to 1 million       subcategory with
                                                                 gallons per year into    annual wastewater
                                                                 a POTW.                  discharges greater
                                                                                          than 1 million gallons
                                                                                          per year.(See Sec.
                                                                                          438.10).
Metal Finishing Job Shops...........  none (see non-chromium    none (see non-chromium   All new and existing
                                       anodizing).               anodizing).              direct and indirect
                                                                                          discharges under this
                                                                                          subcategory. These
                                                                                          facilities would no
                                                                                          longer be covered by
                                                                                          413 or 433. (See Sec.
                                                                                          438.20).

[[Page 429]]

 
Non-Chromium Anodizers..............  Existing indirect         New and existing         Existing and new direct
Note: Facilities that perform          dischargers that are      indirect dischargers     dischargers that only
 anodizing with chromium or with the   currently covered by      (not covered by 413)     perform non-chromium
 use of dichromate sealants (or        413 AND that only         that only perform non-   anodizing (or do not
 commingle their non-chromium          perform non-chromium      chromium anodizing (or   commingle their non-
 anodizing process wastewater with     anodizing (or do not      do not commingle their   chromium anodizing
 wastewaster from other MP&M           commingle their non-      non-chromium anodizing   wastewater with other
 subcategories) will be covered by     chromium anodizing        wastewater with other    process wastewater for
 40 CFR 438.                           wastewater with other     process wastewater for   discharge). (See Sec.
                                       process wastewater for    discharge).              438.30).
                                       discharge).
 
Printed Wiring Board (Printed         None....................  None...................  All new and existing
 Circuit Board).                                                                          direct and indirect
                                                                                          dischargers under this
                                                                                          subcategory. These
                                                                                          facilities would no
                                                                                          longer be covered by
                                                                                          413 or 433. (See Sec.
                                                                                          438.40).
Steel Forming & Finishing...........  N/A.....................  N/A....................  All new and existing
                                                                                          direct and indirect
                                                                                          discharges under this
                                                                                          subcategory as
                                                                                          described. (See Sec.
                                                                                          438.50).
Oily Waste..........................  N/A.....................  N/A....................  All new and existing
                                                                                          direct and indirect
                                                                                          dischargers under this
                                                                                          subcategory as
                                                                                          described. (See Sec.
                                                                                          438.60) (This
                                                                                          subcategory excludes
                                                                                          new and existing
                                                                                          indirect dischargers
                                                                                          that introduce less
                                                                                          than or equal to 2 MGY
                                                                                          into a POTW.
                                                                                          Facilities under the
                                                                                          cutoff are not and
                                                                                          will not be covered by
                                                                                          national categorical
                                                                                          regulations).
Railroad Line Maintenance...........  N/A.....................  N/A....................  All new and existing
                                                                                          direct dischargers
                                                                                          under this subcategory
                                                                                          as described. (See
                                                                                          Sec.  438.70) There
                                                                                          are no national
                                                                                          categorical
                                                                                          pretreatment standards
                                                                                          for these facilities.
Shipbuilding Dry Docks..............  N/A.....................  N/A....................  All new and existing
                                                                                          direct dischargers
                                                                                          under this subcategory
                                                                                          as described. (See
                                                                                          Sec.  438.80) There
                                                                                          are no national
                                                                                          categorical
                                                                                          pretreatment standards
                                                                                          for these facilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA does not intend the preceding table to be exhaustive, but rather it 
provides a guide for readers regarding the clarification of the 
proposed applicability to the Electroplating, Metal Finishing, and 
Metal Products & Machinery effluent guidelines. In order to determine 
whether EPA is proposing to regulate a particular facility by this 
action, please carefully examine the applicability criteria detailed in 
the codified text of this proposed rule accompanying today's preamble.

C. 1995 Proposal for Phase I Sectors

    On May 30, 1995, EPA published a proposal entitled, ``Effluent 
Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source 
Performance Standards: Metal Products and Machinery'' (60 FR 28210). 
Throughout this preamble, EPA refers to this 1995 proposal as the 
``Phase I'' or the ``1995'' proposal for the Metal Products and 
Machinery industry. EPA initially divided the industry into two phases 
based on industrial sector as the Agency believed that would make the 
regulation more manageable. The Phase I proposal included the following 
industry sectors: Aerospace; Aircraft; Electronic Equipment; Hardware; 
Mobile Industrial Equipment; Ordnance; and Stationary Industrial 
Equipment. At that time, EPA planned to propose a rule for the Phase II 
sectors approximately three years after the MP&M Phase I proposal.
    EPA received over 4,000 pages of public comment on the Phase I 
proposal. One area where commenters from all stakeholder groups (i.e, 
industry, environmental groups, regulators) were in agreement was that 
EPA should not divide the industry into two separate regulations. 
Commenters raised concerns regarding the regulation of similar 
facilities with different compliance schedules and potentially 
different limitations solely based on whether they were in a Phase I or 
Phase II MP&M industrial sector. Furthermore, many facilities performed 
work in multiple sectors. In such cases, permit writers and control 
authorities (e.g., POTWs) would need to decide which MP&M rule (Phase I 
or II) applied to a facility.
    Based on these comments, EPA decided to combine the two phases of 
the regulation into one proposal--today's proposal. Today's proposal 
will completely replace the 1995 proposal. Under the 304(m) decree as 
amended, these MP&M rules are to be promulgated in December 2002. EPA 
developed today's proposal using data from both the Phase I and II data 
collection efforts. (See Section V for discussion on MP&M data 
collection efforts). In the public

[[Page 430]]

record for the final MP&M regulation, EPA will respond to comments from 
the 1995 Phase I proposal as well as today's proposal. Therefore, 
comments submitted on the Phase I rule do not need to be resubmitted in 
response to this proposal. In addition, compliance deadlines proposed 
in the 1995 Phase I proposal would obviously no longer apply.

D. Summary of Most Significant Changes from 1995 Proposal

    In addition to the merging of the Phase I and Phase II industry 
sectors under one proposed rule, as discussed in Section II.C. above, 
there were several areas of comments from the 1995 proposal that EPA 
attempted to address in today's proposed rule.
Use of Aluminum and Iron as Indicator Parameters
    In the 1995 proposal, EPA proposed pretreatment standards for 
existing sources (PSES) for seven metals and cyanide as well as oil & 
grease. Aluminum and iron were two of the seven metals with numerical 
pretreatment standards. As discussed in the Phase I preamble (60 FR 
28228), EPA intended to regulate aluminum and iron as indicator metals 
for removal of non-regulated metals that may be processed at MP&M 
sites. Due to the fact that the optimal pH levels for the removal of 
aluminum (pH = 7.5-8) and iron (pH = 10.5) represent the end points of 
the pH range for the removal of most metals that EPA expected to be in 
MP&M wastewater, the Agency concluded that the removal of aluminum and 
iron would indicate effective removal of other metal types. EPA 
received many comments from various stakeholder groups, including 
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) on this issue. The comments from 
POTWs indicated that in addition to MP&M sites using aluminum and iron 
as treatment chemicals, POTWs also use coagulants and flocculation aids 
containing these metals for treatment. Many POTWs considered it 
desirable to receive discharges containing aluminum and iron as it may 
reduce their treatment chemical costs. Therefore, EPA has decided not 
to propose pretreatment standards for aluminum and iron from indirect 
discharging MP&M facilities in today's combined MP&M proposal. However, 
EPA is proposing aluminum limitations for facilities in one subcategory 
(i.e., Non-Chromium Anodizing) that discharge directly into the 
nation's surface waters (see Section VI for a discussion on 
subcategorization).
Use of Oil and Grease as an Indicator Parameter
    EPA also received many comments on the Phase I proposal regarding 
regulation of another pollutant, oil & grease (O&G), as an indicator 
parameter. In an effort to reduce the burden of analytical monitoring 
for organic pollutants on the Phase I MP&M facilities, EPA chose to 
propose the use of O&G as an indicator parameter for organic 
pollutants. EPA proposed a limit (daily maximum of 35 mg/L and a 
monthly average of 17 mg/L) that demonstrated good removals of organic 
pollutants in MP&M wastewater. As discussed in the preamble of the 1995 
proposal (60 FR 28231), EPA identified several organic pollutants (2-
methylnapthalene, 2-propanone, n-octadecane, and n-tetradecane) that 
would ``pass through'' a POTW (see Section XII for a discussion of POTW 
pass through). EPA stated that ``these organic pollutants are more 
likely to partition to the oily phase than the water phase, thus EPA 
believed that the treatment and removal of oil and grease in wastewater 
will also result in significant removals of these pollutants.'' Many 
commenters stated that the pretreatment standard proposed for O&G was 
too stringent. They commented that EPA typically does not establish 
pretreatment standards for conventional pollutants such as O&G and that 
local POTWs are in the best position to establish standards for O&G, 
where necessary, taking into account POTW design and current O&G 
loading and that the typical local limits for O&G are between 100-200 
mg/L.
    Based on these comments, EPA expanded its wastewater sampling and 
analysis program to include a variety of potential organic pollutant 
indicators. EPA investigated the correlation of organic pollutant 
concentrations and removals at MP&M sites with the following 
parameters: Oil & Grease (as Hexane Extractable Material (HEM)), Total 
Organic Carbon (TOC), Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), 5-Day Biochemical 
Oxygen Demand (BOD<INF>5</INF>), Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (as Silica 
Gel Treated-Hexane Extractable Material (SGT-HEM)), and Total 
Recoverable Phenolics. EPA determined TOC to be the best correlation 
for removal of organic pollutants from MP&M wastewater.
    To determine which parameter best indicated the amount of organic 
pollutants in an MP&M wastestream, EPA researched the analytical 
methods for each parameter to determine what organic constituents the 
method measures, how the method measures them, and the limitations of 
the method. Because sampling at MP&M facilities generally lasted five 
days, EPA did not have enough data available to statistically establish 
a correlation on a site level. Therefore, EPA grouped all of the data 
from EPA sampling at MP&M facilities into the following organic-
pollutant-bearing wastestream categories that fed sampled treatment 
systems: machining and grinding, washing and maintenance, wastewater 
expected to have low concentrations of organic compounds, and oily 
wastewater from shipbuilding dry docks. The Agency chose to group the 
wastestreams in this manner in order to determine if a particular 
organic indicator parameter was more appropriate for different types of 
wastewater. That is, machining and grinding wastewater tended to have 
more concentrated organic constituents while wastewater from washing 
and maintenance was more dilute. EPA also identified other unit 
operations (apart from washing and maintenance) that resulted in 
wastewater with low concentrations of organic constituents. And, EPA 
chose to analyze wastewater from shipbuilding dry docks separately 
because of the type of treatment in place. Shipbuilding dry docks tend 
to treat their wastewater with dissolved air flotation (DAF); 
therefore, the Agency analyzed the data from these facilities in order 
to determine the best organic indicator parameter for these treatment 
systems.
    For each wastewater type and its associated wastewater treatment 
system, EPA characterized the composition of organic pollutants in all 
of the influent samples, in all of the effluent samples, and the total 
samples (influent, effluent, and intermediate sampling points) 
associated with the treatment system. EPA studied the correlation of 
the concentration of each indicator parameter noted above to the sum of 
the concentrations of the organic pollutants by calculating the Pearson 
and Spearman Rank correlation coefficients and comparing the 
coefficients of each parameter against each other. Additionally, EPA 
compared the general removal of the sum of organic pollutant compounds 
with the removal of each indicator parameter (see the Technical 
Development Document for a detailed discussion of these analyses).
    EPA determined TOC to be the best overall indicator parameter for 
the evaluated MP&M wastestreams because this analysis measures all 
types of organic compounds. Total recoverable phenolics, O&G (as HEM), 
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (as SGT-HEM), and BOD<INF>5</INF> analyses 
only measure

[[Page 431]]

specific organic components so they would not measure all possible 
organic compounds in an effluent stream.
    In addition to expanding its sampling program, EPA considered a 
variety of approaches to address the comments on the use of O&G as an 
indicator for organic pollutants. EPA considered the use of a Total 
Organics list or an organics management plan (similar to the Total 
Toxic Organics (TTO) list and solvent management plan used in the Metal 
Finishing effluent guidelines (40 CFR 433)) as well as allowing 
facilities to choose from a list of possible indicator pollutants 
(where they would demonstrate a correlation to their wastewater) or to 
choose to monitor for the specific organic pollutants themselves. EPA 
shared these ideas with small entity representatives during the SBREFA 
process (see Section XXII.C for a discussion on the SBREFA process) and 
with stakeholders during various public meetings and industry 
conferences. (See Section V.E for a discussion on EPA's public outreach 
efforts).
    EPA has decided to propose three alternatives to allow for maximum 
flexibility while ensuring reductions in the amount of organic 
pollutants discharged from MP&M facilities. EPA is proposing to require 
MP&M facilities within the scope of this rule to either: (1) Meet a 
numerical limit for the total sum of a list of specific organic 
pollutants (similar to the TTO parameter used in the Metal Finishing 
effluent guidelines); (2) meet a numerical limit for the specified 
indicator parameter; or (3) develop and certify the implementation of 
an organics management plan. (See Section XXI.C.2 for a discussion on 
regulatory implementation and proposed monitoring flexibility).
Variability of MP&M Process Wastewater Discharges
    EPA also revised its analytical wastewater sampling program to 
address two other issues raised by commenters in response to the 1995 
proposal. First, commenters stated that EPA's analytical data did not 
accurately reflect the variability in the wastewater flow and pollutant 
concentration experienced over time at MP&M sites. More specifically, 
metal finishing and electroplating job shops stated that EPA did not 
account for the variability of the metal types and products processed 
at their facilities; and therefore, EPA's proposed numerical limits did 
not accurately reflect pollutant concentrations achievable by these 
types of facilities (see Section VI.C.2. for a description of metal 
finishing job shops). EPA has addressed this by performing specific 
sampling targeted to assess the wastewater variability at metal 
finishing and electroplating job shops. EPA sampled raw wastewater from 
a variety of unit operations as well as wastewater treatment systems at 
three job shops for five days each. After a period of a few months, the 
Agency then returned to each facility a second and/or a third time for 
three days of analytical wastewater sampling. In addition, when 
determining proposed limits for the Metal Finishing Job Shops 
subcategory, EPA, when possible, only used data collected from metal 
finishing and electroplating facilities. However, EPA had to transfer 
data from the General Metals subcategory for several pollutants that 
are being proposed in the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory. Based 
on this approach, the limits for facilities in the Metal Finishing Job 
Shop subcategory include increased variability factors as compared to 
the General Metals subcategory (i.e., the subcategory that EPA 
considers to be the most similar in terms of raw wastewater 
characterization).
    Second, commenters stated the variability factors that EPA used in 
the development of limitations were relatively small. Commenters 
expressed their view that EPA's variability factors did not reflect the 
variations in raw wastewater pollutant concentrations nor the 
variations in the effectiveness of treatment technologies (particularly 
in the case of cyanide). Section VIII.B of today's preamble discusses 
the statistical methodology used for developing variability factors. In 
an effort to ensure that the variability factors represent the 
variability found in MP&M wastewater, EPA performed 44 sampling 
episodes during post-1995 proposal data collection in addition to the 
27 sampling episodes performed during the Phase I data collection 
effort. EPA also specifically included sampling of 20 cyanide 
destruction systems.
    In addition, the Agency has collected long-term effluent data from 
facility Compliance Reports and Discharge Monitoring Reports in an 
effort to perform a ``real world'' check on the achievability of 
today's proposed limits. This data is available for review in the 
public record for today's proposal (see Section 6.6.1 of the public 
record). Indirect dischargers file compliance monitoring reports with 
their control authority (e.g., POTW) at least twice per year as 
required under the General Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR part 403) 
while direct discharges file discharge monitoring reports with their 
permitting authority at least once per year. The Agency received these 
reports from 14 well-operated BAT facilities whose analytical data EPA 
used in establishing limitations. EPA sent letters to nine facilities 
requesting this data. In addition, five sites provided EPA with this 
data during site visits or sampling episodes or as part of their 
questionnaire response. Because this data is not in a form that allows 
direct use for calculating limits or for comparison to the proposed 
limits, EPA was not able to use this data in setting or evaluating the 
compliance aspects of the limits and standards in today's proposal. 
However, following proposal, EPA will reformat and evaluate this long-
term effluent monitoring data in relation to the proposed limits. In 
cases where EPA finds a facility in its costing database that was used 
to set the numerical limits and is not in compliance with the proposed 
pollutant limitations, EPA will reassess the achievability of these 
limits by a well-operated BAT system. When a system is not achieving 
the proposed limits consistently it may be because either the system is 
not achieving the projected long-term average (LTA) or the system has 
higher variability than EPA determined using its standard methodology. 
EPA requests comment on its methodology for determining LTAs and 
variability factors. In cases where EPA determines that improved system 
operation will allow the limits to be consistently achieved it will 
include additional treatment costs for the facility in its cost 
estimations for the final rule where EPA has not already done so. EPA 
concludes, in following the approach described above, that it will 
address the concerns of commenters on the Phase I proposed rule related 
to the achievability of the numerical limits by well operated and 
economically achievable treatment systems. EPA requests comment on this 
method of performing a ``real world'' check on the achievability of its 
proposed limits.
    Finally, as compared to the 1995 proposed limits, today's proposed 
numerical limits for total cyanide have increased almost one order of 
magnitude from 0.03 mg/L for the daily maximum and 0.02 for the monthly 
average to 0.21 and 0.12, respectively. This increase is largely due to 
increased variability factors.
Low Discharge Flow Exclusion
    Another significant change from the 1995 proposal is EPA's proposed 
low wastewater discharge flow exclusion (``low flow cutoff'') for 
indirect dischargers. In the 1995 proposed rule, EPA set a low flow 
cutoff at one million gallons per year (1 MGY) for all indirect

[[Page 432]]

discharging facilities included in the Phase I sectors. This meant that 
EPA proposed to exclude, from the MP&M pretreatment standards, 
facilities discharging less than 1 MGY to a POTW. The Agency included 
the low flow cutoff to reduce the potentially large burden on POTWs 
related to issuing permits or other control mechanisms to thousands of 
the smallest MP&M Phase I sector facilities. EPA received many comments 
on the level of the proposed flow cutoff. Based on these comments and 
the recommendations of the SBREFA panel (see Section XXII.C on the 
SBREFA process), EPA analyzed a range of flow cutoffs for indirect 
dischargers ranging from no flow cutoff to 6.25 million gallons per 
year. EPA notes that at 6.25 million gallons per year, the General 
Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR part 403) classify indirect discharging 
facilities as ``Significant Industrial Users'' (SIUs). Under the 
General Pretreatment Standards, control authorities (e.g., POTWs) must 
issue permits or other control mechanisms to SIUs and, therefore, no 
POTW burden reductions are realized above a flow cutoff of 6.25 MGY. 
(However, there may be some minimal increase in burden for modifying 
permits or control mechanisms).
    EPA estimates that there are a total of 89,000 facilities within 
the scope of the proposed rule. Many of these facilities are small 
facilities and may be contributing minimal pollutant loadings to the 
environment. A low flow exclusion allows regulatory authorities to 
focus attention on those facilities with significant discharges. This 
may also improve the cost-effectiveness of the rule. In developing 
today's proposal, EPA considered POTW burden, costs, pollutant 
removals, and economic impacts of the various flow cutoffs.
    Unlike the 1995 proposal, EPA is now proposing to subcategorize 
(i.e., subdivide) the MP&M category (see Section VI of this preamble 
for a discussion on subcategorization of the industry). Therefore, EPA 
has analyzed the various low flow cutoffs by subcategory, noting in 
particular which subcategories are not currently covered under existing 
pretreatment standards. When existing pretreatment standards already 
cover all facilities in a particular subcategory, POTWs will not be 
relieved of their administrative burden, regardless of whether or not a 
low flow exclusion exists in the MP&M pretreatment standards. But other 
factors, such as a disproportionate economic impact have been 
considered.
    The combination of subcategorization of the industry, current 
coverage under existing pretreatment standards, and analysis of a range 
of low flow cutoffs has led EPA to propose different levels for the low 
flow exclusion for indirect dischargers in various subcategories. For 
example, EPA is proposing the 1 MGY cutoff for indirect dischargers in 
the General Metals subcategory, but is proposing no flow cutoff for 
indirect dischargers in the Printed Wiring Board subcategory (see 
Section VI.C. for descriptions of the proposed subcategories). This 
difference is partially due to the fact that under the Electroplating 
and Metal Finishing pretreatment standards (40 CFR parts 413 and 433), 
EPA already regulates (thus it already requires POTWs to issue control 
mechanisms for) all indirect discharging facilities in the proposed 
Printed Wiring Board subcategory (approximately 620 facilities). In 
addition, EPA does not project any severe or moderate economic impacts 
for the small estimated number of printed wiring board facilities (52) 
that would be eligible for a low flow cutoff of 1 MGY. In contrast, EPA 
has not previously established pretreatment standards for approximately 
75 percent of the indirect discharging facilities in the proposed 
General Metals subcategory (approximately 26,000 total facilities). 
Approximately 23,000 indirect dischargers in the proposed General 
Metals Subcategory discharge less than 1 MGY. If EPA did not exclude 
these facilities, the number of permit issuances that POTWs are 
responsible for would increase significantly. There are approximately 
30,000 industrial users currently covered nationally by existing 
pretreatment standards for all effluent guidelines. Low flow exclusions 
being proposed for the General Metals and Oily Wastes subcategories, 
POTWs (or other control authorities) would have to issue an additional 
51,000 permits/control mechanisms. EPA discusses further the rationale 
for proposing a low flow cutoff exclusion for certain subcategories in 
Section XII.
Mass-Based v. Concentration-Based Limits
    EPA also received many comments on the issue of mass-based versus 
concentration-based limits. In the 1995 proposal, EPA proposed 
concentration-based limits with the requirement that control 
authorities (e.g., POTWs) implement them as mass-based limits. EPA 
notes that under the NPDES permit program, the Agency already requires 
permit writers to implement effluent limitations guidelines as mass-
based limits whenever feasible (40 CFR 122.45(f)). EPA proposed 
requiring this conversion to mass-based limits because the Agency 
believed that it was necessary to ensure the use of water conservation 
and pollution prevention practices similar to those that were part of 
EPA's selected option (60 FR 28230). EPA expected permit writers and 
control authorities to use historical flow as a basis for the 
conversion to mass-based limits for facilities that demonstrated good 
water conservation practices. However, for facilities that did not have 
good water conservation in place, EPA provided detailed guidance to 
permit writers and control authorities in the Technical Development 
Document (TDD) for the 1995 proposal. The TDD included information on a 
full range of water use levels (in gallons/sq.ft.) for a large variety 
of MP&M operations as well as guidance on how permit writers and 
control authorities could determine if a facility was using good water 
conservation practices.
    EPA received comments on the administrative burden on POTWs 
associated with implementation of mass-based limits. The commenters 
stated that the burden was largely due to the fact that most MP&M 
facilities do not collect production information on a wastestream-by-
wastestream basis. POTWs have continued to voice these concerns at 
recent public stakeholder meetings. To address this issue, EPA 
collected additional MP&M unit operation-specific information on 
pollution prevention practices, water use, and wastewater generation in 
the data collection efforts that followed the Phase I proposal.
    In today's proposal, EPA is again proposing concentration-based 
limits (for all but one subcategory) and is providing detailed 
information on water use levels for specific unit operations in the 
Technical Development Document. However, the Agency is no longer 
proposing to require control authorities (e.g., POTWs) or permit 
writers to implement the limits on a mass basis. Instead EPA is 
proposing to authorize control authorities and permit writers to decide 
when it is most appropriate to implement mass-based limits. EPA 
believes that this approach will reduce implementation burden on POTWs 
and will result in increased use of water conservation practices at the 
facilities where POTWs and permit writers think it is most needed. EPA 
believes that MP&M facilities that use the best pollution prevention 
and water conservation practices may request that the control authority 
or permit writer use mass-based limits in their permits or other 
control mechanisms. (See Section XXI.B for a discussion on regulatory 
implementation).

[[Page 433]]

III. Scope of Proposal

    Today's proposed effluent guideline applies to process wastewater 
discharges from existing or new industrial sites engaged in 
manufacturing, rebuilding, or maintenance of metal parts, products or 
machines to be used in one of the following industrial sectors:
    <bullet> Aerospace;
    <bullet> Aircraft;
    <bullet> Bus and Truck;
    <bullet> Electronic Equipment;
    <bullet> Hardware;
    <bullet> Household Equipment;
    <bullet> Instruments;
    <bullet> Job Shops;
    <bullet> Mobile Industrial Equipment;
    <bullet> Motor Vehicle;
    <bullet> Office Machine;
    <bullet> Ordnance;
    <bullet> Precious Metals and Jewelry;
    <bullet> Printed Wiring Boards;
    <bullet> Railroad;
    <bullet> Ships and Boats;
    <bullet> Stationary Industrial Equipment; and
    <bullet> Miscellaneous Metal Products.
    EPA has identified these eighteen industrial sectors in the MP&M 
category; these sectors manufacture, maintain and rebuild metal 
products under more than 200 different SIC codes. See Appendix A of 
today's proposed rule for a description of typical products within 
these eighteen MP&M industrial sectors. Although EPA is using these 18 
industrial sectors to generally describe the scope of today's proposal, 
the Agency notes that it is not using these industrial sectors to 
subcategorize (or subdivide) the regulations for the industry. EPA's 
analysis to date suggests that the industrial sectors do not correlate 
well with the types of waste generated, and many facilities perform 
operations covered by multiple sectors. Instead, EPA is proposing to 
define subcategories based on unit operations performed and the nature 
of the waste generated (see Section VI of today's notice for a 
discussions on subcategorization and subcategory-specific 
applicability).
    EPA does not intend to include maintenance or repair of metal 
parts, products, or machines that occur only as ancillary activities at 
facilities that it did not include in the 18 industrial sectors. (See 
Sec. 438.1(d)). EPA believes that these ancillary repair and 
maintenance activities would typically generate only small quantities 
of wastewater. In most cases, these periodic repair and maintenance 
activities at facilities not in one of the 18 industrial sectors would 
comprise only a very small portion of the total wastewater flow at the 
facility. The Agency believes local limits will be adequate to address 
these discharges for indirect dischargers and that permit writers can 
establish limits using Best Professional Judgement (BPJ) to regulate 
these ancillary waste streams for direct dischargers. Permit writers 
should consult the effluent limitations guidelines and standards for 
the primary category of such a facility (See 40 CFR Chapter I, 
Subchapter N for all existing effluent limitations guidelines and 
standards). As an example, EPA does not intend for the MP&M proposal to 
include process wastewater discharges from an on-site machine or 
maintenance shop at a facility engaged in the manufacture of organic 
chemicals when the facility operates that shop to maintain the 
equipment related to manufacturing their products (i.e., organic 
chemicals). As discussed above, these wastewaters can be regulated 
through local limits or through BPJ using the Organic Chemicals, 
Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) regulations. Alternatively, 
since aircraft is an in-scope MP&M industrial sector, EPA is proposing 
to include process wastewater discharges from activities related to 
maintaining or repairing aircraft or other related (metal) equipment 
(e.g., deicing vehicles) at airports.
    EPA also intends to cover wastewater from MP&M operations related 
to maintenance and repair of metal products, parts, and machinery at 
military installations. For example, this proposal includes wastewater 
generated from the maintenance and repair of aircraft, cars, trucks, 
buses, tanks (or other armor personnel carriers), and industrial 
equipment--all of which are commonly performed at military 
installations.
    Today's proposal only covers process wastewater generated at MP&M 
facilities. EPA is not covering non-process wastewater which includes 
sanitary wastewater, non-contact cooling water, and storm water. EPA 
has characterized typical MP&M unit operations as belonging to one or 
more of the following types: Assembly/disassembly; metal deposition; 
metal shaping; organic deposition; printed wiring board; surface 
finishing; surface preparation; and dry dock operations. Typical unit 
operations at MP&M facilities include any one or more of the following: 
abrasive blasting, abrasive jet machining, acid treatment, adhesive 
bonding, alkaline cleaning for removal of oil, alkaline treatment, 
anodizing, aqueous degreasing, assembly, barrel finishing, brazing, 
burnishing, calibration, chemical conversion coating, chemical milling, 
chromate conversion coating, corrosion preventive coating, disassembly, 
electrical discharge machining, electrochemical machining, electroless 
plating, electrolytic cleaning, electroplating, electron beam 
machining, electropolishing, floor cleaning, grinding, heat treating, 
hot-dip coating, impact deformation, laminating, laser beam machining, 
machining, metal spraying, painting (spray/brush or immersion), photo 
resist applications, physical vapor deposition, plating, plasma arc 
machining, polishing, pressure deformation, rinsing, salt bath 
descaling, soldering, solvent degreasing, sputtering, stripping (paint 
or metallic coating), testing, thermal cutting, thermal infusion, 
ultrasonic machining, vacuum metalizing, washing finished product, 
welding, wet air pollution control, and numerous sub-operations within 
those listed above. EPA notes that not all MP&M unit operations 
generate process wastewater. In addition, many of these operations 
frequently have associated rinses that remove materials that preceding 
processes deposit on the surface of the workpiece and water-discharging 
air pollution control devices which become contaminated with process 
contaminants removed from the air. EPA is including both of these 
wastewater flows under the scope of today's proposed regulation. (See 
Sec. 438.2(e)).
    The Agency is also including under today's proposed regulation 
wastewater discharges from non-contact, nondestructive testing 
performed at MP&M facilities. (See Sec. 438.2(e)). A common source of 
``nondestructive testing'' wastewater is photographic waste from 
nondestructive X-ray examination of parts. The Agency is proposing to 
cover this wastewater because of the potential concentration of silver 
in the wastewater discharge.
    EPA is not covering wastewater generated from electroplating-type 
operations during semiconductor wafer manufacturing or wafer 
fabrication processes (i.e., tape automated bonding--``TAB'' and 
controlled collapse chip connection--``C-4'') occurring in a ``clean 
room'' environment because it believes that these operations are much 
different than the other electroplating operations that EPA is covering 
by these guidelines and do not contribute significant amounts of 
pollutants to the wastewater discharge. (See Sec. 438.1(e)). The new 
and emerging technologies involved in semiconductor wafer fabrication 
add microscopic amounts of metal (usually copper) to only selective 
portions of the wafer to

[[Page 434]]

enhance circuitry and decrease wafer size. Other electroplating 
operations that EPA is proposing to cover under this guideline 
generally occur on a larger scale and produce a more concentrated 
metal-bearing wastewater. Moreover, the wafer fabrication processes 
occur in a clean room with a highly-controlled atmosphere and using 
highly-purified materials and specialized tools that are much different 
from typical metal-finishing equipment. These specialized tools and 
conditions enable the manufacturer to add microscopic levels (less than 
one micron) of metal to only one side of the wafer, in contrast to the 
non-selective, macroscopic (micron to micron-inch) plating used in 
common metal finishing. Therefore, EPA is proposing not to cover 
wastewater from wafer fabrication processes under this rule. However, 
in today's proposal the Agency is covering wastewater generated from 
electroplating during semiconductor final wafer assembly. (See 
Sec. 438.1(e)).
    EPA is proposing to cover wastewater generated from washing 
vehicles only when it occurs as a preparatory step prior to performing 
an MP&M unit operation (e.g., prior to disassembly to perform engine 
maintenance or rebuilding). (See Sec. 438.1(f)). MP&M facilities may 
perform these preparatory washes to remove oils, dirt and grit prior to 
performing the maintenance or repair operations and as a result the 
combined wastewater contains significant amounts of oil and grease 
along with total suspended solids. However, this proposed regulation 
does not cover the washing of cars, aircraft or other vehicles when it 
is performed only for aesthetic/cosmetic purposes because EPA does not 
expect these washes to contain significant concentrations of 
pollutants. (See Sec. 438.1(f)).
    EPA is also proposing to cover wastewater generated from unit 
operations performed by drum reconditioners/refurbishers to prepare 
drums for reuse. (See Sec. 438.1(a)). These facilities perform 
operations on metal drums such as chaining, caustic washing, acid 
cleaning, acid etching, impact deformation, leak testing, corrosion 
inhibition, shot blasting, and painting. The Agency considers 
facilities that perform these operations as part of the Stationary 
Industrial Equipment sector. However, the Agency notes that it is 
currently considering the development of an effluent guideline for the 
drum reconditioning industry. If EPA develops regulations for this new 
industrial category, it is possible that the Agency would cover these 
facilities under that rule and not under the MP&M regulation. EPA 
solicits comment on whether these facilities would be more 
appropriately covered under the MP&M rule or under a new industrial 
category for drum reconditioners.
    EPA did not collect information with respect to MP&M operations at 
gasoline service stations (SIC code 5541), passenger car rental 
facilities (SIC code 7514), or utility trailer and recreational vehicle 
rental facilities (SIC code 7519); therefore, this proposed regulation 
does not cover process wastewater generated by maintenance and repair 
activities when they occur at gasoline stations or car rental 
facilities. (See Sec. 438.1(g)). As discussed in Sections VI.C and XII 
of this notice, EPA is proposing to exclude facilities in the General 
Metals and Oily Waste subcategories that discharge MP&M process 
wastewater below a specified flow rate (one and two million gallons per 
year, respectively). EPA expects that many facilities that only perform 
repair and maintenance activities (e.g., auto repair shops, light 
aircraft maintenance) will be excluded as most will fit into the 
applicability of either the General Metals or Oily Waste subcategories 
and have process wastewater discharges below the subcategory-specific 
flow cutoffs.
    EPA is proposing to cover MP&M process wastewater at mixed-use 
facilities (i.e., any municipal, private, U.S. military or federal 
facility which contains both industrial and commercial/administrative 
buildings at which one or more industrial sites conduct operations 
within the facility's boundaries). (See Sec. 438.1(h)). However, unlike 
the typical industrial facility, such as an aircraft or electronic 
equipment manufacturing plant with one primary manufacturing activity, 
the majority of military installations are mixed-use facilities and are 
more like municipalities with several small industries as well as other 
operations within their boundaries. Many of these installations also 
include a variety of tenant activities, including contractor and other 
Department of Defense federal agency activities. At these mixed-use 
facilities, EPA is proposing to cover wastewater from manufacturing, 
maintenance and repair activities performed on metal parts, products or 
machines (e.g. maintenance and repair of vehicles and aircraft). (See 
Sec. 438.1(h)). EPA concluded that these types of operations will 
generate wastewater containing either high metals content or high oil 
and grease, or both. EPA is not proposing to cover wastewater from 
other non-metal repair, maintenance or manufacturing operations at 
mixed-use facilities such as wastewater from residential housing, 
schools, churches, recreational parks, shopping centers, gas stations, 
utility plants, and hospitals. The Agency believes that wastewater 
generated from these activities will not contain the same types and 
concentrations of pollutants (such as metals and oil and grease) as 
wastewater from MP&M operations. Finally, the geographic size of many 
military installations (for example, over 300 square miles at Fort 
Hood, TX and over 1.1 million acres at the China Lake Naval Air Warfare 
Center, CA) makes it difficult to treat them as a single facility. 
Therefore, EPA is proposing to allow wastewater generated at different 
sites (individual buildings as well as outdoor locations where 
manufacturing, rebuilding, or maintenance occur on metal parts, 
products, or machines) within a mixed-use facility to be dealt with as 
separate discharges for the purpose of applying the appropriate low 
flow cutoff (when applicable). EPA is proposing to allow the control 
authority to use its discretion in determining which wastewater 
discharges can be considered separate discharges for the purposes of 
applying the appropriate low flow cutoff (when applicable). The 
determination would likely be based on the degree of proximity between 
industrial operations and a practical application of the requirements 
for applicable MP&M subcategories. Control authorities (and permit 
writers) will have to determine when it is appropriate to apply 
standards for more than one subcategory to a mixed-use facility and 
when to use the combined waste stream formula (or building block 
approach). For example, a military installation that generates 
wastewater from vehicle maintenance operations that is treated in a 
separate wastewater system than wastewater generated from its metal 
finishing operations could be covered by both the Oily Wastes 
subcategory for its vehicle maintenance operations and by the General 
Metals subcategory for it surface finishing operations. (See Section VI 
for a discussion of subcategorization and subcategory-specific 
applicability).
    EPA seeks information from other facilities that believe they would 
fall within this mixed-use facility category. In addition, EPA seeks 
comments on the choice to allow control authorities to make a 
determination concerning applying the low flow cutoffs to separate 
discharges and the factors for making such a decision as well as 
alternative ways to divide a mixed-use facility.
    See Section II.B for a discussion on the applicability of today's 
proposed rule with respect to the thirteen existing

[[Page 435]]

metals-related effluent limitations guidelines and standards 
regulations.

IV. Industry Description

    As described in Section III, the MP&M industry is comprised of 
facilities that manufacture, rebuild, or maintain metal parts, products 
or machines to be used in one of 18 industrial sectors. Based on 
results of the MP&M survey database, there are an estimated 89,000 MP&M 
sites. Based on detailed survey results, an estimated 63,000 MP&M sites 
discharge process water. Of the facilities discharging process 
wastewater, EPA estimates that 93 percent are indirect dischargers and 
7 percent are direct dischargers. The Agency estimates that there are 
approximately 26,000 facilities that fall into one of three zero 
discharge categories: zero discharge, non-water-using, or contract 
haulers.
    MP&M water-discharging sites range in size from less than 10 
employees to sites with tens of thousands of employees and from 
wastewater discharge flow rates of less than 100 gallons per year to 
wastewater discharge flow rates exceeding 100 million gallons per year. 
Of water discharging facilities, approximately 98 percent of MP&M sites 
have 500 or fewer employees and approximately 78 percent of MP&M sites 
have 100 or fewer employees. EPA estimates that facilities with less 
than 100 employees discharge approximately 11 percent of the total 
annual wastewater discharged by the MP&M industry and that facilities 
having between 100 and 500 employees discharge approximately 50% of the 
industry total flow. Facilities with greater than 500 employees 
discharge 39 percent of the industry total.
    MP&M facilities are located throughout the United States. The 
Agency received survey data from every EPA region and 48 separate 
states. EPA estimates that the largest concentrations of MP&M 
facilities are located in EPA Regions III (MD, PA, VA, WV), V (IL, IN, 
MI, MN, OH, WI), and IX (AZ, CA, HI). In addition EPA estimates the 
seven states with the largest concentrations of MP&M facilities are: 
California (25 percent), Pennsylvania (23 percent), Virginia (11 
percent), Ohio (5 percent), Colorado (4 percent), Texas (3 percent), 
and Indiana (2 percent).
    EPA estimates that approximately 3 percent of the industry (water 
dischargers and zero dischargers) generates annual revenues less than 
$100,000, approximately 41 percent generate annual revenues between 
$100,000 and $500,000, approximately 5 percent generate annual revenues 
between $500,000 and $1,500,000, and approximately 33 percent generate 
over $5,000,000 annual revenues. The Agency notes that facilities with 
annual revenues greater than $5,000,000 discharge approximately 73 
percent of the total wastewater discharged by the industry.
    Although facilities in the MP&M industry produce a wide range of 
products, the operations performed can be described by two types of 
activities: manufacturing, and rebuilding/maintenance. Manufacturing is 
the series of unit operations necessary to produce metal products, and 
is generally performed in a production environment. Rebuilding/
maintenance is the series of unit operations necessary to disassemble 
used metal products into components, replace the components or 
subassemblies or restore them to original function, and reassemble the 
metal product. These operations are intended to keep metal products in 
operating condition and can be performed in either a production or a 
non-production environment.
    Table IV-1, below, summarizes the estimated number of MP&M sites 
(water dischargers and zero dischargers) and total discharge flow 
(prior to implementation of the proposed rule) by activity or activity 
combination. The largest number of sites, approximately 44,000, perform 
``rebuilding/maintenance only'' and account for approximately 9 percent 
of the total estimated discharge flow for the industry. ``Manufacturing 
only'' represents the next largest number of facilities (27,000) and 
represents the largest percentage of the total estimated discharge flow 
for the industry (75.2 percent).

                   Table IV-1.--MP&M Sites * and Total Discharge Flow by Activity Combination
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Estimated         Total
                                                     number of       estimated     Percentage of   Percentage of
                    Activity                           water      discharge flow    total water        total
                                                    discharging    (million gal/    discharging   discharge flow
                                                    MP&M sites          yr)         MP&M sites
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturing, Rebuilding/Maintenance...........           7,400          11,200             8.3             9.1
Manufacturing Only..............................          27,000          91,700            30.4            75.2
Rebuilding/Maintenance Only.....................          44,000          11,100            49.5             9.1
Unknown/others..................................          10,500           8,100            11.8             6.6
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total **....................................          89,000         122,000           100.0          100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This table includes all MP&M sites, for a presentation of this distribution for water discharging sites only,
  see the Technical Development Document for today's proposal.
** Totals may not add due to rounding.

    Of the 26,000 sites that achieve zero discharge of process 
wastewater, many use but do not discharge process water. Based on 
information from the MP&M Detailed Surveys, site visits, and technical 
literature (see Section V for a discussion of the data collection 
activities), these sites achieve zero discharge of process wastewater 
in one or more of the following ways:
    <bullet> Sites contract haul for off-site disposal all process 
wastewater generated on site;
    <bullet> Sites discharge process wastewater to either on-site 
septic systems or deep-well injection systems;
    <bullet> Sites perform end-of-pipe treatment and reuse all process 
wastewater generated on site;
    <bullet> Sites perform either in-process or end-of-pipe evaporation 
to eliminate wastewater discharges; or
    <bullet> Sites perform in-process recirculation and recycling to 
eliminate wastewater discharges.
    EPA's Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program, authorized by 
the Safe Drinking Water Act, regulates shallow on-site systems and deep 
wells that discharge fluids or wastewater into the subsurface and thus 
may endanger underground sources of drinking water.
    If a facility disposes any wastewater (other than solely sanitary 
waste) into a shallow disposal system (e.g., septic system or a floor 
drain connected to a dry well) that well is covered by the UIC program. 
If you think you have a UIC

[[Page 436]]

disposal well on your facility, you should contact your State UIC 
Program authority to determine your compliance status.
    EPA published the Class V Rule in the Federal Register on December 
7, 1999 (64 FR 68545), which affected facilities using on site systems 
to dispose waste associated with motor vehicle service and repair in 
state-designated groundwater protection areas. The EPA is scheduled to 
develop additional requirements for other Class V wells that receive 
endangering waste. Contact your State UIC Program for more information 
on these developing regulations.

V. Summary of Data Collection Activities

A. Existing Data Sources

    While developing today's proposal, EPA reviewed data from other 
metals industry effluent guidelines, the National Risk Management 
Research Laboratory (NRMRL) treatability database, the 50 POTW Study, 
the Domestic Sewage Study, and the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).
    For the MP&M technology effectiveness assessment effort, EPA 
reviewed sampling data collected to characterize treatment systems for 
the development of effluent guidelines for other metals industries (see 
Section II.B for a discussion on other metals industry effluent 
guidelines). For several previous effluent guidelines, EPA used 
treatment data from metals industries to develop the Combined Metals 
Database (CMDB), which served as the basis for developing limits for 
these industries. EPA also developed a separate database used as the 
basis for limits for the Metal Finishing category. EPA used the CMDB 
and Metal Finishing data as a guide in identifying well-designed and 
well-operated MP&M treatment systems. EPA did not use these data in 
developing the MP&M technology effectiveness concentrations, since the 
Agency collected sufficient data from MP&M sites to develop technology 
effectiveness concentrations.
    EPA also reviewed the Technical Development Documents (TDDs), 
sampling episode reports, and supporting record materials for the other 
metals industries' rulemakings to identify available data. EPA used 
these data for the preliminary assessment of the MP&M industry, but did 
not use these data for estimating MP&M pollutant loadings because EPA 
obtained sufficient data for the MP&M sampling program to characterize 
the MP&M unit operations.
    EPA's National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) 
developed a treatability database (formerly called the Risk Reduction 
Engineering Laboratory (RREL) database) to provide data on the removal 
and destruction of chemicals in various types of media, including 
water, soil, debris, sludge, and sediment. This database contains 
treatability data from POTWs and industrial facilities for various 
pollutants. The database includes physical and chemical data for each 
pollutant, the types of treatment used to treat the specific 
pollutants, the types of wastewater treated, the size of the POTW or 
industrial site, and the treatment concentrations achieved. EPA used 
this database as one means to assess removal of MP&M pollutants of 
concern by POTWs.
    In September 1982, EPA published the Fate of Priority Pollutants in 
Publicly Owned Treatment Works, referred to as the 50 POTW Study. The 
purpose of this study was to generate, compile, and report data on the 
occurrence and fate of the 129 priority pollutants in 50 POTWs. The 
report presents all of the data collected, the results of preliminary 
evaluations of these data, and the results of calculations to determine 
the quantity of priority pollutants in the influent to POTWs; 
discharged from the POTWs; in the effluent from intermediate process 
streams; and in the POTW sludge streams. EPA used the data from this 
study as one means to assess removal by POTWs of MP&M pollutants of 
concern (see Section XII.A for additional discussion on the use of the 
50 POTW Study).
    In February 1986, EPA issued the ``Report to Congress on the 
Discharge of Hazardous Wastes to Publicly Owned Treatment Works'', 
referred to as the Domestic Sewage Study (DSS). This report, which was 
based in part on the 50 POTW Study, revealed a significant number of 
sites discharging pollutants to POTWs, which are a threat to the 
treatment capability of the POTW. These pollutants were not regulated 
by national categorical pretreatment standards at that time. EPA used 
the information in the DSS in developing the Preliminary Data Summary 
(PDS) for the MP&M category (October 1989).
    The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) database contains specific toxic 
chemical release and transfer information from manufacturing facilities 
throughout the United States. EPA considered using the TRI database in 
developing the MP&M effluent guidelines. However, EPA did not use TRI 
data on wastewater discharges from MP&M sites because sufficient data 
were not available for effluent guidelines development. For example, in 
developing the MP&M effluent guidelines, EPA uses wastewater influent 
concentrations to characterize a facility's wastewater and to calculate 
treatment efficiency (i.e., percent removal across the treatment 
system). TRI does not provide concentrations for the influent to a 
facility's treatment system. EPA also did not use the data on 
wastewater discharge because many MP&M sites do not meet the reporting 
thresholds for the TRI database.

B. Survey Questionnaires

    As discussed in Section II.C, EPA originally intended to propose 
the MP&M rulemaking in two phases. Therefore, EPA's data collection 
efforts, particularly the use of survey questionnaires, was handled in 
two phases to collect data from the relevant industrial sectors. EPA 
distributed two screener and six detailed questionnaires (surveys) 
between 1989 and 1996. For a list of surveys by distribution date, see 
the Technical Development Document for today's proposed rule.
1. Screener Surveys
    EPA developed and distributed two screener surveys. In 1990, EPA 
distributed 8,342 screener surveys to sites believed to be engaged in 
the original seven Phase I MP&M sectors. In 1996, EPA distributed 5,325 
screener surveys to sites believed to be engaged in the eleven Phase II 
MP&M sectors. The purpose of the screener surveys was to identify sites 
to receive the more detailed follow-up surveys and to make a 
preliminary assessment of the MP&M industry.
    In each case, EPA identified the SIC codes applicable to the 
respective MP&M sectors and then calculated the number of sites to 
receive the screener within each SIC code by a coefficient of variation 
(CV) minimization procedure (see the respective Database Summary 
Reports for the screener surveys in the public record for a detailed 
discussion of the CV procedure). Based on the number of sites selected 
within each SIC code, the Agency purchased a list of randomly selected 
names and addresses from Dun & Bradstreet. This list included twice the 
number of sites specified by the CV minimization procedure for each SIC 
code. Dun & Bradstreet randomly selected the requested number of sites 
from the Dun & Bradstreet database for each SIC code. From this list of 
potential recipient sites, the Agency randomly selected sites to 
receive the screener surveys. For a more detailed discussion on the 
screener surveys, see the Technical

[[Page 437]]

Development Document for today's proposed rule.
    EPA also sent the 1996 screener survey to 1,750 randomly selected 
sites in Ohio for the purpose of collecting information for an 
environmental benefits study. (See Section XX.F or the Economic, 
Environmental, and Benefits Analysis for today's proposed rule for a 
detailed discussion of EPA's Ohio Benefits Case Study).
2. Industrial Detailed Surveys
    Based on responses to the 1990 screener, EPA sent a more detailed 
survey to a select group of water-using MP&M sites. The Agency designed 
this survey to collect detailed technical and financial information. 
EPA selected 1,020 detailed survey recipients from the following three 
groups of sites:
    <bullet> Water-discharging 1989 screener respondents (860 sites);
    <bullet> Water-using 1989 screener respondents that did not 
discharge process water (74 sites); and
    <bullet> Water-discharging sites from well-known MP&M companies 
that did not receive the 1989 screener (86 sites).
    EPA used information from the first two groups of survey recipients 
to develop pollutant loadings and reductions and to develop compliance 
cost estimates. Because EPA did not randomly select the third group of 
recipients, EPA did not use the data to develop national estimates.
    In an effort to reduce burden on survey recipients for the second 
phase of the data collection effort, EPA developed two similar detailed 
surveys. Based on the development of the 1995 MP&M proposal, EPA chose 
to collect more detailed information from sites with annual process 
wastewater discharges greater than one million gallons per year (1 
MGY). EPA sent the ``long'' detailed survey to all 353 1996 screener 
respondents who indicated they discharged one million or more gallons 
of MP&M process wastewater annually and performed MP&M operations. The 
Agency sent the ``short'' detailed survey to 101 randomly selected 1996 
screener respondents who indicated they discharged less than one 
million gallons of MP&M process wastewater annually and performed MP&M 
operations.
    The detailed surveys collected information to identify the site 
location and contact person, number of employees, facility age, process 
wastewater discharge status and destination, and wastewater discharge 
permits and permitting authority as well as general information about 
metal types processed, MP&M products and production levels, water use 
for unit operations, and wastewater discharge from unit operations. EPA 
used the process information to evaluate water use and discharge 
practices and sources of pollutants for each MP&M unit operation. EPA 
also requested detailed information on MP&M wet unit operations, 
pollution prevention practices, wastewater treatment technologies, 
costs for water use and wastewater treatment systems, and wastewater/
sludge disposal costs. EPA also requested each site to provide block 
diagrams of the production process and the wastewater treatment system. 
The unit operation information included: metal types processed, 
production rate, operating schedule, chemical additives, volume and 
destination of process wastewater and rinse waters, in-process 
pollution prevention technologies, and in-process flow control 
technologies. The information EPA requested for each wastewater 
treatment unit included: operating flow rate, design capacity, 
operating time, chemical additives, and unit operations discharging to 
each treatment unit. In addition, EPA asked each site to provide the 
type of MP&M wastewater sampling data collected. EPA used these data to 
characterize the industry, to perform subcategorization analyses, to 
identify best management practices, to evaluate performance of the 
treatment technology for inclusion in the regulatory options, and to 
develop regulatory compliance cost estimates.
    EPA also collected detailed financial and economic information 
about the site or the company owning the site. In addition, the 1996 
long detailed questionnaire included a section that requested 
supplemental information on other MP&M facilities owned by the company. 
EPA included this voluntary section to measure the combined impact of 
proposed MP&M effluent guidelines on companies with multiple MP&M 
facilities that discharge process wastewater. This section requested 
the same information collected in the 1996 MP&M screener survey. 
Responses to questions in this section provided the size, industrial 
sector, revenue, unit operations, and water usage of the company's 
other MP&M facilities.
    The 1996 short survey included the identical general site and 
process information and economic information collected in the long 
detailed survey. However, to minimize the burden on facilities 
discharging less than one million gallons of process wastewater, EPA 
did not require these facilities to provide the detailed information on 
MP&M unit operations or treatment technologies that the Agency 
requested in the long survey. For a question-by-question comparison of 
the short and long 1996 detailed surveys, see the Technical Development 
Document for today's proposed rule.
    Finally, EPA developed a detailed survey, under a separate 
rulemaking effort, to collect detailed information from facilities that 
are currently covered by the Iron and Steel Manufacturing effluent 
guidelines. Following field sampling of iron and steel sites and review 
of the completed industry surveys, EPA decided that some iron and steel 
operations would be more appropriately covered by the MP&M rule because 
they were more like MP&M operations (see Section VI.C.5 for a 
discussion on the Steel Forming & Finishing subcategory). Based on 
EPA's decision regarding these operations, the Agency coded and entered 
process information from 47 iron and steel surveys into the MP&M 
costing input database.
3. Municipality Survey
    EPA distributed the municipality surveys in 1996 to city and county 
facilities that might operate MP&M facilities. The Agency designed this 
survey to measure the impact of this rule on municipalities and other 
government entities that perform maintenance and rebuilding operations 
on MP&M products (e.g., bus and truck, automobiles).
    The Agency sent the municipality survey to 150 city and county 
facilities randomly selected from the Municipality Year Book-1995 based 
on population and geographic location. EPA allocated sixty percent of 
the sample to municipalities and 40 percent to counties. The 60/40 
distribution was approximately proportional to their aggregate 
populations in the frame. EPA divided the municipality sample and the 
county sample into three size groupings as measured by population. For 
municipalities, the population groupings were: less than 10,000 
residents, 10,000-50,000 residents, and 50,000 or more residents. For 
counties, the population groupings were: less than 50,000 residents, 
50,000-150,000 residents, and 150,000 or more residents. The geographic 
stratification conformed to the Census definitions of Northeast, North 
Central, South, Pacific, and Mountain states. The technical questions 
in the Municipality Survey were basically identical to the 1996 short 
detailed survey; however, EPA adapted the financial and economic 
questions so that they were appropriate for these facilities.

[[Page 438]]

4. Federal Facilities Survey
    In April 1998, EPA distributed the federal facilities detailed 
survey to the following federal agencies:
    <bullet> Department of Energy;
    <bullet> Department of Defense;
    <bullet> National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA);
    <bullet> Department of Transportation (including the United States 
Coast Guard);
    <bullet> Department of the Interior;
    <bullet> Department of Agriculture; and
    <bullet> United States Postal Service.
EPA designed this survey to assess the impact of the MP&M effluent 
limitations guidelines and standards on federal agencies that operate 
MP&M facilities. EPA distributed the survey to federal agencies likely 
to perform industrial operations on metal products or machines. The 
Agency requested that the representatives of the seven listed federal 
agencies voluntarily distribute copies of the survey to sites they 
believed performed MP&M operations. The information collected in the 
1996 federal survey was identical to the long survey. After engineering 
review and coding, EPA entered data from 44 federal surveys into the 
database. Because EPA did not randomly select the survey recipients, 
data from these questionnaires was not used to develop national 
estimates.
5. POTW Survey
    EPA distributed the Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) survey in 
November 1997. The Agency designed this survey to estimate benefits 
associated with implementation of the MP&M regulations and to estimate 
possible costs and burden that POTWs might incur in writing MP&M 
permits or other control mechanisms. The Agency sent the POTW survey to 
150 POTWs with flow rates greater than 0.50 million gallons per day. 
EPA randomly selected the recipients from the 1992 Needs Survey Review, 
Update, and Query System Database (RUQus). The Agency divided the POTW 
sample into two strata by daily flow rates: 0.50 to 2.50 million 
gallons, and 2.50 million gallons or more.
    In addition to the total volume of wastewater treated at the site, 
the POTW survey requested the number of industrial permits written, the 
cost to write the permits, the permitting fee structure, the percentage 
of industrial dischargers covered by National Categorical Standards 
(i.e., effluent guidelines), and the percentage of permits requiring 
expensive administrative activities. EPA used this information to 
estimate administrative burden and costs. In addition, EPA requested 
information on the use or disposal of sewage sludge generated by the 
POTW. The Agency only required POTWs that received discharges from an 
MP&M facility to complete those questions. The sewage sludge 
information requested included the amount generated, use or disposal 
method, metal levels, use or disposal costs, and the percentage of 
metal loadings from MP&M facilities. The Agency used this information 
to assess the potential changes in sludge handling resulting from the 
MP&M rule and to estimate economic benefits to the POTW (See Section 
XIX.B.2 for a discussion of the results of the POTW survey.)

C. Wastewater Sampling and Site Visits

    The Agency visited 201 MP&M sites to collect information about MP&M 
unit operations, water use practices, pollution prevention and 
treatment technologies, and waste disposal methods, and to evaluate 
sites for potential inclusion in the MP&M sampling program (described 
below). In general, the Agency visited sites to encompass the range of 
sectors, unit operations, and wastewater treatment technologies within 
the MP&M industry.
    The Agency based site selection on information contained in the 
MP&M screener and detailed surveys. The Agency also contacted regional 
EPA personnel, state environmental agency personnel, and local 
pretreatment coordinators to identify MP&M sites believed to be 
operating in-process source reduction and recycling technologies or 
end-of-pipe wastewater treatment technologies. The Agency also 
attempted to visit sites of various sizes. EPA visited sites with 
wastewater flows ranging from less than 200 gallons per day to more 
than 1,000,000 gallons per day. Site-specific selection criteria are 
discussed in site visit reports (SVRs) prepared for each site visited 
by EPA.
    In addition to performing site visits, EPA conducted wastewater 
sampling episodes at 72 sites to obtain data on the characteristics of 
MP&M wastewater and solid wastes, and to assess the following: The 
loading of pollutants to surface waters and POTWs from MP&M sites; the 
effectiveness of technologies designed to reduce and remove pollutants 
from MP&M wastewater; design and operational parameters; and the 
variation of MP&M wastewater characteristics across unit operations, 
metal types processed in each unit operation, and sectors.
    The Agency used information collected during MP&M site visits to 
identify candidate sites for sampling. The Agency used the following 
general criteria to select sites for sampling:
    <bullet> The site performed MP&M unit operations EPA was evaluating 
for development of the MP&M regulation;
    <bullet> The site processed metals through MP&M unit operations for 
which the metal type/unit operation combination needed to be 
characterized for the sampling database;
    <bullet> The site performed in-process source reduction, recycling, 
or end-of-pipe treatment technologies that EPA was evaluating for 
technology option development; and
    <bullet> The site performed unit operations in a sector that EPA 
was evaluating for development of the MP&M regulation.
The Agency also attempted to sample at sites of various sizes. EPA 
sampled at sites with wastewater flows ranging from less than 200 
gallons per day to more than 1,000,000 gallons per day.
    In addition, EPA worked with several stakeholders to collect site 
visit and sampling data from MP&M facilities. Following the 1995 
proposal of the Phase I MP&M rule, the Association of American 
Railroads (AAR), the Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD), and the 
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD) proposed potential 
sampling sites to the Agency, and EPA visited these sites to identify 
candidates for sampling. After conducting site visits, EPA selected 
five sites for sampling episodes to characterize end-of-pipe treatment 
technologies in metal finishing and aircraft parts job shops and the 
railroad and shipbuilding industrial sectors. EPA prepared detailed 
sampling plans based on the information collected during the five site 
visits, and supported AAR, HRSD and LACSD sampling episodes for the 
collection of wastewater samples, and EPA prepared the sampling episode 
reports.
    The Agency collected the following types of information during each 
sampling episode:
    <bullet> Dates and times of sample collection;
    <bullet> Flow data corresponding to each sample;
    <bullet> Production data corresponding to each sample of wastewater 
from MP&M unit operations;
    <bullet> Design and operating parameters for source reduction, 
recycling, and treatment technologies characterized during sampling;
    <bullet> Information about site operations that had changed since 
the site visit or that were not included in the SVR; and
    <bullet> Temperature and pH of the sampled wastestreams.
    EPA documented all data collected during sampling episodes in the

[[Page 439]]

sampling episode report (SER) for each sampled site which are located 
in the MP&M Administrative Record. Non-confidential information from 
these reports is available in the public record for this proposal. For 
detailed information on sampling and preservation procedures, 
analytical methods, and quality assurance/quality control procedures 
see the Technical Development Document for today's proposed rule.

D. Industry Submitted Data

    EPA evaluated other industry data in developing the MP&M effluent 
guidelines. The data sources reviewed include: public comments to the 
1995 MP&M Phase I proposed rule; the Metal Finishing F006 Benchmark 
Study (September 1998); data supporting the 180-Day Accumulation Time 
Under RCRA for Waste Water Treatment Sludges From the Metal Finishing 
Industry Final Rule (65 FR 12377, March 8, 2000); data provided by the 
Aluminum Anodizing Council (AAC), the American Wire Producers 
Association (AWPA), and the Aerospace Association; data and storm water 
pollution prevention plans provided by several shipbuilding sites, and 
data from periodic compliance monitoring reports/discharge monitoring 
reports for several sites that were part of EPA's wastewater sampling 
program. Data submitted with the MP&M Phase I comments did not include 
the quality control data required to verify the accuracy of sample 
analyses and, therefore, EPA did not use the data. These data sources 
are located in the MP&M Administrative Record. Non-confidential 
information is available in the public record for this proposal.

E. Summary of Public Participation

    EPA has met regularly with industry trade associations and their 
members at various association annual meetings and conferences. There 
are over 20 trade associations that represent facilities that were part 
of the initial scope of the MP&M proposed rule. These trade 
associations have formed an informal coalition (referred to as the 
``MP&M'' coalition) that coordinates regular meetings with 
representatives from the various affected industries. In the past year, 
EPA has also participated in several of the Small Business 
Administration's ``Small Business Roundtable'' meetings.
    As discussed in detail in Section XXII.C, EPA conducted outreach 
and convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel. For this proposed 
rule, the small entity representatives included nine small MP&M 
facility owner/operators, one small municipality, and the following six 
trade associations representing different sectors of the industry: 
National Association of Metal Finishers (NAMF)/Association of 
Electroplaters and Surface Finishers (AESF)/MP&M Coalition; the 
Association Connecting Electronics Industries (also known as IPC); 
Porcelain Enamel Institute; American Association of Shortline Railroads 
(ASLRA); Electronics Industry Association (EIA); and the American Wire 
Producers Association (AWPA).
    Because many facilities affected by this proposal are indirect 
dischargers, the Agency also conducted outreach to publicly owned 
treatment works (POTWs) individually and through the Association of 
Municipal Sewerage Agencies (AMSA). EPA also conducted a survey of 150 
POTWs to assess the burden associated with implementing the proposed 
MP&M rule (see Section V.B.5 above for discussion of the POTW survey). 
In addition, EPA made a concerted effort to consult with pretreatment 
coordinators and state and local entities that will be responsible for 
implementing this regulation.
    EPA sponsored three stakeholders' meetings between November 1997 
and May 2000. Two meetings were held in Washington, DC, and the third 
was held in Chicago, IL. The primary objectives of the meetings were to 
present the Agency's current thinking regarding the technology bases 
for the MP&M proposed rule and to solicit comments, issues, and new 
ideas from interested stakeholders, including members of environmental 
groups.
    EPA provided information on the potential technology options and 
in-process pollution prevention practices as well as the potential 
subcategories. EPA also provided preliminary information on pollutant 
reductions, compliance costs, and potential monitoring flexibility.
    Most recently, EPA has put up a website (http://www.epa.gov/ost/guide/mpm) to provide ongoing information on the MP&M project. The site 
includes background information, links to related documents, and 
information presented at MP&M stakeholders meetings.

VI. Industry Subcategorization

A. Methodology and Factors Considered for Basis of Subcategorization

    EPA may divide a point source category (e.g., MP&M) into groupings 
called ``subcategories'' to provide a method for addressing variations 
between products, raw materials, processes, and other factors which 
result in distinctly different effluent characteristics. Regulation of 
a category by using formal subcategories provides that each subcategory 
has a uniform set of effluent limitations which take into account 
technological achievability and economic impacts unique to that 
subcategory. In some cases, effluent limitations within a subcategory 
may be different based on consideration of the factors described in 
section 304(b)(2)(b) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1314(b)(2)(B). The CWA 
requires EPA, in developing effluent limitations guidelines and 
pretreatment standards, to consider a number of different 
subcategorization factors. The statute also authorizes EPA to take into 
account other factors that the Agency deems appropriate. Stakeholders 
specifically suggested that EPA consider subcategories based on 
industry sector or type of activity within an industry sector (e.g., 
repair and maintenance versus manufacturing), some of which appear to 
have very low baseline pollutant loadings.
    EPA considered the following factors in its evaluation of potential 
MP&M subcategories:
    <bullet> Unit operation;
    <bullet> Activity;
    <bullet> Raw materials;
    <bullet> Products;
    <bullet> Size of site;
    <bullet> Location;
    <bullet> Age;
    <bullet> Nature of the waste generated;
    <bullet> Economic impacts;
    <bullet> Treatment costs;
    <bullet> Total energy requirements;
    <bullet> Air pollution control methods;
    <bullet> Solid waste generation and disposal; and
    <bullet> POTW burden.
One result of grouping similar facilities into subcategories is the 
increased likelihood that the regulations are practicable, and it 
diminishes the need to address variations between facilities through a 
variance process (Weyerhaeuser Co. V. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1053 (D.C. 
Cir. 1978)).
    EPA considered subcategorizing the MP&M category by industrial 
sector (e.g., aerospace, aircraft, bus and truck, electronic equipment, 
hardware, household equipment, instruments, job shops, mobile 
industrial equipment, motor vehicles, office machines, ordnance, 
precious metals and jewelry, printed wiring boards, railroad, ships and 
boats, stationary industrial equipment, and miscellaneous metal 
products). Sectors are broadly defined and not only include 
manufacturing and repair facilities within the sector (e.g., 
shipbuilding facilities in the ship and boat sector), but also include 
facilities that produce products that are used within the sector (e.g., 
a facility that

[[Page 440]]

manufactures hydraulic pumps used on ships is also in the ship and boat 
sector). The Agency determined that subcategorization based solely on 
industrial sector would require much more detailed subcategorization 
scheme than the approach proposed (see below). Adopting a 
subcategorization scheme based on industrial sector would complicate 
the implementation of the limitations and standards because permit 
writers might be required to develop facility-specific limitations 
across multiple subcategories.
    The Agency determined that wastewater characteristics, unit 
operations, and raw materials used to produce products within a given 
sector are not always the same from site to site, and they are not 
always different from sector to sector. Within each sector, sites can 
perform a variety of unit operations on a variety of raw materials. For 
example, a site in the aerospace sector may primarily machine aluminum 
missile components and not perform any surface treatment other than 
alkaline cleaning. Another site in that sector may electroplate iron 
parts for missiles and perform little or no machining. Wastewater 
characteristics from these sites may differ because of the different 
unit operations performed and different raw materials used.
    Based on the analytical data collected for this rule, EPA has not 
found a statistically significant difference in industrial wastewater 
discharge among industrial sectors when performing similar unit 
operations for cadmium, chromium, copper, cyanide, lead, manganese, 
molybdenum, nickel, oil & grease, silver, tin, TSS, and zinc. (The 
analytical data are available in the public record for this 
rulemaking.) For example, a facility that performs electroplating in 
the process of manufacturing office machines produces metal-bearing 
wastewater with similar chemical characteristics as a facility that 
performs electroplating in the process of manufacturing a part for a 
bus. Similarly, a facility that performs repair and maintenance on a 
airplane engine produces oil-bearing wastewater that has similar 
chemical characteristics to a facility that performs repair and 
maintenance on construction machinery.
    Most MP&M unit operations are not unique to a particular sector and 
are performed across all sectors. For example, all sectors may perform 
several of the major wastewater-generating unit operations (e.g., 
alkaline treatment, acid treatment, machining, electroplating). And, 
for the most part, the unit operations that are rarely performed (e.g., 
abrasive jet machining) are not performed in all sectors, but are also 
not limited to a single sector. Therefore, a facility in any one of the 
18 industrial sectors can generate metal-bearing or oil-bearing 
wastewater (or a combination of both) depending on what unit operations 
the facility performs.
    In addition, two facilities that may be part of the same sector may 
generate wastewater with vastly different chemical characteristics and 
thus require different types of treatment. For example, an automobile 
manufacturer and an automobile repair facility are both part of the 
motor vehicle sector. However, the automobile manufacturer may perform 
unit operations that generate metal-bearing and oil-bearing wastewater 
(aqueous degreasing, electroplating, chemical conversion coating, etc.) 
while the automobile repair facility may perform unit operations that 
only generate oil-bearing wastewater (machining, aqueous degreasing, 
impact deformation, painting, etc.).
    Due to the numerous MP&M facilities that could fall under the scope 
of multiple sectors, EPA determined that a regulation based on MP&M 
industrial sector would create a variety of implementation issues for 
State and local regulators as well as for those multiple-sector 
facilities. Therefore, as mentioned above, EPA is not proposing to use 
industrial sector to subcategorize the industry.
    In the Phase I proposal, EPA did not subcategorize the Phase I 
segment of MP&M sectors (see 60 FR 28221; May 30, 1995). As discussed 
in Section II.C, the scope of the 1995 proposal differed from today's 
proposal in that it only covered seven of the 18 MP&M industrial 
sectors. For today's proposal, EPA performed the analysis for 
determining whether or not to subcategorize considering all facilities 
under the scope of today's rule (i.e., both Phase I and II industrial 
sectors). See Section III for a discussion on the scope of today's 
proposal. Based on this analysis, EPA determined that it is necessary 
to subcategorize the MP&M industry.
    A variety of factors influenced EPA's decision to subcategorize the 
MP&M industry. First, EPA found two basic types of wastestreams in the 
industry: (1) wastewater with high metals content (metal-bearing), and 
(2) wastewater with low concentration of metals, and high oil and 
grease content (oil-bearing). The type of wastewater a facility 
generates is directly related to the unit operations it performs. For 
example, unit operations such as machining, grinding, aqueous 
degreasing, and impact or pressure deformation tend to generate a 
wastewater with high oil and grease (and associated organic pollutants) 
loadings without significant concentrations of metal pollutants. While 
other unit operations such as electroplating, conversion coating, 
chemical etching and milling, and anodizing generate higher metals 
loadings with moderate/low oil and grease concentrations.
    Although many facilities generate both metal- and oil-bearing 
wastewater, there are a large number of facilities that only generate 
oil-bearing wastewater. Such facilities are typically machine shops and 
maintenance and repair facilities. Since the wastewater at these 
facilities primarily contains oil and grease and other organic 
constituents, treatment technologies at these facilities focus on oil 
removal only and do not require the chemical precipitation step needed 
for treating metal-bearing wastewater. Treatment technologies in place 
at these facilities generally include ultrafiltration, or chemical 
emulsion breaking followed by either gravity floatation, coalescing 
plate oil/water separators, or dissolved air flotation (DAF). 
Therefore, EPA first divided the industry on the basis of unit 
operations performed and the nature of the wastewater generated, 
resulting in the following two groups: (1) metal-bearing with or 
without oily and organic constituents group; and (2) oil-bearing only 
group. As a second step, EPA performed an analysis to see if there were 
any significant differences in the subcategorization factors within the 
two basic groups.
    When looking at facilities with metal-bearing wastewater (with or 
without oil-bearing wastewater), EPA identified several groups of 
facilities which could potentially be subcategorized by dominant 
product, raw materials used, and/or nature of the waste generated. In 
two subcategories, EPA also considered economic impacts as a factor in 
subcategorization because of the reduced ability of these facilities to 
afford treatment costs. There were also two subcategories where the 
number of facilities that were not currently covered by an existing 
effluent guidelines regulation was large enough to present an 
unacceptable burden to POTWs.
    Based on the currently available data, EPA is proposing to 
subcategorize the metal-bearing (with or without oil-bearing 
wastewater) MP&M facilities into the following subcategories: non-
chromium anodizing; metal finishing job shops; printed wiring board 
facilities; steel forming and finishing facilities; and general metals 
facilities. EPA describes its rationale for

[[Page 441]]

subcategorization below (see Section VI.C for additional detailed 
discussion and applicability of each of these subcategories).
    The non-chromium anodizers are different from other MP&M facilities 
in that all of their products are primarily of one metal type--anodized 
aluminum--and most importantly, they do not use chromic acid or 
dichromate sealants in their anodizing process. Based on EPA's limited 
data for these facilities, EPA expects that these facilities have very 
low levels of metals (with the exception of aluminum) or toxic organic 
pollutants in their wastewater discharges. EPA determined that other 
MP&M facilities had much greater concentrations of a wider variety of 
metals. In addition, due to the presence of large quantities of 
aluminum, these facilities require much larger wastewater treatment 
systems to remove the large amounts of aluminum and low levels of alloy 
metals. The need for larger treatment systems results in higher costs 
and large economic impacts for this potential subcategory. EPA found 
that as many as 60 percent of the non-chromium anodizers could 
experience closures as a result of complying with the proposed 
regulation (see Section XVI for a discussion of economic impacts). 
Therefore, based on the difference in raw materials used, product 
produced, nature of the waste generated (i.e., low levels of pollutants 
discharged), treatment costs, and projected economic impacts, EPA 
concluded that a basis exists for subcategorizing the non-chromium 
anodizing facilities in the MP&M industry.
    EPA investigated whether or not to subcategorize the metal 
finishing and electroplating job shops covered by the Metal Finishing 
(40 CFR part 433) and Electroplating (40 CFR part 413) effluent 
guidelines. Although the facilities have metal types that require the 
same treatment technologies as many other metals-bearing facilities, 
EPA determined these facilities to be different due to the variability 
of their raw materials and products as well as the slightly higher 
level of economic impacts incurred as compared to other costed 
facilities. As discussed in Section VI.C.2 below, this subcategory 
includes only those facilities who perform the six operations defining 
the applicability of the Metal Finishing and Electroplating effluent 
guidelines and who are ``job shops'' by the definition provided in the 
Metal Finishing effluent guidelines (i.e., they own less than 50 
percent of the products processed on site on an annual area basis). 
(See 40 CFR 433.11). Because these facilities are job shops and perform 
work on a contract basis, they cannot always predict the type of 
plating or other finishing operations required. In addition, because 
these facilities perform work on a large variety of metal types from 
various customers, the wastewater generated at these facilities can 
vary from week to week (or even day to day). EPA performed wastewater 
sampling to specifically identify the variability in the wastewater 
generated at metal finishing job shops and found that the variability 
factors calculated solely on the analytical wastewater sampling data of 
metal finishing and electroplating job shops is higher for most 
pollutant parameters than those calculated for similar metal-bearing 
subcategories (e.g., General Metals) (see Section II.D for a discussion 
of EPA's job shop variability wastewater sampling and Section VIII.B 
for a discussion on determining limits and variability factors). In 
addition, EPA found that up to 10 percent of the indirect discharging 
metal finishing job shops subcategory could experience facility 
closures as a result of compliance with the proposed regulatory 
technology option (see Section VIII for a discussion of technology 
options). Therefore, EPA concluded that it has an appropriate basis for 
subcategorizing metal finishing and electroplating job shops.
    EPA determined that there is a basis for establishing a different 
subcategory for the printed wiring board facilities from the other 
facilities in the group of metal-bearing (with or without oil-bearing 
wastewater) facilities based on raw materials, unit operations 
performed, dominant product, and nature of the waste generated. First, 
these facilities process a more consistent mix of metal types 
(primarily copper, tin, and lead) than other MP&M facilities to produce 
a specific product. EPA has concluded that this more consistent mix of 
metal types enables the printed wiring board facilities to tailor their 
treatment technology and incorporate more of the advanced pollution 
prevention and recovery technologies (e.g., ion exchange). Printed 
wiring board facilities generally work with copper-clad laminate 
material, allowing them to target copper for removal in their 
wastewater treatment systems or recover the copper using in-process ion 
exchange. Second, these facilities apply, develop, and strip 
photoresist--a set of unit operations which is largely unique to this 
proposed subcategory. This process results in a higher concentration of 
a more consistent group of organic constituents than other facilities 
in the metal-bearing group. Finally, the nature of the wastewater 
generated at these facilities may also be different due to the fact 
that these facilities perform more lead-bearing operations (e.g., lead/
tin electroplating, wave soldering) than other MP&M facilities.
    Steel forming and finishing is another proposed subcategory under 
the metal bearing (with or without oil-bearing wastewater) group of 
MP&M facilities. These facilities perform both cold forming and 
finishing operations on steel at stand-alone facilities as well as at 
steel manufacturing facilities. EPA formerly covered these facilities 
under the 1982 Iron and Steel Manufacturing effluent guidelines (40 CFR 
part 420). Typical operations include: acid pickling, annealing, 
conversion coating (e.g., zinc phosphate, copper sulfate), hot dip 
coating and/or electroplating of steel wire or rod, heat treatment, 
welding, drawing, patenting, and oil tempering. EPA concluded that the 
basis for subcategorization is the difference in the raw material and 
dominant product at these facilities. Facilities in this subcategory 
only process steel and for the most part produce uniformly-shaped 
products such as wire, rod, bar, pipe and tube. In addition, this is 
the only subcategory where EPA is proposing to cover forming operations 
under the MP&M regulations. Effluent guidelines specific to forming 
operations exist for all other common metal types (e.g., Aluminum 
Forming (40 CFR part 467); Copper Forming (40 CFR part 468); and 
Nonferrous Metals Forming & Metal Powders (40 CFR part 471)).
    Finally, after subcategorization of the non-chromium anodizing, 
metal finishing job shops, printed wiring board facilities, steel 
forming and finishing facilities, EPA is proposing to group the 
remaining metal-bearing (with or without oil-bearing wastewater) group 
of MP&M facilities into a subcategory entitled ``General Metals.'' This 
subcategory would be a ``catch-all'' for facilities that did not fall 
into any of the previous subcategories but whose wastewater, at a 
minimum, requires metals removal and may also require the preliminary 
treatment steps of oil/water separation, chromium reduction, and 
cyanide destruction. For example, wastewater generated from most 
manufacturing operations and heavy rebuilding operations (e.g., 
aircraft/aerospace, automobile, bus/truck, railroad) would be regulated 
under the proposed General Metals subcategory.
    When looking at facilities with only oil-bearing wastewater for 
potential further subcategorization, EPA found that there were two 
types of facilities that were different from the other

[[Page 442]]

facilities in that group based on size, location, and dominant product/
activity. The first type of facility includes MP&M operations that 
occur in shipbuilding dry docks or similar structures, and the second 
includes railroad line maintenance facilities (see VI.C.8 and VI.C.9, 
respectively, for a detailed description of these proposed 
subcategories). Dry docks (and similar structures such as graving 
docks, building ways, lift barges, and marine railways) are large, 
outdoor areas exposed to precipitation that shipyards use to perform 
final assembly, maintenance, rebuilding and repair work on large ships 
and boats. Due to their size, outdoor location, low level of pollutant 
loadings discharged to the environment, and the fact this wastewater is 
unique to the shipbuilding industry, EPA believes that a basis exists 
to subcategorize shipbuilding dry docks and similar structures. This 
proposed subcategory does not include other MP&M operations that occur 
at shipyards (e.g., shore-side operations).
    Similarly, railroad line maintenance facilities are outdoor 
facilities where light maintenance and cleaning of railroad cars, 
engines and car-wheel trucks occur. Due to their outdoor location, unit 
operations performed, and low level of pollutant loadings discharged to 
the environment, EPA concluded that there is a basis to subcategorize 
railroad line maintenance facilities. EPA notes that this proposed 
subcategory does not include railroad manufacturing operations or 
railroad overhaul/rebuilding facilities.
    Finally, after subcategorization of the shipbuilding dry dock and 
railroad line maintenance facilities, EPA is proposing to group the 
remaining oily-bearing wastewater group of MP&M facilities into a 
subcategory entitled ``Oily Wastes.'' This subcategory would be a 
``catch-all'' for facilities that did not fall into the two above 
``oily'' subcategories but whose wastewater does not have metals 
loadings at levels where they can be effectively treated. Following 
further analysis, EPA has decided not to propose pretreatment standards 
for indirect discharging facilities in the shipbuilding dry dock and 
railroad line maintenance subcategories (see Section XII for a 
discussion pertaining to pretreatment standards).

B. Proposed Subcategories

    As discussed above in Section VI.A, EPA has determined that a basis 
exists for dividing the MP&M category into the following subcategories 
for the proposed rule: General Metals, Non-Chromium Anodizing, Metal 
Finishing Job Shops, Printed Wiring Boards, Steel Forming and 
Finishing, Oily Wastes, Railroad Line Maintenance, and Shipbuilding Dry 
Dock. In Section VI.C below, EPA describes each subcategory and defines 
the applicability of the rule for facilities in each subcategory. EPA 
notes that with the exception of the two general subcategories (General 
Metals and Oily Wastes), the remaining proposed subcategories would not 
have been relevant to the subcategorization of the Phase I MP&M 
proposal. The facilities that have been further subcategorized in 
today's proposal were all part of the Phase II MP&M sectors (see 
Section II.C for a discussion on the 1995 Phase I proposal).
    EPA believes its proposed subcategories make sense, for the reasons 
discussed above, but requests comment on other possible subcategories. 
In particular, it has been suggested that the large General Metals 
subcategory be further subdivided into industrial sectors based on 
preliminary analyses which suggest that discharges from some sectors 
may be low enough to warrant exclusion from this regulation. Some of 
the wastewaters in these sectors may be covered by other effluent 
guidelines. EPA requests comment on further subdivision of the General 
Metals subcategory. Commenters should include data to support their 
suggestions where possible.

C. General Description of Facilities in Each Subcategory

1. General Metals
    As discussed above in Section VI.A, EPA has created the General 
Metals subcategory as a ``catch-all'' for MP&M facilities that 
discharge metal-bearing wastewater (with or without oil-bearing 
wastewater) that do not fit the applicability of the Printed Wiring 
Board, Non-Chromium Anodizing, Metal Finishing Job Shops, or Steel 
Forming and Finishing subcategories. Therefore, the General Metals 
subcategory may include facilities from 17 of the 18 MP&M industrial 
sectors (i.e., all except the printed wiring board sector). This 
subcategory also includes General Metals facilities that are owned and 
operated by states and municipalities. (See Section III for a 
discussion on the general scope of today's proposal). General Metals 
facilities likely perform manufacturing or heavy rebuilding of metal 
products, parts, or machines. Facilities that perform metal finishing 
or electroplating operations on-site, but do not meet the definition of 
a job shop (i.e., captive shops), would fit in the applicability of the 
General Metals subcategory.
    EPA estimates that there are approximately 26,000 indirect 
dischargers and 3,800 direct dischargers that could be covered by this 
proposed subcategory. EPA currently regulates 26 percent of the 
facilities in this subcategory by existing effluent guidelines. Based 
on responses to its questionnaires, the Agency estimates that the Metal 
Finishing (40 CFR part 433) and Electroplating (40 CFR part 413) 
effluent guidelines cover approximately 16 percent of these facilities 
and other metals related effluent guidelines (such as those discussed 
in Section II.B.) cover a portion of the wastewater discharges at an 
additional 10 percent of these facilities.
    EPA is proposing to exclude, from the MP&M regulations, indirect 
discharging facilities that would fall into the General Metals 
subcategory when they discharge less than or equal to 1 million gallons 
per year (MGY) of MP&M process wastewater to the POTW. (See Sections 
II.D, III, and XII for discussions on the proposed low flow cutoff and 
its impact on POTW burden reduction). In cases where these General 
Metals facilities discharge less than or equal to 1 MGY to a POTW, 
these pretreatment standards proposed today do not apply; however, 
facilities are still subject to other applicable pretreatment 
standards, including those established under parts 413 and 433. See 
Sections IX, XI, and XII of this preamble for information on compliance 
costs, pollutant reductions, and economic impacts associated with the 
MP&M rule for the General Metals subcategory.
2. Metal Finishing Job Shops
    Facilities in the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory must meet 
the following criteria: (1) Discharge wastewater from one or more of 
the six operations identified in the applicability of the Metal 
Finishing (40 CFR part 433) and Electroplating (40 CFR part 413) 
effluent limitations guidelines regulations; and (2) must meet the 
definition of a job shop. The six identifying operations are: 
Electroplating, Electroless Plating, Anodizing, Coating (chromating, 
phosphating, passivation, and coloring), Chemical Etching and Milling, 
and Printed Circuit Board Manufacture (i.e, Printed Wiring Boards). As 
in the Metal Finishing effluent guidelines (40 CFR part 433), EPA 
defines a ``job shop'' as ``a facility which owns not more than 50 
percent (on an annual area basis) of the materials undergoing metal 
finishing.'' EPA is proposing to include printed

[[Page 443]]

wiring board job shops in this subcategory based on the unique 
economics of job shop operation. However, EPA solicits comment on the 
variability of the raw materials, products, and wastewater at printed 
wiring board job shops. EPA also solicits comment on including printed 
wiring board job shops under this subcategory or whether EPA should 
include them in the Printed Wiring Board Subcategory (see Section 
VI.C.4 for a discussion on the Printed Wiring Board Subcategory).
    The Agency estimates that there are approximately 1,500 indirect 
dischargers and 15 direct dischargers in the proposed Metal Finishing 
Job Shops subcategory. EPA currently regulates all facilities in this 
subcategory by the existing Metal Finishing or Electroplating effluent 
guidelines and standards. EPA is proposing to cover all of these 
facilities under this proposed rule. Therefore, under today's proposal, 
facilities subject to the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory would 
no longer be covered by the effluent limitations guidelines and 
standards in 40 CFR part 413 or 40 CFR part 433. (See Sec. 438.20(a)). 
EPA estimates that today's proposal could reduce pollutant loadings 
from this subcategory by an additional 1.75 million toxic pound 
equivalents \2\ annually over the reductions currently achieved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA uses toxic pound-equivalents to indicate the amount of 
toxicity that a pollutant may exert on human health and aquatic 
life. The Agency calculates toxic pound-equivalents by multiplying 
the mass of pollutants discharged (or removed) by that pollutant's 
toxic weighting factor (TWF). EPA develops TWFs using a combination 
of toxicity data on human health and aquatic life and are relative 
to the toxicity of copper. (See Section XVII of today's notice or 
the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Document for this proposed rule for 
a more detailed discussion of toxic weighting factors).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has identified approximately 30,000 facilities that meet the 
definition of job shop but do not discharge wastewater from one or more 
of the six identifying metal finishing operations as defined in 40 CFR 
part 433. EPA does not consider such job shops to be part of the Metal 
Finishing Job Shops subcategory. For example, these other job shops 
perform assembly, painting, and machining on a contract basis and are 
likely to fall in the General Metals or Oily Waste subcategories.
    EPA is considering an alternative compliance option for this 
subcategory which includes the demonstration of specified pollution 
prevention practices for all facilities in the subcategory (or possibly 
only those facilities below a specified flow cutoff). See Section XXI.D 
for a discussion on the pollution prevention alternative for Metal 
Finishing Job Shops. Also see Sections IX, XI, and XII of this preamble 
for information on compliance costs, pollutant reductions, and economic 
impacts for the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory.
3. Non-Chromium Anodizing
    Facilities covered under the proposed Non-Chromium Anodizing 
subcategory must perform aluminum anodizing without the use of chromic 
acid or dichromate sealants in their MP&M operations. Anodizing is a 
surface conversion operation used to alter the properties of aluminum 
for better corrosion resistence and heat transfer. Generally, non-
chromium anodizing facilities perform sulfuric acid anodizing; however, 
facilities can use other acids, such as oxalic acid, for aluminum 
anodizing. EPA is not including anodizers that use chromic acid or 
dichromate sealants under this subcategory. EPA is proposing to cover 
those facilities in the General Metals subcategory or the Metal 
Finishing Job Shops subcategory (if they operate as a job shop). EPA 
solicits comment on the chromium content of sulfuric acid anodizing 
baths, anodizing dyes/sealants, and other wastewater from sulfuric acid 
anodizing.
    EPA estimates that there are approximately 190 indirect dischargers 
and, to date, has not identified any direct dischargers in the Non-
Chromium Anodizing subcategory. The wastewater generated at non-
chromium anodizing facilities contains very low levels of metals (with 
the exception of aluminum) and toxic organic pollutants. In addition, 
as discussed in Section VI.A, above, EPA determined that compliance 
with the proposed regulation would cause 60 percent of the indirect 
discharging facilities in this subcategory to close. Therefore, for the 
reasons discussed in Section XII.F below, EPA is proposing to exclude 
wastewater from indirect discharging non-chromium anodizing facilities 
(that also do not use dichromate sealants) from the MP&M categorical 
pretreatment standards. Such facilities would still need to comply with 
the pretreatment standards of the Metal Finishing (40 CFR part 433) or 
Electroplating (40 CFR part 413) effluent guidelines for their non-
chromium anodizing wastewater and the general pretreatment standards at 
40 CFR part 403. EPA is proposing limits for direct dischargers in this 
subcategory. EPA solicits comment on whether the applicable standards 
for indirect discharging non-chromium anodizers should be transferred 
from 40 CFR part 433 to the MP&M regulation in order to include all 
non-chromium anodizers under one regulation. Because today's proposal 
includes a monitoring waiver for pollutants that are not present (see 
Section XXI.C.1 for a discussion on the monitoring waiver), the Agency 
believes that transferring the pretreatment standards for these 
facilities to the MP&M regulation would allow non-chromium anodizing 
indirect dischargers to reduce the number of parameters for which they 
have to monitor. See Section IX, XI, and XII of this preamble for 
information on compliance costs, pollutant reductions, and economic 
impacts for the Non-Chromium Anodizing subcategory.
    Some facilities that could potentially fall into the Non-Chromium 
Anodizing subcategory may also perform other metal surface finishing 
operations at their facilities. If these facilities commingle their 
wastewater from their non-chromium anodizing operations with wastewater 
from other surface finishing operations (e.g., chromic acid anodizing, 
electroplating, chemical conversion coating, etc.) for treatment, they 
would not be covered by the Non-Chromium Anodizing subcategory. 
Instead, the General Metals or Metal Finishing Job Shop subcategories 
would apply. However, for facilities that discharge their non-chromium 
anodizing wastewater separate from their other surface finishing 
wastewater, control authorities and permit writers would apply the 
appropriate limits to each discharge.
4. Printed Wiring Board
    EPA is proposing the Printed Wiring Board subcategory to cover 
wastewater discharges from the manufacture, maintenance, and repair of 
printed wiring boards (i.e., circuit boards). This subcategory does not 
include job shops that manufacture, maintain or repair printed wiring 
boards--EPA is covering these facilities under the Metal Finishing Job 
Shops subcategory, see Section VI.C.2 above for a discussion. EPA 
currently regulates all facilities in this subcategory by the existing 
Metal Finishing or Electroplating effluent guidelines and standards. 
EPA is proposing to cover all of these facilities under this proposed 
rule. Therefore, under today's proposal, facilities subject to the 
Printed Wiring Board subcategory would no longer be covered by the 
effluent limitations guidelines and standards in 40 CFR part 413 or 40 
CFR part 433. Printed wiring board facilities perform unique operations 
including applying, developing and stripping of photoresist, lead/tin 
soldering, and wave soldering. EPA estimates that there are 
approximately 620 indirect

[[Page 444]]

dischargers and 11 direct dischargers in the proposed Printed Wiring 
Board subcategory. See Sections IX, XI, XII, and XVI of this preamble 
for information on compliance costs, pollutant reductions, and economic 
impacts for the Printed Wiring Board subcategory.
5. Steel Forming & Finishing
    Although many facilities may perform MP&M operations with steel, 
EPA is proposing to establish the Steel Forming & Finishing subcategory 
for process wastewater discharges from facilities that perform MP&M 
operations (listed in Section III) or cold forming operations on steel 
wire, rod, bar, pipe, or tube. This subcategory does not include 
facilities that perform those operations on base materials other than 
steel. In a separate notice, EPA is proposing to revise the Iron and 
Steel Manufacturing effluent guidelines. The proposed revisions to the 
Iron and Steel regulations include revising the applicability to 
exclude those facilities that EPA has determined to be appropriately 
regulated by the MP&M proposed rule. EPA based this decision on the 
information gathered during the data collection effort for the proposed 
revision to the Iron & Steel Manufacturing regulations.
    The MP&M Steel Forming & Finishing proposed subcategory does not 
cover wastewater generated from performing any hot steel forming 
operations; or wastewater from cold forming, electroplating or 
continuous hot dip coating of steel sheet, strip, or plates. As 
mentioned above, the new proposed Iron & Steel Manufacturing effluent 
guidelines cover wastewater from such operations.
    EPA estimates that there are approximately 110 indirect dischargers 
and 43 direct dischargers in the Steel Forming & Finishing subcategory 
of the proposed MP&M regulation. All facilities in this subcategory 
have permits or other control mechanisms under the existing Iron and 
Steel Manufacturing regulation (40 CFR part 420).
    EPA is proposing to cover wastewater from these steel forming and 
finishing operations, regardless of whether they occur at a stand-alone 
facility or at a steel manufacturing facility. When a steel 
manufacturing facility performs these MP&M steel forming and finishing 
operations and commingles the wastewater for treatment with wastewater 
from other non-MP&M unit operations, control authorities (e.g., POTWs) 
and permit writers will need to set limits which account for both the 
MP&M and the Iron & Steel regulations. As mentioned previously, EPA 
refers to this approach as the combined waste stream formula or the 
building block approach. For facilities that choose to discharge their 
MP&M Steel Forming & Finishing wastewater separate from their Iron & 
Steel wastewater, control authorities and permit writers will apply the 
appropriate limits to each discharge. See Sections IX, XI, and XII of 
this preamble for information on compliance costs, pollutant 
reductions, and economic impacts for the Steel Forming & Finishing 
subcategory.
6. Oily Wastes
    EPA has created the Oily Wastes subcategory as a ``catch-all'' for 
MP&M facilities that discharge only oil-bearing wastewater and that do 
not fit the applicability of the other MP&M subcategories. EPA is 
defining the applicability of this subcategory by the presence of 
specific unit operations. Facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory 
must not fit the applicability of the Railroad Line Maintenance or 
Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategories and must only discharge wastewater 
from one or more of the following MP&M unit operations: alkaline 
cleaning for oil removal, aqueous degreasing, corrosion preventive 
coating, floor cleaning, grinding, heat treating, impact deformation, 
machining, pressure deformation, solvent degreasing, testing (e.g., 
hydrostatic, dye penetrant, ultrasonic, magnetic flux), painting, steam 
cleaning, and laundering. EPA is defining ``corrosion preventive 
coating'' to mean the application of removable oily or organic 
solutions to protect metal surfaces against corrosive environments. 
Corrosion preventive coatings include, but are not limited to: 
petrolatum compounds, oils, hard dry-film compounds, solvent-cutback 
petroleum-based compounds, emulsions, water-displacing polar compounds, 
and fingerprint removers and neutralizers. Corrosion preventive coating 
does not include electroplating, painting, chemical conversion coating 
(including phosphate conversion coating) operations. EPA is soliciting 
comment on the differences in metals content of wastewater generated 
from ``light'' phosphoric acid operations (such as some phosphoric acid 
etching operations and cleaning operations using phosphoric acid 
solutions) and from phosphate conversion coating. EPA is considering 
including phosphoric acid etching and cleaning using phosphoric acid 
solutions in the definition of ``oily operations'' discussed above. 
However, the Agency is not considering the inclusion of phosphate 
conversion coating as one of the ``oily operations.'' Based on EPA's 
database for this proposal, EPA believes that wastewater generated from 
phosphate conversion coating operations contains high levels of zinc 
and manganese.
    If a facility discharges wastewater from any of the above listed 
operations but also discharges wastewater from other MP&M operations, 
it does not meet the criteria of the Oily Wastes subcategory. 
Facilities in this subcategory are predominantly machine shops or 
maintenance and repair shops. EPA has determined that other MP&M unit 
operations generate metal-bearing wastewater or combination metal- and 
oil-bearing wastewater and require different treatment technology 
(i.e., chemical precipitation). EPA included wastewater from floor 
cleaning and testing operations based on review of the analytical data 
that confirmed little or no metals content in these two streams. This 
subcategory also includes state- and municipally-owned facilities only 
performing the listed operations.
    Like the General Metals subcategory, the Oily Wastes subcategory 
may include a number of facilities from each of 17 of the 18 MP&M 
industrial sectors (i.e., all except the printed wiring board sector). 
(See Section III for a discussion on the general scope of today's 
proposal).
    EPA estimates that there are approximately 28,500 indirect 
dischargers and 900 direct dischargers in the Oily Wastes subcategory. 
EPA has concluded that less than 1 percent of the MP&M process 
wastewater discharged from facilities in this subcategory are covered 
by an existing effluent guideline.
    For the reasons stated in Section XII, EPA is proposing to exclude 
from the MP&M regulations indirect discharging facilities that would 
fall into the Oily Wastes subcategory when they discharge less than or 
equal to 2 MGY of MP&M process wastewater to the POTW. EPA is also 
seriously considering a higher flow cutoff of 3 MGY for these indirect 
dischargers. See Sections IX, XI, XII of this preamble for information 
on compliance costs, pollutant reductions, and economic impacts for the 
Oily Wastes subcategory.
7. Railroad Line Maintenance
    EPA has developed the Railroad Line Maintenance subcategory to 
cover facilities that perform routine cleaning and light maintenance on 
railroad engines, cars, and car-wheel trucks and similar parts or 
machines. More specifically these facilities only discharge wastewater 
from MP&M unit

[[Page 445]]

operations that EPA defines as oily operations (see Section VI.C.6, 
above) and/or washing of final product. For other primarily oily 
subcategories (oily wastes and shipbuilding dry docks), EPA does not 
consider the unit operation ``washing of final product'' an MP&M 
``oily'' operation; however, EPA has reviewed the analytical wastewater 
sampling data for this wastestream at railroad line maintenance 
facilities and determined that there is little or no metal content. 
This subcategory does not include railroad manufacturing facilities or 
railroad overhaul or heavy maintenance facilities. Railroad line 
maintenance facilities are similar to facilities in the Oily Wastes 
subcategory in that they produce oil-bearing wastewater and do not 
perform MP&M operations that generate wastewater that require metals 
removal treatment technology.
    EPA estimates that there are approximately 800 indirect dischargers 
and 35 direct dischargers in the Railroad Line Maintenance 
subcategories. The wastewater generated at railroad line maintenance 
facilities contains very low levels of metals and toxic organic 
pollutants. For the reasons discussed in Section XII, EPA is proposing 
to exclude wastewater from indirect discharging railroad line 
maintenance facilities from the MP&M regulations. However, EPA is 
proposing to regulate conventional pollutants for direct dischargers in 
this subcategory. See Sections IX, XI, and XII of this preamble for 
information on compliance costs, pollutant reductions, and economic 
impacts for the Railroad Line Maintenance subcategory.
8. Shipbuilding Dry Dock
    EPA has created the Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategory to 
specifically cover MP&M process wastewater generated in or on dry docks 
and similar structures such as graving docks, building ways, marine 
railways and lift barges at shipbuilding facilities (or shipyards). 
Shipbuilding facilities use these structures to perform maintenance, 
repair or rebuilding of existing ships, or the final assembly and 
launching of new ships (including barges). Shipbuilders use these 
structures to reach surfaces and parts that would otherwise be under 
water. Since dry docks and similar structures include sumps or 
containment systems, they also enable shipyards to control the 
discharge of pollutants to the surface water. Typical MP&M operations 
that occur in dry docks and similar structures include: abrasive 
blasting, hydroblasting, painting, welding, corrosion preventive 
coating, floor cleaning, aqueous degreasing, and testing (e.g., 
hydrostatic testing). Not all of these unit operations generate 
wastewater. EPA is also proposing to cover wastewater generated when a 
shipyard cleans a ship's hull in a dry dock (or similar structure) for 
removal of marine life (e.g., barnacles) only when in preparation for 
performing MP&M operations. EPA discusses typical MP&M unit operations 
in Section III.
    EPA is proposing that this subcategory only cover wastewater 
generated from MP&M operations that occur in or on these structures. 
The Agency is not including MP&M process wastewater that is generated 
at other locations at the shipyard (``on-shore'' operations) in this 
proposed subcategory. EPA expects that wastewater from these ``on-
shore'' shipbuilding operations (e.g., electroplating, plasma arc 
cutting) will fall under either the General Metals or Oily Wastes 
subcategories of the proposed MP&M regulation. Also, EPA is not 
including wastewater generated on-board ships when they are afloat 
(i.e., not in dry docks or similar structures). For U.S. military 
ships, EPA is in the process of establishing standards to regulate 
discharges of wastewater generated on-board these ships when they are 
in U.S. waters and are afloat under the Uniform National Discharge 
Standards (UNDS) pursuant to section 312(n) of the CWA. (See 64 FR 
25125, May 10, 1999). However, when ships are located in dry docks or 
similar structures, EPA is proposing to cover process wastewater 
generated and discharged from MP&M operations inside and outside the 
vessel (including bilge water).
    EPA identified three other types of water streams in or on dry 
docks and similar structures: flooding water, dry dock ballast water, 
and storm water. Flooding water enters and exits the dry dock or 
similar structure prior to performing any MP&M operations. For example, 
in a graving dock, the gates are opened allowing flooding water in and 
ships to float inside the chamber. Then the flooding water is drained, 
leaving the ship's exterior exposed so shipyard employees can perform 
repair and maintenance on the ship's hull. Dry dock ballast water 
serves a similar purpose. It is used to lower (or sink) the dry dock so 
that a ship can float over it. Then the dry dock ballast water is 
pumped out, raising the dry dock with the ship on top. Finally, since 
these structures are located outdoors and are exposed to the elements, 
storm water may fall in or on the dry dock or similar structures. EPA 
is proposing to exclude all three of these water streams from the MP&M 
regulation. Flooding water and dry dock ballast water do not come into 
contact with MP&M operations. In addition, EPA has determined that 
storm water at these facilities is covered by EPA's recent Storm Water 
Multi-Sector General permit, similar general permits issued by 
authorized states, and individual storm water permits. In general, 
storm water permits at shipyards include best management practices 
(BMPs) that are designed to prevent the contamination of storm water. 
For example, these practices include sweeping of areas after completion 
of abrasive blasting or painting. If EPA were to cover storm water in 
dry docks (or similar structures) under today's proposed rule, it would 
be unlikely that EPA would set numerical limits similar to those it is 
proposing for process wastewater. Most likely, EPA would set BMPs 
similar to those currently used in the storm water permits. Therefore, 
in an effort to avoid duplication of coverage, EPA is not covering 
storm water in dry docks (or similar structures) under today's 
proposal.
    EPA estimates that there are 6 indirect dischargers and 6 direct 
dischargers in the Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategory. The Agency notes 
that many shipbuilders operate multiple dry docks (or similar 
structures) and that this is the number of estimated facilities (not 
dry docks) that discharge MP&M process wastewater from dry docks (and 
similar structures). Many shipyards only perform dry MP&M unit 
operations in their dry docks (and similar structures) or do not 
discharge wastewater generated in dry docks (and similar structures) 
from MP&M unit operations. Many shipyards prefer to handle this 
wastewater as hazardous, and contract haul it off-site due to the 
possible presence of copper (used as anti-foulant) in paint chips from 
abrasive blasting operations. EPA has determined that shipyards 
currently discharging MP&M wastewater from dry docks have oil/water 
separation technology in place, such as dissolved air flotation (DAF).
    The wastewater discharged from dry docks and similar structures 
contains very low levels of metals and toxic organic pollutants. For 
the reasons discussed in Section XII, EPA is proposing to exclude 
wastewater from indirect discharging dry docks and similar structures 
at shipbuilding facilities from the MP&M regulations. However, EPA is 
proposing to regulate conventional pollutants for direct dischargers in 
this subcategory. See Sections IX, XI, and XIII of this preamble for 
information on compliance costs, pollutant reductions, and

[[Page 446]]

economic impacts for the Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategory.

VII. Water Use and Wastewater Characteristics

A. Wastewater Sources and Characteristics

    EPA classified the MP&M unit operations into the following three 
groups depending on their water use and discharge: (1) Unit operations 
that typically use process water and discharge process wastewater; (2) 
unit operations that typically either do not use process water or use 
process water but do not discharge wastewater; and (3) miscellaneous 
operations reported in the MP&M questionnaires by fewer than five 
respondents.
    Process wastewater includes any water that, during manufacturing or 
processing, comes into direct contact with or results from the 
production or use of any raw materials, intermediate products, finished 
products, by-products, or waste products. Process wastewater includes 
wastewater from wet air pollution control devices. For the purposes of 
the MP&M regulation, EPA does not consider non-contact cooling water or 
storm water a process wastewater nor does it consider non-aqueous 
wastes used as processing liquids, such as spent solvents or quench 
oil, as process wastewater. (See Section III for detailed discussion on 
general applicability of today's proposed rule).
    Wastewater from the operations that use process water have 
different characteristics depending on the unit operation from which 
they are derived. EPA discusses the five different types of MP&M 
process wastewater below. First, oil-bearing wastewater is typically 
generated from the use of metal shaping coolants and lubricants, 
surface preparation solutions used to remove oil and dirt from 
components, and associated rinses. Some examples of oil-bearing 
wastewater are: Machining and grinding coolants and lubricants; 
pressure and impact deformation lubricants; dye penetrant and magnetic 
flux testing; and alkaline cleaning solutions and rinses used to remove 
oil and dirt. This wastewater typically requires preliminary treatment 
to remove oil and grease. The most common type of treatment for oil-
bearing wastewater is chemical emulsion breaking followed by gravity 
separation and oil skimming. EPA also identified MP&M facilities that 
used membrane separation technologies for oil and grease removal.
    Second, hexavalent chromium-bearing wastewater typically consists 
of concentrated surface preparation or metal deposition solutions, 
sealants, and associated rinses. Some examples of hexavalent chromium-
bearing wastewater are: Chromic acid treatment solutions and rinses; 
chromate conversion coating solutions and rinses; and chromium 
electroplating solutions and rinses. This wastewater typically requires 
preliminary treatment to reduce the hexavalent chromium to trivalent 
chromium for subsequent chemical precipitation and settling. Typically, 
MP&M facilities use sodium metabisulfite or gaseous sulphur dioxide as 
reducing agents in the reduction of hexavalent chromium-bearing 
wastewater.
    Third, many surface preparation or metal deposition solutions and 
their associated rinses generate process wastewater that contains 
cyanide. Two examples of cyanide-bearing wastewater are: Cyanide-
bearing alkaline treatment solutions and rinses (typically used as a 
surface treatment step prior to electroplating with cyanide solutions) 
and cyanide-bearing electroplating solutions and rinses. This 
wastewater typically requires preliminary treatment to destroy cyanide 
and facilitate subsequent chemical precipitation and settling. MP&M 
facilities most often use sodium hypochlorite for the destruction of 
cyanide by alkaline chlorination.
    Fourth, concentrated surface preparation or metal deposition 
solutions and their associated rinses can generate process wastewater 
that contain complexed or chelated metals. In particular, electroless 
plating operations and their rinses typically produce this type of 
wastestream. This wastewater requires preliminary treatment to break 
and/or precipitate the complexes for subsequent chemical precipitation 
and settling. MP&M facilities typically use sodium borohydride, 
hydrazine, sodium hydrosulfite, or sodium dimethyldithiocarbamate (DTC) 
as reducing and precipitating agents in this preliminary treatment 
process.
    For the MP&M proposal, EPA based the estimated costs and pollutant 
removals associated with the treatment of chelated or complexed metals 
on the use of DTC. When DTC is used appropriately, it may effectively 
enhance the removal of some difficult to treat pollutants without 
impacting the environment or POTW operations. However, DTC is toxic to 
aquatic life and to activated sludge and thus can upset POTW 
operations. DTC can combine to form, or break down to, a number of 
other toxic chemicals, including thiram and ziram (both EPA registered 
fungicides) and other thiurams, other dithiocarbamates, carbon 
disulfide, and dimethylamine. EPA's pollutant of concern list (see 
below for a description of the development of this list) contained 
ziram, carbon disulfide, and N-nitrosodimethylamine. Ziram is known to 
be toxic to aquatic life at the following levels: LC50 less than 10 ug/
L (parts per billion) for several varieties of bluegill and trout; LC 
50 between 10 and 100 ug/L in other studies (AQUIRE data base at http://www.epa.gov/medecotx/quicksearch.htm.) EPA solicits comment on the use 
of DTC for the treatment of chelated wastewater and its potential 
harmful effects on the environment and on POTW operations. The Agency 
is particularly interested in receiving data and information on 
alternative treatments for wastewater containing chelated or complexed 
metals.
    Finally, virtually all MP&M process wastewater contains some 
metallic pollutants. Metal shaping solutions, surface preparation 
solutions, metal deposition solutions, and surface finishing solutions 
typically produce the most concentrated metal-bearing wastewater. MP&M 
facilities most commonly use chemical precipitation (usually with 
either lime or sodium hydroxide) and settling for metals removal. Many 
facilities also use coagulants and flocculants to assist chemical 
precipitation and settling.
    As discussed in Section V.C, EPA conducted wastewater sampling 
episodes at 71 MP&M facilities to obtain data on the characteristics of 
MP&M wastewater and solid wastes, and to assess the following: the 
loading of pollutants to surface waters and POTWs from MP&M sites; the 
effectiveness of technologies designed to reduce and remove pollutants 
from MP&M wastewater; and the variation of MP&M wastewater 
characteristics across unit operations, metal types processed in each 
unit operation, and sectors. Although EPA analyzed the wastewater from 
these facilities for approximately 324 pollutant parameters (including 
conventional, nonconventional, and priority pollutants), it did not 
consider all of these pollutants for potential regulation. Rather, EPA 
reduced the list to 132 pollutants (referred to as pollutants of 
concern or POCs) for further consideration by retaining only those 
pollutants that met the following criteria:
    <bullet> EPA detected the pollutant parameter in at least three 
samples collected during the MP&M sampling program.
    <bullet> The average concentration of the pollutant parameter in 
samples of

[[Page 447]]

wastewater from MP&M unit operations and influents-to-treatment was at 
least five times the minimum level (ML) or the average concentration of 
effluent-from-treatment wastewater samples exceeded five times the 
minimum level. EPA defines the ML as ``the lowest level at which the 
entire analytical system must give a recognizable signal and an 
acceptable calibration point for the analyte.'' (Development Document 
for Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the 
Centralized Waste Treatment Industry. U.S. EPA).
    <bullet> EPA analyzed the pollutant parameter in a quantitative 
manner following the appropriate quality assurance/quality control (QA/
QC) procedures. To meet this criteria, the Agency excluded wastewater 
analyses performed solely for certain semi-quantitative ``screening'' 
purposes. EPA performed these semi-quantitative analyses only in 
unusual cases (e.g. to qualitatively screen for the presence of a rare 
metal such as osmium).
    From the list of 132 pollutants that passed the editing criteria 
above, EPA selected the regulated pollutants for each subcategory. See 
Section 7 of the technical development document for more information on 
the selection of pollutants to regulate. The Agency also used the 
pollutant parameters on the POC list to calculate the pollutant 
removals for each technology option.

B. Pollution Prevention, Recycle, Reuse and Water Conservation 
Practices

    The data gathered to support this rule indicate that a number of 
pollution prevention and water conservation practices exist in the MP&M 
industry. EPA determined that some of these pollution prevention, 
recycling, and water conservation practices were broadly applicable to 
the MP&M category and included these in the technology options (see 
Section VIII.A).
    A large number of additional pollution prevention practices were 
site specific and could not be used as the basis for a national 
standard. However, EPA considers it important to make this site-
specific pollution prevention information available for possible use by 
MP&M sites. Therefore, the Technical Development Document (TDD) 
contains a summary of the pollution prevention practices identified 
during the development of this rule. EPA also collected data on water 
use and wastewater generation at facilities employing pollution 
prevention and good water use practices. The TDD contains this data and 
discusses the applicability of the more prevalent pollution practices 
identified in this category (e.g., drag-out reduction, flow reduction, 
coolant and paint curtain recycling). EPA is soliciting comment and 
data on any of the pollution prevention, recycle, reuse and water 
conservation practices that it discusses in the TDD as well as 
additional information about these types of technologies that EPA did 
not discuss in the TDD. In addition, EPA is requesting data and comment 
on its flow data from facilities with pollution prevention and good 
water use practices in place. See Section XXI.D for a discussion on a 
pollution prevention alternative that EPA is considering for facilities 
in the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory.

VIII. Development of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards

A. Overview of Technology Options

    In developing its technology options, EPA determined that a 
different set of wastewater treatment technologies was appropriate for 
facilities that performed unit operations that produced primarily 
metal-bearing wastewater than for those facilities that performed unit 
operations that produced primarily oily wastes (see Section VI.C.6 for 
list of the unit operations that generate primarily oily only 
wastewater). EPA concluded that the following subcategories typically 
produce metal-bearing wastewater (with or without associated oily-
bearing wastestreams) and evaluated metals control technologies for 
these subcategories: General Metals, Metal Finishing Job Shops, Non-
Chromium Anodizing, Printed Wiring Boards, and Steel Forming and 
Finishing. For the remaining subcategories (Oily Wastes, Railroad Line 
Maintenance, and Shipbuilding Dry Docks), EPA evaluated oily wastewater 
treatment technologies. The following sections discuss the wastewater 
treatment technologies that EPA evaluated for each subcategory at each 
regulatory level (BPT, BAT, PSES, NSPS, and PSNS). See Section VI for a 
discussion on subcategorization.
1. Wastewater Treatment Technologies for Metal-Bearing Wastewater
    MP&M facilities in the General Metals subcategory, the Metal 
Finishing Job Shops subcategory, the Non-Chromium Anodizing 
subcategory, the Printed Wiring Board subcategory, and the Steel 
Forming and Finishing subcategory produce primarily metal-bearing 
wastewater. EPA evaluated the following four wastewater treatment 
technology options for the MP&M industry subcategories whose unit 
operations produce metal-bearing wastewater (and may also produce oily 
wastewater):
    Option 1. Segregation of wastewater streams, preliminary treatment 
steps as necessary (including oils removal using oil-water separation 
by chemical emulsion breaking), chemical precipitation using lime or 
sodium hydroxide, and sedimentation using a clarifier.
    Option 1, as well as each of the three other options considered by 
EPA for the metal-bearing wastewater subcategories, includes the 
segregation of wastestreams and preliminary treatment of certain 
wastestreams. Segregation of wastewater and subsequent preliminary 
treatment allows for the most efficient, effective, and economic means 
for removing pollutants in certain wastestreams. For example, if a 
facility segregates its oil-bearing wastewater from its metal-bearing 
wastewater, then the facility can design an oil removal treatment 
technology based on only the oily waste flow volume and not on the 
combined metal-bearing and oil-bearing wastewater flow. Therefore, 
preliminary treatment technologies are more effective and less costly 
on segregated wastestreams, prior to adding wastewater that does not 
contain the pollutants being treated with the preliminary treatment. 
EPA includes these preliminary treatment steps, as applicable whenever 
it refers to chemical precipitation and sedimentation treatment.
    As mentioned previously in Section VII (Water Use and Wastewater 
Characteristics), unit operations performed at MP&M sites produce 
wastewater with varying characteristics (i.e., oil-bearing, hexavalent 
chromium-bearing, cyanide-bearing, complexed metals). Wastewater with 
these characteristics requires preliminary treatment before the 
chemical precipitation step for metals removal. EPA included the 
following preliminary steps in Option 1 for the metal-bearing 
wastewater subcategories: removal of oil and grease through chemical 
emulsion breaking, gravity separation, and oil skimming; destruction of 
cyanide using sodium hypochlorite; reduction of hexavalent chromium to 
trivalent chromium which can subsequently be precipitated as a chromium 
hydroxide; and chemical reduction/precipitation of chelated or 
complexed metals. EPA has also included the contract hauling of any 
wastewater associated with organic solvent degreasing as part of the 
Option 1 technology.
    Option 1 consists of preliminary treatment for specific pollutants 
and end-of-pipe treatment with chemical precipitation (usually 
accomplished by raising the pH with an alkaline chemical such as lime 
or sodium hydroxide, also

[[Page 448]]

known as caustic, to produce insoluble metal hydroxides) followed by 
clarification and sludge dewatering. This treatment has been widely 
used throughout the metals industry and is well documented to be 
effective for removing metal pollutants. As with a number of previously 
promulgated regulations, EPA is proposing BPT on the basis that all 
process wastewater, except solvent-bearing wastewater, will be treated 
through chemical precipitation and clarification end-of-pipe treatment.
    Option 1 treatment systems (chemical precipitation with gravity 
clarification) sampled by EPA demonstrated effective removal for 
targeted metals. (Targeted metals are those metals that an MP&M 
facility was operating its wastewater treatment system to remove.)
    Option 2. In-process flow control and pollution prevention, 
segregation of wastewater streams, preliminary treatment steps as 
necessary (including oils removal using oil-water separation by 
chemical emulsion breaking), chemical precipitation using lime or 
sodium hydroxide, and sedimentation using a clarifier.
    Option 2 builds on Option 1 by adding in-process pollution 
prevention, recycling, and water conservation methods which allow for 
recovery and reuse of materials. As discussed in Section VII.B, 
techniques or technologies, such as centrifugation or skimming for 
metal working fluids, or water paint curtains, may in some cases save 
money for companies by allowing materials to be used over a longer 
period before they need to be disposed. Using these techniques along 
with water conservation also leads to the generation of less pollution 
and results in more effective treatment of the wastewater that is 
generated. The incorporation of pollution prevention practices can lead 
to smaller wastewater flows and increased pollutant concentrations. 
However, the treatment of metal-bearing wastewater by chemical 
precipitation is relatively independent of influent metal 
concentration. For example, a well-operated chemical precipitation and 
clarification treatment system can achieve the same effluent 
concentration with an influent stream of 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm) 
and 10 parts per million (ppm) as it can achieve with an influent 
stream which is 500 gpm and 20 ppm. In fact, within a broad range of 
influent concentrations, the more highly concentrated wastewater 
influent, when treated down to the technology effectiveness 
concentrations of a chemical precipitation and clarification treatment 
system, results in better pollutant removals and less mass of pollutant 
in the discharge. In addition, the cost of a treatment system is 
largely dependent on the size, which in turn is largely dependent on 
flow. As a result, good recycle and water conservation practices may 
result in cost savings, though there may also be associated cost 
increases, depending on site specific factors (e.g., costs associated 
with capital investment for pollution prevention equipment). Option 2 
in-process pollution prevention and water conservation technologies 
include:
    <bullet> Flow reduction using flow restrictors, conductivity 
meters, and/or timed rinses, for all flowing rinses, plus 
countercurrent cascade rinsing for all flowing rinses;
    <bullet> Centrifugation and recycling of painting water curtains; 
and
    <bullet> Centrifugation and pasteurization to extend the life of 
water-soluble machining coolants reducing discharge volume.
    Option 3. Segregation of wastewater streams, preliminary treatment 
steps as necessary (including oils removal by ultrafiltration), 
chemical precipitation using lime or sodium hydroxide, and solids 
separation using a microfilter.
    This option differs from Option 1 in that an ultrafilter replaces 
the oil water separator for the removal of oil and grease and a 
microfilter, rather than a clarifier, follows chemical precipitation. 
EPA determined through sampling episodes that ultrafiltration systems 
are very effective for the removal of oil and grease at MP&M 
facilities. Ultrafilters sampled by EPA demonstrated effective removal 
of oil and grease. Additionally, EPA also collected treatment 
effectiveness data for solids removal after chemical precipitation 
through microfiltration. Microfilters sampled by EPA at MP&M facilities 
achieved long-term average effluent concentrations for targeted metals 
that were, in several cases, an order of magnitude lower than the long-
term averages achieved by Option 2.
    Option 4. In-process flow control and pollution prevention, 
segregation of wastewater streams, preliminary treatment steps as 
necessary (including oils removal by ultrafiltration), chemical 
precipitation using lime or sodium hydroxide, and solids separation 
using a microfilter.
    This option builds on Option 3 by adding in-process pollution 
prevention, recycling, and water conservation methods which allow for 
recovery and reuse of materials. EPA included the same water 
conservation and pollution control technologies in Option 4 as in 
Option 2.
    For all of the subcategories with metal-bearing wastewater, EPA 
determined that Option 2 costed less than Option 1 and demonstrated 
greater pollutant removals. Likewise, for all subcategories with metal-
bearing wastewater, Option 4 costed less than Option 3 and demonstrated 
greater pollutant removals. As discussed above, the incorporation of 
water conservation and pollution prevention technologies results in 
greater pollutant removals and less mass of pollutant in the discharge. 
In addition, the cost of a treatment system is largely dependent on the 
size, which in turn is largely dependent on flow. As a result, Options 
2 and 4, which include water conservation and pollution prevention, 
have smaller flows requiring treatment and are projected to cost less 
than Options 1 and 3, respectively. Therefore, for the remainder of the 
discussions in this preamble regarding technology options for 
subcategories with metal-bearing wastewater, EPA only considers Options 
2 and 4. The Agency has fully evaluated Options 1 and 3, and a 
discussion of the results of this evaluation is contained in the 
Technical Development Document. EPA requests comment on its 
determination that pollution prevention, recycle and water conservation 
result in net cost savings to facilities, and examples of any specific 
situations where this may not be true.
2. Wastewater Treatment Technologies for Oily Wastewater
    MP&M facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory, the Railroad Line 
Maintenance subcategory, and the Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategory 
produce primarily oil-bearing wastewater. EPA evaluated the following 
six wastewater treatment technology options for the MP&M industry 
subcategories whose unit operations produce only oily wastewater (see 
Section VI.C.6 for a discussion of oily unit operations):
    Option 5. Oil-water separation by Chemical Emulsion Breaking.
    Chemical emulsion breaking is used to break stable oil/water 
emulsions (oil dispersed in water, stabilized by electrical charges and 
emulsifying agents). A stable emulsion will not separate or break down 
without chemical treatment. Chemical emulsion breaking is applicable to 
wastewater streams containing emulsified coolants and lubricants such 
as machining and grinding coolants and impact or pressure deformation 
lubricants as well as cleaning solutions that contain emulsified oils.
    Treatment of spent oil/water emulsions involves using chemicals to 
break the emulsion followed by gravity differential separation. The 
major

[[Page 449]]

equipment required for chemical emulsion breaking includes reaction 
chambers with agitators, chemical storage tanks, chemical feed systems, 
pumps and piping. Factors to be considered for destroying emulsions are 
type of chemicals, dosage and sequence of addition, pH, mixing, heating 
requirements, and retention time. EPA describes this technology option 
in more detail in Section 8 of the Technical Development Document.
    In an effort to evaluate this technology option, EPA performed 
sampling episodes at several facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory 
that employed chemical emulsion breaking followed by gravity separation 
and oil skimming.
    Option 6. In-process Flow Control, Pollution Prevention, and Oil-
water separation by chemical emulsion breaking.
    This option builds on Option 5 by adding in-process pollution 
prevention, recycling, and water conversation methods which allow for 
recovery and reuse of materials. EPA included the same pollution 
prevention techniques or technologies discussed in Option 2 such as 
flow reduction and reuse, paint curtain recycling and/or recirculation, 
and coolant recycling, as applicable.
    Option 7. Oil-water separation by ultrafiltration.
    In the MP&M industry, ultrafiltration is applied in the treatment 
of oil/water emulsions. In ultrafiltration, a semi-permeable 
microporous membrane performs the separation. Wastewater is sent 
through membrane modules under pressure. Water and low-molecular-weight 
solutes (for example, salts and some surfactant) pass through the 
membrane and are removed as permeate. Emulsified oil and suspended 
solids are rejected by the membrane and are removed as concentrate. The 
concentrate is reticulated through the membrane unit until the flow of 
the permeate drops. The permeate may either be discharged or passed 
along to another treatment unit. The concentrate is contained and held 
for further treatment or disposal. EPA describes this technology option 
in more detail in Section 8 of the Technical Development Document.
    In an effort to evaluate this technology option, EPA performed 
sampling episodes at several facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory 
that employed ultrafiltration. EPA also collected data on 
ultrafiltration systems at metal-bearing facilities which segregated 
their oily wastestreams for treatment.
    Option 8. In-process Flow Control, Pollution Prevention, and Oil-
water separation by Ultrafiltration.
    This option builds on Option 7 by adding in-process pollution 
prevention, recycling, and water conversation methods which allow for 
recovery and reuse of materials. EPA included the same water 
conservation and pollution control technologies in Option 8 as in 
Option 6.
    Option 9. Oil-water Separation by Dissolved Air Flotation.
    Dissolved air flotation (DAF) is commonly used to remove suspended 
solids and dispersed oil and grease from oily wastewater. DAF is the 
process of using fine bubbles to induce suspended particles to rise to 
the surface of a tank where they can be collected and removed. The 
major components of a conventional DAF unit include a centrifugal pump, 
a retention tank, an air compressor, and a flotation tank. EPA 
describes this technology option in more detail in Section 8 of the 
Technical Development Document.
    In an effort to evaluate this technology option, EPA performed 
sampling episodes at several facilities in the Railroad Line 
Maintenance and Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategories that employed 
dissolved air flotation (DAF). EPA compared the effluent concentrations 
achieved by these DAF systems to effluent concentration achieved by DAF 
systems in other industry categories (e.g., industrial laundries).
    Option 10. In-process Flow Control, Pollution Prevention, and Oil-
water separation by Dissolved Air Flotation.
    This option builds on Option 9 by adding in-process pollution 
prevention, recycling, and water conversation methods which allow for 
recovery and reuse of materials. EPA included the same water 
conservation and pollution control technologies in Option 10 as in 
Option 6 and 8.
    For all of the subcategories with only oily wastewater, EPA 
determined that the options that involved water conservation and 
pollution prevention costed less and removed more pollutant than those 
options that did not include these technologies or techniques. As 
discussed above, the incorporation of water conservation and pollution 
prevention technologies results in greater pollutant removals and less 
mass of pollutant in the discharge. In addition, the cost of a 
treatment system is largely dependent on the size, which in turn is 
largely dependent on flow. As a result, Options 6, 8, and 10, which all 
include water conservation and pollution prevention, cost less than 
their counterpart options (Options 5, 7, and 9, respectively) that did 
not include these pollution prevention technologies or techniques. 
Therefore, for the remainder of the discussions in this preamble 
regarding technology options for subcategories with oily wastewater, 
EPA only considers Options 6, 8, and 10. However, the Agency fully 
evaluated Options 5, 7, and 9, and discusses the results of this 
evaluation in the Technical Development Document.

B. Determination of Long-Term Averages, Variability Factors, and 
Limitations

1. Overview of Limitations Calculations
    EPA visited over 200 facilities and sampled wastewater from 71 MP&M 
facilities covering all the industrial sectors covered by this proposed 
rule. (See Section III for a discussion on applicability). In addition 
to sampling to characterize the process wastewater, EPA sampled 46 end-
of-pipe chemical precipitation and clarification treatment systems, 5 
microfilters, 5 oil-water emulsion breaking and gravity separation 
systems, 16 ultrafilters, and 4 chemical emulsion breaking and DAF 
systems. EPA reviewed the treatment data gathered and identified data 
considered appropriate for calculating limitations for the MP&M 
industry. EPA identified data from well-designed and well-operated 
treatment systems and focused on data for specific pollutants processed 
and treated on site. The data editing procedures used for this 
assessment consisted of four major steps:
    <bullet> Assessment of the performance of the entire treatment 
system;
    <bullet> Identification of process upsets during sampling that 
impacted the treatment effectiveness of the system;
    <bullet> Identification of pollutants not present in the raw 
wastewater at sufficient concentrations to evaluate treatment 
effectiveness; and
    <bullet> Identification of treatment chemicals used in the 
treatment system.

EPA describes the evaluation criteria used for each of these steps 
below. The Agency excluded data that failed one or more of the 
evaluation criteria from calculation of the limitations.
    Assessment of Treatment System Performance. EPA assessed the 
performance of the entire treatment system during sampling. The Agency 
excluded data for systems identified as not being well-designed or 
well-operated from use in calculating BPT limitations. EPA first 
identified the metals processed on site, as well as if the site 
performed unit operations likely to generate oil and grease and 
cyanide. EPA focused on these pollutants because MP&M facilities 
typically design and operate their treatment systems to treat and 
remove these

[[Page 450]]

pollutants. EPA then performed the following technical analyses of the 
treatment systems:

--Based on the pollutants processed or treated on site, EPA excluded 
data from systems that were not operated at the proper pH for removal 
of the pollutants.
--EPA excluded data from chemical precipitation and clarification 
systems that did not have solids removal indicative of effective 
treatment. In general, EPA identified as having poor solids removal 
systems that did not achieve at least 90 percent removal of total 
suspended solids (TSS) and had effluent TSS concentrations greater than 
50 milligrams per liter. EPA made site-specific exceptions to this 
rule.
--EPA excluded data from chemical precipitation and clarification 
systems at which the concentration of most of the metals present in the 
influent stream did not decrease, indicating poor treatment.

    Although EPA believes this is an appropriate practice, in order to 
focus on facilities with well-run treatment systems, it also introduces 
a risk of biasing estimates of treatment effectiveness upwards with 
respect to identifying pollutant removals on a national basis. If a 
particular metal is not able to be effectively removed by a particular 
treatment train, but its concentration fluctuates randomly over time in 
both the influent and the effluent, then retaining only data showing 
positive ``removals'' may give a misleading impression of effectiveness 
of that treatment technology nationally. Some commenters have raised 
this issue in the past particularly with respect to boron, which those 
commenters believe is not effectively removed by certain treatment 
trains where EPA's data (edited to include only decreases) appears to 
show removals. EPA is continuing to assess this concern both with 
regards to metals in general and with regards to boron in particular. 
EPA requests comment on this issue and suggestions for addressing it. 
EPA is planning to do a re-analysis of its estimates of its baseline 
load and removals for boron and will provide results of this analysis 
when available. This analysis will be placed in Section 6.8 of the 
public record.
    Identification of Process Upsets Occurring During Sampling. EPA 
reviewed the sampling episode reports for each of the sampled sites and 
identified any process upsets that resulted in poor treatment during 
one or more days of the sampling episode. EPA excluded the data 
affected by the process upsets.
    Identification of Pollutants Not Present in the Raw Wastewater at 
Sufficient Concentrations to Evaluate Removal. EPA excluded data for 
pollutants that it did not detect in the treatment influent streams at 
a sampled facility, or it detected at concentrations less than 10 times 
the minimum level. Because these proposed limitations are technology-
based, EPA requires that a facility must demonstrate pollutant removal 
through treatment in order for that data to be used in the calculation 
of effluent limitations. Therefore, the Agency determined that for a 
BPT/BAT facility to demonstrate effective treatment, the pollutant must 
be present in the wastewater at a treatable concentration--which EPA 
defined as 10 times the minimum level for this proposal. EPA also 
excluded data for pollutants that were not processed on site. In 
addition, EPA reviewed the water use practices for the sampled sites 
and excluded data from sites that may have been diluting the raw 
wastewater and reducing the concentration of pollutants processed on 
site. Because these proposed MP&M effluent guidelines include water 
conservation practices and pollution prevention technologies, EPA 
reviewed the data to ensure that the facilities it used as the basis 
for BPT limitations had these practices and technologies in place.
    Identification of Wastewater Treatment Chemicals. EPA identified 
treatment chemicals used in each of the sampled treatment systems to 
determine if the removal of the metals used as treatment chemicals were 
consistent with removal of other metals on site, indicating a well-
designed and well-operated system. If a sampled facility used a metal 
as a treatment chemical, and the facility treated the metal to a 
concentration consistent with other metals removed on site, EPA 
included the metal in calculation of the BPT limitations. If the 
sampled facility used a metal as a treatment chemical and the treatment 
system did not remove it to a concentration consistent with other 
metals removed on site, EPA excluded the treatment chemical from 
calculation of the limitations. (Note that this practice may raise 
similar concerns to those discussed above with respect to editing out 
data that do not show positive removals.) The Agency used the data 
remaining after these data editing procedures to calculate the 
limitations.

Calculation of Limitations

    The Technical Development Document and the Statistical Support 
Document contain a detailed description of the statistical methodology 
used for the calculation of limitations. EPA based the effluent 
limitations and standards in today's notice on widely-recognized 
statistical procedures for calculating long-term averages and 
variability factors. The following presents a summary of the 
statistical methodology used in the calculation of effluent 
limitations.
    Effluent limitations for each subcategory are based on a 
combination of long-term average effluent values and variability 
factors that account for variation in day-to-day treatment performance 
within a treatment plant. The long-term averages are average effluent 
concentrations that have been achieved by well-operated treatment 
systems using the proposed treatment technologies described in Section 
VIII. The purpose of the variability factor is to allow for normal 
variation in effluent concentrations. A facility that designs and 
operates its treatment system to achieve a long-term average on a 
consistent basis should be able to comply with the daily and monthly 
limitations in the course of normal operations.
    EPA developed the variability factors and long-term averages from a 
database composed of individual measurements on treated effluent based 
on EPA sampling data. EPA sampling data reflects the performance of a 
system over a three to five day period, although not necessarily over 
consecutive days.
    EPA performed the following steps in order to calculate the 
proposed limitations for each pollutant. For each subcategory, EPA 
calculated the arithmetic long-term average concentration of a 
pollutant for each facility representing the proposed treatment 
technology, and determined the median from the arithmetic average 
concentrations. For each pollutant, this median concentration is the 
long-term average (LTA) concentration that EPA used in determining the 
proposed effluent limitations.
    The Agency then used the modified delta-lognormal distribution to 
estimate daily and monthly variability factors. This is the same 
distributional model used by EPA in the final rulemakings for the Pulp 
and Paper and Centralized Waste Treatment. The modified delta-lognormal 
distribution models the data as a mixture of non-detect observations 
and measured values. EPA selected this distribution because the data 
for most analytes consisted of a mixture of measured values and non-
detects. The modified delta-lognormal distribution assumes that all 
non-detects have a value equal to the sample specific

[[Page 451]]

detection limit and that the detected values follow a lognormal 
distribution.
    The Agency fit the daily concentration data from each facility that 
had enough detected concentration values for parameter estimation to a 
modified delta lognormal distribution. The daily variability factor for 
each pollutant at each facility is the ratio of the estimated 99th 
percentile of the distribution of the daily pollutant concentration 
values divided by the expected value of the distribution of the daily 
values. (EPA assumed that the furthest excursion from the LTA that a 
well-operated plant using the proposed technology option could be 
expected to make on a daily basis was a point below which 99 percent of 
the data for that facility falls, under the assumed distribution.) The 
pollutant daily variability factor for a treatment technology is the 
average of the pollutant daily variability factors from the facilities 
with that technology. EPA calculates the daily maximum limitation as 
the product of the pollutant LTA concentration and the daily 
variability factor.
    The Agency calculates the monthly maximum limitation in much the 
same way. However, it bases the variability factor (known as the 
monthly variability factor) on the 95th percentile of the distribution 
of four-day average pollutant concentrations instead of the 99th 
percentile. Therefore, the monthly variability factor for each 
pollutant at each facility is the estimated 95th percentile of the 
distribution of the 4-day average pollutant concentration values 
divided by the expected value of the distribution of the daily values. 
The pollutant monthly variability factor for a treatment technology is 
the average of the pollutant monthly variability factors from the 
facilities with that technology. EPA calculates the maximum monthly 
average limitation as the product of the pollutant LTA concentration 
and the monthly variability factor.
    There were several instances where variability factors could not be 
calculated directly from the MP&M database because there were not at 
least two effluent values measured above the minimum detection level 
for a specific pollutant. In these cases, the sample size of the data 
is too small to allow distributional assumptions to be made. Therefore, 
in order to assume a variability factor for a pollutant, the Agency 
transferred variability factors from other pollutants that exhibit 
similar treatability characteristics within the treatment system. The 
Technical Development Document and the Statistical Support Document 
provide detailed information on the transfer of variability factors.

IX. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)

    As discussed in Section II, in the guidelines for an industry 
category, EPA defines BPT effluent limits for conventional, toxic 
(priority), and non-conventional pollutants for direct discharging 
facilities. In specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number of factors. EPA 
first considers the cost of achieving effluent reductions in relation 
to the effluent reduction benefits. The Agency also considers the age 
of the equipment and facilities, the processes employed and any 
required process changes, engineering aspects of the control 
technologies, non-water quality environmental impacts (including energy 
requirements), and such other factors as the Agency deems appropriate 
(CWA 304(b)(1)(B)). Traditionally, EPA establishes BPT effluent 
limitations based on the average of the best performances of facilities 
within the industry of various ages, sizes, processes or other common 
characteristics. Where existing performance is uniformly inadequate, 
EPA may require higher levels of control than currently in place in an 
industrial category if the Agency determines that the technology can be 
practically applied. See ``A Legislative History of the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972'', U.S. Senate Committee of 
Public Works, Serial No. 93-1, January 1973, p. 1468.
    In addition, CWA Section 304(b)(1)(B) requires a cost-
reasonableness assessment for BPT limitations. In determining the BPT 
limits, EPA must consider the total cost of treatment technologies in 
relation to the effluent reduction benefits achieved. This inquiry does 
not limit EPA's broad discretion to adopt BPT limitations that are 
achievable with available technology unless the required additional 
reductions are ``wholly out of proportion to the costs of achieving 
such marginal level of reduction.'' See Legislative History, op. cit. 
p. 170. Moreover, the inquiry does not require the Agency to quantify 
benefits in monetary terms. See, for example, American Iron and Steel 
Institute v. EPA, 526 F.2d 1027 (3rd Cir., 1975). For the BPT cost-
reasonableness assessment, EPA used the total pounds of COD removed for 
the General Metals, Metal Finishing Job Shops, Non-Chromium Anodizing, 
Steel Forming and Finishing, and Oily Wastes, and Railroad Line 
Maintenance subcategories because this parameter best represented the 
pollutant removals without counting removals of individual pollutants 
more than once. EPA used O&G for the cost-reasonableness assessment for 
the Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategories because it best represented the 
pollutant removals for these subcategories without counting removals of 
individual pollutants more than once.
    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 past effluent limitations guidelines and standards, BPT 
cost-reasonableness has ranged from $0.94/lb-removed to $34.34/lb-
removed in 1996 dollars. 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).
    Table IX-1 below summarizes the pounds of pollutants removed for 
direct dischargers, and Table IX-2 summarizes the costs, costs per 
pound removed, and economic impacts for direct dischargers associated 
with each of the proposed options by subcategory. (See Section XII for 
summary tables for indirect dischargers.)

                       Table IX-1.--Pounds of Pollutants Removed by the Proposed BPT Option for Direct Dischargers by Subcategory
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        Priority and      Priortiy and
 Subcategory \1\  (number of                        TSS  (lbs         O&G  (lbs         COD  (lbs      nonconventional   nonconventional   Cyanide  (lbs
         facilities)          Selected  option     removed/yr)       removed/yr)       removed/yr)       metals (lbs     organics  (lbs     removed/yr)
                                                                                                         removed/yr)       removed/yr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals (3,794)......  Option 2........  10.1 million....  7.8 million.....  181 million.....  4 million.......  5 million.......         184,000
Metal Finishing Job Shops     Option 2........  13,000..........  14,400..........  232,000.........  34,000..........  4,600...........           5,700
 (15) \2\.

[[Page 452]]

 
Printed Wiring Boards (11)    Option 2........  51,000..........  238,000.........  1.3 million.....  172,000.........  22,000..........           1,400
 \2\.
Steel Forming and Finishing   Option 2........  884,000.........  101,000.........  4.5 million.....  387,000.........  76,000..........           1,100
 (43).
Oily Waste (911)............  Option 6........  349,000.........  885,000.........  5.1 million.....  81,000..........  127,000.........              10
Railroad Line Maintenance     Option 10.......  9,000...........  47,400..........  59,000..........  1,000...........  78..............               0
 (34).
Shipbuilding Dry Dock (6)...  Option 10.......  650.............  8.5 million.....  0...............  1,400...........  700.............              0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA did not identify any direct discharging facilities in the Non-Chromium Anodizing subcategory; therefore, there are no estimated removals. See
  Section IX.C.
\2\ Although EPA is not revising limits for TSS and O&G for these two subcategories, removals are reported based on incidental removals for the proposed
  MP&M Option 2 technology for BPT control of toxic and nonconventional pollutants.

    EPA notes that the pounds removed presented in Table IX-1 may 
differ from the pounds removed presented in the Economic Analysis 
section (Section XVI). This difference is a result of the fact that 
when performing certain economic analyses (e.g., cost-effectiveness), 
the Agency does not include facilities (or the associated pollutant 
loadings and removals) that closed at the baseline (i.e., EPA predicted 
that these facilities would close prior to the implementation of the 
MP&M rule). Table IX-1 above estimates that annual pounds removed by 
the selected option for all of the direct discharging facilities in 
EPA's questionnaire data base that discharged wastewater at the time 
the data were collected.

     Table IX-2.--Annualized Costs and Economic Impacts of the Proposed BPT Option for Direct Dischargers by
                                                   Subcategory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Economic
                                                                                      impacts
                                                                                     (facility     BPT cost per
                                                           Annualized compliance   closures) of   pound  removed
    Subcategory \1\  (number of        Selected option       costs for selected      selected      \2\ (1996 $/
            facilities)                                       option  ($1996)         option      pound removed)
                                                                                    (Percent of
                                                                                     regulated
                                                                                   subcategory)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals (3,794)............  Option 2.............  230 million..........         20 (1%)            1.22
Metal Finishing Job Shops (15)....  Option 2.............  1.3 million..........               0            5.60
Printed Wiring Boards (11)........  Option 2.............  2.5 million..........               0            1.92
Steel Forming and Finishing (43)..  Option 2.............  29.3 million.........               0            6.51
Oily Waste (911)..................  Option 6.............  11.2 million.........               0            2.18
Railroad Line Maintenance (34)....  Option 10............  1.18 million.........               0           20.00
Shipbuilding Dry Dock (6).........  Option 10............  2.15 million.........               0           0.25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA did not identify any direct discharging facilities in the Non-Chromium Anodizing subcategory; therefore,
  there are no estimated costs. See Section IX.C for estimates based on a model facility.
\2\ EPA based the pounds used in calculating the BPT cost reasonableness on the COD removals only (shown in
  Table IX-1) for each subcategory, except for the use of oil and grease removals only (shown in Table IX-1) for
  the shipbuilding dry dock subcategory.

A. General Metals Subcategory

1. Need for BPT Regulation
    EPA describes the General Metals subcategory in Section VI.C.1 of 
this preamble. The Agency estimates that there are approximately 3,800 
direct discharging facilities in the General Metals subcategory. EPA 
estimates that the direct discharging facilities in the General Metals 
subcategory currently discharge substantial quantities of pollutants 
into the surface waters of the United States, including 8.2 million 
pounds per year of oil and grease, 10.9 million pounds per year of 
total suspended solids, 187 million pounds of COD, 5.2 million pounds 
per year of priority and nonconventional metal pollutants, 5.2 million 
pounds of priority and nonconventional organic pollutants, and 187,000 
pounds per year of cyanide. As a result of the quantity of pollutants 
currently discharged directly to the nation's waters by General Metals 
facilities, EPA determined that there was a need for BPT regulation for 
this subcategory.
2. Selected BPT Option
    Facilities in the General Metals subcategory generally perform unit 
operations such as cleaning, etching, electroplating, electroless 
plating, and conversion coating that produce metal-bearing wastewater. 
In addition, some of these facilities also perform machining and 
grinding, impact deformation, and surface preparation operations that 
generate oily wastewater. Therefore, EPA considered technology options 
1 through 4 for this subcategory because technologies included in these 
options treat both oily wastewater as well as metal-bearing wastewater. 
As explained above, EPA only discusses Options 2 and 4 in detail in 
this preamble since these options costed less and removed more 
pollutant than Options 1 and 3 (respectively). See Section VIII.A.1 for 
a discussion of technology options.
    The Agency is proposing Option 2 as the basis for the new BPT 
regulation for the General Metals subcategory. EPA's decision to 
propose BPT limitations based on Option 2 treatment reflects primarily 
two factors: (1) The degree of effluent reductions attainable, and (2) 
the total cost of the proposed treatment technologies in relation to 
the effluent reductions achieved. No basis could be found for 
identifying different BPT limitations based on age, size, process or 
other engineering factors. Neither the age nor the size of a facility 
in the General Metals subcategory will directly

[[Page 453]]

affect the treatability of MP&M process wastewater. For facilities in 
this subcategory, the most pertinent factors for establishing the 
limitations are costs of treatment and the level of effluent reductions 
obtainable.
    In Table IX-1 above, EPA presents the annual pollutant removals for 
direct dischargers for Option 2, and in Table IX-2 above, it presents 
the cost per pound removed using only the pounds of COD removed. EPA 
estimates that implementation of Option 2 will cost $1.22 per pound of 
COD removed (1996 $). The Agency has concluded that the costs of BPT 
Option 2 are achievable and are reasonable as compared to the removals 
achieved by this option.
    The technology proposed in Option 2 represents the average of the 
best performing facilities due to the prevalence of chemical 
precipitation followed by sedimentation in this subcategory. 
Approximately 22 percent of the direct discharging facilities in the 
General Metals subcategory employ chemical precipitation followed by a 
clarifier (Option 2) while less than 1 percent employ microfiltration 
after chemical precipitation (Option 4).
    Based on the available data base, Option 4 on an annual basis only 
removes an additional 66,000 pounds of TSS, 12,300 pounds of O&G, 
15,000 pounds of priority metals, and 880,000 pounds of nonconventional 
metals, while removing 324,000 pounds less COD and 31,000 pounds less 
priority and nonconventional organic pollutants than Option 2. Although 
there is a large amount of additional removals of TSS and 
nonconventional metals for Option 4 when considered across the entire 
population (3,800 facilities), the Agency determined that these 
additional removals were not significant when considered on a per 
facility basis. In addition, Option 4's annualized cost is $52 million 
more than Option 2. EPA concluded that the lack of significant 
additional pollutant removals per facility achieved by Option 4 (and 
the fact that it removes less COD and organic pollutants) support the 
selection of Option 2 as the BPT technology basis.
3. Calculation of BPT Limitations for the General Metals Subcategory
    EPA explained its data editing procedures and statistical 
methodology for calculating BPT limitations in Section VIII.B. In 
general, the Agency calculated BPT limitations for this subcategory 
using data from General Metals facilities employing Option 2 
technology. For cyanide limitations, EPA used data from all 
subcategories where cyanide destruction systems were sampled. If data 
was not sufficient for developing BPT limitations for an individual 
pollutant in this subcategory, the Agency transferred data from another 
subcategory (see the Technical Development Document for a more detailed 
discussion). See the proposed rule Sec. 438.12 following this preamble 
for a list of the proposed BPT limitations for the General Metals 
Subcategory. (See Section XXI.C for a discussion of monitoring 
flexibility.) The Statistical Development Document contains detailed 
information on which facilities EPA used in calculating the proposed 
BPT limitations.

B. Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory

1. Need for BPT Regulation
    EPA describes the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory in Section 
VI.C.2 of this preamble. The Agency estimates that there are 
approximately 15 direct discharging facilities in the Metal Finishing 
Job Shops subcategory. EPA has previously promulgated BPT and BAT 
limitations for all of the facilities in this subcategory at 40 CFR 
part 413 (Electroplating Pretreatment Standards) and at 40 CFR part 433 
(Metal Finishing Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Pretreatment 
Standards). However, EPA developed the existing regulations applicable 
to the facilities in the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory 
approximately 20 years ago, and since that time, advances in 
electroplating and metal finishing processes, water conservation, 
pollution prevention, and wastewater treatment have occurred. EPA is 
proposing new BPT effluent limitations guidelines for this subcategory.
    EPA estimates that direct discharging facilities in the Metal 
Finishing Job Shops subcategory currently discharge substantial 
quantities of pollutants into the surface waters of the United States, 
including 17,900 pounds per year of oil and grease, 20,500 pounds per 
year of TSS, 287,400 pounds per year of COD, 44,000 pounds per year of 
priority and nonconventional metal pollutants, 6,000 pounds per year of 
priority and nonconventional organic pollutants, and 6,000 pounds per 
year of cyanide. As a result of the quantity of pollutants currently 
discharged directly to the nation's waters by metal finishing job shop 
facilities, EPA determined that there was a need for BPT regulation for 
this subcategory.
2. Selected BPT Option
    Facilities in the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory generally 
perform unit operations such as cleaning, etching, electroplating, 
electroless plating, passivating, and conversion coating that produce 
metal-bearing wastewater. In addition, some of these facilities also 
perform machining and grinding, impact deformation, and surface 
preparation operations that generate oily wastewater. Therefore, EPA 
considered technology options 1 through 4 for this subcategory because 
technologies included in these options treat both oily wastewater as 
well as metal-bearing wastewater. As explained above, EPA only 
discusses Options 2 and 4 in detail in this preamble since these 
options costed less and removed more pollutant than Options 1 and 3, 
respectively.
    The Agency is proposing Option 2 as the basis for BPT regulation 
for the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory. The new BPT limitations 
incorporate more stringent effluent requirements for priority metals, 
nonconventional pollutants, cyanide, and organic pollutants (by way of 
an indicator parameter) as compared to the limitations contained in 40 
CFR 433.13. EPA has included the conventional pollutants, TSS and oil 
and grease, in the new BPT regulation for this subcategory at the same 
level as 40 CFR 433.13. EPA's decision to propose BPT limitations based 
on Option 2 treatment reflects primarily two factors: (1) The degree of 
effluent reductions attainable and (2) the total cost of the proposed 
treatment technologies in relation to the effluent reductions achieved. 
No basis could be found for identifying different BPT limitations based 
on age, size, process or other engineering factors. Neither the age nor 
the size of a facility in the Metal Finishing Job Shop subcategory will 
directly affect the treatability of MP&M process wastewater. For 
facilities in this subcategory, the most pertinent factors for 
establishing the limitations are costs of treatment and the level of 
effluent reductions obtainable. EPA based its decision not to revise 
the conventional pollutant limitations on the use of the alternate 
organics control parameters (i.e., TOC or TOP) and the small additional 
removals of TSS obtainable after the incidental removal due to control 
of the metals.
    In Table IX-1 above, EPA presents the annual pollutant removals for 
direct dischargers for Option 2, and in Table IX-2 above, it presents 
the cost per pound removed using only the pounds of COD removed. EPA 
estimates that implementation of Option 2 will cost $5.60 per pound of 
COD removed (1996$). The Agency has concluded that the costs of BPT 
Option 2 are achievable and are reasonable as compared to the removals 
achieved by this option.

[[Page 454]]

    The technology proposed in Option 2 represents the average of the 
best performing facilities due to the prevalence of chemical 
precipitation followed by sedimentation in the subcategory. The Agency 
estimates that 100 percent of the direct discharging facilities in the 
Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory employ chemical precipitation 
followed by a clarifier (Option 2) while no facilities employ 
microfiltration after chemical precipitation (Option 4). Because no 
facilities in this subcategory employ microfiltration after chemical 
precipitation for solids separation, the Agency concluded that Option 4 
does not represent the average of the best treatment.
    Based on the available data base, Option 4 on an annual basis only 
removes an additional 6,900 pounds of priority and nonconventional 
metals, while removing 1,500 pounds less COD, and 600 pounds less 
priority and nonconventional organic pollutants than Option 2. EPA 
concluded that the lack of significant overall additional pollutant 
removals achieved by Option 4 (and the fact that it removes less COD, 
and organic pollutants) support the selection of Option 2 as the BPT 
technology basis.
3. Calculation of BPT Limitations for the Metal Finishing Job Shops 
Subcategory
    EPA explained its data editing procedures and statistical 
methodology for calculating BPT limitations in Section VIII.B. In 
general, EPA calculated the new BPT limitations for this subcategory 
using data from facilities in the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory 
employing Option 2 technology. As discussed above, EPA did not 
calculate new limitations for TSS or oil and grease for this 
subcategory. Instead, EPA set them at the same level as in the Metal 
Finishing effluent guidelines (40 CFR 433.13). For cyanide limitations, 
EPA used data from all subcategories where cyanide destruction systems 
were sampled. If data was not sufficient for developing BPT limitations 
for an individual pollutant in this subcategory, the Agency transferred 
data from another subcategory (see the Technical Development Document 
for a more detailed discussion). See the proposed rule Sec. 438.22 
following this preamble for a list of the proposed BPT limitations for 
the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory. (See Section XXI.C for a 
discussion of monitoring flexibility.) The Statistical Development 
Document contains detailed information on which facilities EPA used in 
calculating the proposed BPT limitations.

C. Non-Chromium Anodizing Subcategory

1. Need for BPT Regulation
    EPA describes the Non-Chromium Anodizing subcategory in Section 
VI.C.3 of this preamble. EPA's survey of the MP&M industry did not 
identify any non-chromium anodizing facilities discharging directly to 
surface waters. All of the non-chromium anodizing facilities in EPA's 
data base are either indirect or zero dischargers. EPA consequently 
could not evaluate any treatment systems in place at direct discharging 
non-chromium anodizing facilities for establishing BPT limitations. 
Therefore, EPA relied on technology transfer based on information and 
data from indirect discharging facilities in the Non-Chromium Anodizing 
subcategory. The Agency concluded that the technology in place at some 
indirect discharging non-chromium anodizers is appropriate to use as 
the basis for regulation of direct dischargers because the pollutant 
profile of the wastewater generated at non-chromium anodizers 
discharging directly would be similar in character to that from 
indirect discharging non-chromium anodizers and the model technologies 
in place at indirect dischargers are effective in treating the 
conventional pollutants that are generally not regulated in 
pretreatment standards.
    EPA has previously promulgated BPT and BAT limitations for all of 
the facilities in this subcategory at 40 CFR part 433 (Metal Finishing 
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards). However, 
EPA developed the regulations applicable to this subcategory 
approximately 20 years ago, and since that time, advances in anodizing 
processes, water conservation, pollution prevention, and wastewater 
treatment have occurred. EPA is proposing to set new BPT effluent 
limitations guidelines for this subcategory for metals, but is not 
revising the limitations for conventional pollutants (TSS and oil and 
grease). EPA based its decision not to revise the limitations for 
conventional pollutants on the small additional removals attainable 
after the incidental removal due to control of the metals.
    The current regulations in 40 CFR part 433 require non-chromium 
anodizing facilities to meet effluent limitations for 7 metal 
pollutants. EPA's data show that these seven metals are present only in 
very small quantities in the current discharges at non-chromium 
anodizing facilities. Under the Metal Finishing effluent guidelines, 
EPA did not establish a BPT limit for aluminum, the metal found in the 
largest quantity in non-chromium anodizers wastewater. The Agency has 
determined that direct discharging facilities in the Non-Chromium 
Anodizing subcategory should have a limit for aluminum and thus is 
proposing to replace BPT in 40 CFR part 433 with new MP&M effluent 
limitations that more appropriately reflect the pollutants found in 
non-chromium anodizing wastewater. EPA notes that the Agency expects a 
reduction in monitoring burden associated with this revision for direct 
discharging non-chromium anodizing facilities.
2. Selected BPT Option
    Facilities in the Non-Chromium Anodizing subcategory generally 
perform unit operations such as cleaning, etching, and anodizing of 
aluminum, that produce metal-bearing wastewater. The majority of the 
metal found in anodizing wastewater is aluminum. In addition, some of 
these facilities also perform machining and grinding, impact 
deformation, and surface preparation operations that generate oily 
wastewater. Therefore, EPA considered technology options 1 through 4 
for this subcategory because technologies included in these options 
treat both oily wastewater as well as metal-bearing wastewater. As 
explained above, EPA only discusses Options 2 and 4 in detail in this 
preamble since these options costed less and removed more pollutant 
than Options 1 and 3 (respectively).
    The Agency is proposing Option 2 as the basis for BPT regulation 
for the Non-Chromium Anodizing subcategory. Although EPA did not 
identify any existing non-chromium anodizers, EPA estimated the cost of 
treatment and pollutant removal for a median-sized direct discharging 
facility with a wastewater flow of 6.25 MGY, based on the 
characteristics of a similarly sized indirect discharging non-chromium 
anodizer facility. Because direct dischargers are more likely to have 
treatment in place, EPA provided the model facility with treatment in 
place equivalent to Option 1. Therefore at the model direct discharging 
non-chromium anodizing facility, EPA estimates that implementation of 
Option 2 will cost $0.83 per pound COD removed (1996$), and has found 
that cost to be reasonable. EPA estimates that Option 2 would remove 
25,700 pounds of pollutants per median-sized facility per year 
(including 9,200 pounds of TSS as incidental removals based on the 
control of metals and 1,240 pounds of aluminum).

[[Page 455]]

    Additionally, because solids separation by microfiltration is not 
used by any non-chromium anodizer facilities, the Agency concluded that 
Option 4 does not represent best practicable control technology for 
this subcategory.
3. Calculation of BPT Limitations for the Non-Chromium Anodizing 
Subcategory
    EPA explained its data editing procedures and statistical 
methodology for calculating BPT limitations in Section VIII.B. Because 
EPA's survey did not identify any direct dischargers in this 
subcategory, EPA used data from indirect discharging facilities to 
develop the BPT limitations. The Agency identified two indirect 
discharging facilities in this subcategory that achieved very good 
pollutant reductions (including, on average, 96 percent reduction of 
aluminum and incidental removals of 95 percent for TSS). Therefore, EPA 
determined that the data from these facilities were appropriate for the 
development of BPT limitations. If data was not sufficient for 
developing BPT limitations for an individual pollutant in this 
subcategory, the Agency transferred data from another subcategory (see 
the Technical Development Document for a more detailed discussion). In 
the case of TSS and oil and grease, EPA used the limitations in 40 CFR 
part 433.13. See the proposed rule Sec. 438.32 following this preamble 
for a list of the proposed BPT limitations for the Non-Chromium 
Anodizers Subcategory. (See Section XXI.C for a discussion of 
monitoring flexibility.) The Statistical Development Document contains 
detailed information on which facilities EPA used in calculating the 
proposed BPT limitations.

D. Printed Wiring Board Subcategory

1. Need for BPT Regulation
    EPA describes the Printed Wiring Board subcategory in Section 
VI.C.4 of this preamble. The Agency estimates that there are 
approximately 11 direct discharging facilities in this subcategory. EPA 
has previously promulgated BPT and BAT limitations for all of the 
facilities in this subcategory at 40 CFR part 433 (Metal Finishing 
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards). However, 
EPA developed the regulations applicable to this subcategory 
approximately 20 years ago, and since that time, advances in printed 
wiring board manufacturing processes, water conservation practices, 
pollution prevention techniques, and wastewater treatment have 
occurred. EPA is proposing to set new BPT effluent limitations 
guidelines for this subcategory.
    EPA estimates that direct discharging facilities in the Printed 
Wiring Board subcategory currently discharge substantial quantities of 
pollutants into the surface waters of the United States, including 
262,000 pounds per year of oil and grease, 100,000 pounds per year of 
total suspended solids, 1.7 million pounds per year of COD, 242,000 
pounds per year of priority and nonconventional metal pollutants, 
35,000 pounds per year of priority and nonconventional organic 
pollutants, and 1,600 pounds per year of cyanide. As a result of the 
quantity of pollutant currently discharged directly to the nation's 
waters by printed wiring board facilities, EPA determined that there 
was a need for BPT regulation for this subcategory.
2. Selected BPT Option
    Facilities in the Printed Wiring Board subcategory generally 
perform unit operations such as cleaning, etching, masking, 
electroplating, electroless plating, applying, developing and stripping 
of photoresist, and tin/lead soldering that produce metal-bearing and 
organic-bearing wastewater. Therefore, EPA considered technology 
options 1 through 4 for this subcategory. As explained above, EPA only 
discusses Options 2 and 4 in detail in this preamble since these 
options costed less and removed more pollutant than Options 1 and 3 
(respectively).
    The Agency is proposing Option 2 as the basis for BPT regulation 
for the Printed Wiring Board subcategory. The new BPT limitations 
incorporate more stringent effluent requirements for priority metals, 
nonconventional pollutants, cyanide, and organic pollutants (by way of 
an indicator parameter) as compared to the limitations contained in 40 
CFR part 433.13. EPA has included the conventional pollutants, TSS and 
oil and grease, in the new BPT regulation for this subcategory at the 
same level as 40 CFR part 433.13. Removals for these pollutants are 
incidental removals based on the increased control of metals and 
organic pollutants (by way of an indicator parameter) by the proposed 
BPT technology options. EPA's decision to propose BPT limitations based 
Option 2 treatment for priority metals, nonconventional pollutants, 
cyanide and organic pollutants reflects primarily two factors: (1) The 
degree of effluent reductions attainable and (2) the total cost of the 
proposed treatment technologies in relation to the effluent reductions 
achieved. No basis could be found for identifying different BPT 
limitations based on age, size, process or other engineering factors. 
Neither the age nor the size of a facility in the Printed Wiring Board 
subcategory will directly affect the treatability of MP&M process 
wastewater. For facilities in this subcategory, the most pertinent 
factors for establishing the limitations are costs of treatment and the 
level of effluent reductions obtainable.
    In Table IX-1 above, EPA presents the annual pollutant removals for 
direct dischargers for Option 2, and in Table IX-2 above, it presents 
the cost per pound removed using only the pounds of COD removed. EPA 
estimates that implementation of Option 2 will cost $1.92 per pound of 
COD removed (1996$). The Agency has concluded that the costs of BPT 
Option 2 are achievable and are reasonable as compared to the removals 
achieved by this option.
    The technology proposed in Option 2 represents the average of the 
best performing facilities due to the prevalence of chemical 
precipitation followed by sedimentation in this subcategory. The Agency 
estimates that 100 percent of the direct discharging facilities in the 
Printed Wiring Board subcategory employ chemical precipitation and 
sedimentation treatment (Option 2); however, the Agency did identify 
indirect dischargers in this subcategory with Option 4 technology in 
place. In fact, EPA collected wastewater treatment samples at one 
indirect discharging printed wiring board manufacturing facility that 
employed Option 4 technology.
    Based on the available data base, Option 4 on an annual basis only 
removes an additional 48,000 pounds of priority and nonconventional 
metals, while removing 9,000 less pounds of COD, and 250 less pounds of 
priority and nonconventional organic pollutants than Option 2. In 
addition, Option 4's annualized cost is $2 million more than Option 2. 
EPA concluded that the lack of significant overall additional pollutant 
removals achieved by Option 4 (and the fact that it removes less COD, 
and organic pollutants) support the selection of Option 2 as the BPT 
technology basis.
3. Calculation of BPT Limitations for the Printed Wiring Board 
Subcategory
    EPA explained its data editing procedures and statistical 
methodology for calculating BPT limitations in Section VIII.B. In 
general, EPA calculated the new BPT limitations for this subcategory 
using data from facilities in the Printed Wiring Board subcategory 
employing Option 2 technology. As discussed above, EPA

[[Page 456]]

did not calculate new limitations for TSS or oil and grease for this 
subcategory. Instead, EPA set them at the same level as in the Metal 
Finishing effluent guidelines (40 CFR part 433.13). For cyanide 
limitations, EPA used data from all subcategories where cyanide 
destruction systems were sampled. If data was not sufficient for 
developing BPT limitations for an individual pollutant in this 
subcategory, the Agency transferred data from another subcategory (see 
the Technical Development Document for a more detailed discussion). See 
the proposed rule Sec. 438.42 following this preamble for a list of the 
proposed BPT limitations for the Printed Wiring Board subcategory. (See 
Section XXI.C. for a discussion of monitoring flexibility.) The 
Statistical Development Document contains detailed information on which 
facilities EPA used in calculating the proposed BPT limitations.

E. Steel Forming and Finishing Subcategory

1. Need for BPT Regulation
    EPA describes the Steel Forming & Finishing subcategory in Section 
VI.C.5 of this preamble. The Agency estimates that there are 
approximately 43 direct discharging facilities in this subcategory. EPA 
has previously promulgated BPT and BAT limitations for all of the 
facilities in this subcategory at 40 CFR part 420 (Iron and Steel 
Manufacturing Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Pretreatment 
Standards). However, EPA developed the regulations applicable to this 
subcategory approximately 20 years ago, and since that time, changes in 
the industry, particularly in growth of the number of facilities 
conducting steel forming and finishing operations without the presence 
of the typical steel manufacturing processes, and changes in water 
conservation practices, pollution prevention techniques, and wastewater 
treatment have occurred. In addition, the operations covered by this 
proposed rule are segments of the forming and finishing subcategories 
in 40 CFR part 420. The proposed MP&M subcategory is comprised of 
limitations and standards based on specific forming and finishing 
operations only.
    EPA estimates that direct discharging facilities in the new Steel 
Forming & Finishing subcategory currently discharge substantial 
quantities of pollutants into the surface waters of the United States, 
including 195,000 pounds per year of oil and grease, 1.08 million 
pounds per year of total suspended solids, 6 million pounds per year of 
COD, 771,000 pounds per year of priority and nonconventional metal 
pollutants, 168,000 pounds per year of priority and nonconventional 
organic pollutants, and 2,300 pounds per year of cyanide. As a result 
of the quantity of pollutant currently discharged directly to the 
nation's waters by steel forming & finishing facilities, EPA determined 
that there was a need for BPT regulation for this subcategory. In a 
separate notice, EPA is proposing to revise other subcategories in the 
Iron and Steel Manufacturing effluent guidelines.
2. Selected BPT Option
    Facilities in the proposed MP&M Steel Forming & Finishing 
subcategory generally perform unit operations such as acid pickling, 
annealing, conversion coating (e.g., zinc phosphate, copper sulfate), 
hot dip coating, electroplating, heat treatment, welding, and drawing 
of steel bar, rod, and wire that produce metal-bearing and oil-bearing 
wastewater. Therefore, EPA considered technology options 1 through 4 
for this subcategory. As explained above, EPA only discusses Options 2 
and 4 in detail in this preamble since these options costed less and 
removed more pollutant than Options 1 and 3 (respectively).
    The Agency is proposing Option 2 as the basis for the new BPT 
regulation for the Steel Forming & Finishing subcategory. EPA's 
decision to propose BPT limitations based on Option 2 treatment 
reflects primarily two factors: (1) the degree of effluent reductions 
attainable and (2) the total cost of the proposed treatment 
technologies in relation to the effluent reductions achieved. No basis 
could be found for identifying different BPT limitations based on age, 
size, process or other engineering factors. Neither the age nor the 
size of a facility in the Steel Forming and Finishing subcategory will 
directly affect the treatability of MP&M process wastewater. For 
facilities in this subcategory, the most pertinent factors for 
establishing the limitations are costs of treatment and the level of 
effluent reductions obtainable.
    In Table IX-1 above, EPA presents the annual pollutant removals for 
direct dischargers for Option 2, and in Table IX-2 above, it presents 
the cost per pound removed using only the pounds of COD removed. EPA 
estimates that implementation of Option 2 will cost $6.51 per pound of 
COD removed ($1996). The Agency has concluded that the costs of BPT 
Option 2 are achievable and are reasonable as compared to the removals 
achieved by this option.
    The technology proposed in Option 2 represents the average of the 
best performing facilities due to the prevalence of chemical 
precipitation followed by sedimentation in this subcategory. The Agency 
estimates that 64 percent of the direct discharging facilities in this 
subcategory employ chemical precipitation followed by sedimentation 
(Option 2). Because no facilities in this subcategory employ 
microfiltration after chemical precipitation for solids separation, the 
Agency concluded that Option 4 does not represent best practicable 
control technology.
3. Calculation of BPT Limitations for the Steel Forming & Finishing 
Subcategory
    EPA explained its data editing procedures and statistical 
methodology for calculating BPT limitations in Section VIII.B. In 
general, EPA calculated BPT limitations for this subcategory using data 
transferred from facilities employing Option 2 technology in the 
General Metals subcategory. However, EPA determined that mass-based 
limitations (rather than concentration-based limitations developed for 
the General Metals subcategory) are more appropriate for this 
subcategory. Facilities in this subcategory keep close track of their 
production on a mass basis primarily because of their prior regulation 
under the mass-based Iron & Steel Manufacturing effluent guidelines. 
Furthermore, EPA determined that mass-based limitations are appropriate 
for this subcategory due to the uniform nature of the products produced 
(wire, rod, bar, pipe, and tube). The uniform nature of the products 
produced by this industry makes for an easier conversion from 
concentration-based to mass-based limitations. One of the primary 
reasons that EPA is not requiring mass-based limitations for other 
subcategories is the fact that most MP&M facilities do not collect 
production information on a wastestream-by-wastestream basis, and 
therefore development of mass-based limitations could create a 
significant burden for both the POTW and the MP&M facility. In the case 
of the Steel Forming and Finishing subcategory, EPA is able to use the 
industry's production information to propose production-based 
limitations for the steel forming and finishing subcategory.
    EPA solicits paired treatment system influent and effluent data 
from Steel Forming & Finishing facilities, so that limits may better 
reflect treatment at steel forming and finishing facilities. EPA also 
solicits comment on whether to allow concentration-based limits for 
this subcategory and any rationale for doing so. For cyanide 
limitations, EPA used data from all subcategories where cyanide 
destruction systems were sampled (see the Technical

[[Page 457]]

Development Document for a more detailed discussion). See the proposed 
rule Sec. 438.52 following this preamble for a list of the proposed BPT 
limitations for the Steel Forming & Finishing subcategory. (See Section 
XXI.C for a discussion of monitoring flexibility.) The Statistical 
Development Document contains detailed information on which facilities 
EPA used in calculating the proposed BPT limitations.

F. Oily Wastes Subcategory

1. Need for BPT Regulation
    EPA describes the Oily Wastes subcategory in Section VI.C.6 of this 
preamble. EPA estimates that approximately 900 MP&M direct discharging 
facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory currently discharge 
substantial quantities of pollutants into the surface waters of the 
United States, including 965,000 pounds per year of oil and grease, 
414,00 pounds per year of total suspended solids, 6.4 million pounds 
per year of COD, 595,000 pounds per year of priority and 
nonconventional metal pollutants, and 135,000 pounds per year of 
priority and nonconventional organic pollutants. As a result of the 
quantity of pollutant currently discharged directly to the nation's 
waters by Oily Waste facilities, EPA determined that there was a need 
for BPT regulation for this subcategory.
2. Selected BPT Option
    Facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory generally perform unit 
operations such as alkaline cleaning and its associated rinses to 
remove oil and dirt from components, machining and grinding producing 
wastewater containing coolants and lubricants, and dye penetrant and 
magnetic flux testing that produce mainly oil-bearing wastewater (see 
Section VI.C.6 for a list of the unit operations that define the 
applicability of this subcategory). Because of the oily nature of the 
wastewater, EPA considered technology options 5 through 8 for this 
subcategory. (EPA did not consider oily wastewater treatment using DAF 
(Options 9 and 10) because it was not widely used by facilities in this 
subcategory. The Agency analyzed the DAF options for the Railroad Line 
Maintenance and Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategories only.) As explained 
above, EPA only discusses Options 6 and 8 in detail in this preamble 
since these options costed less and removed more pollutant than Options 
5 and 7 (respectively).
    The Agency is proposing Option 6, oil-water separation by chemical 
emulsion breaking, gravity separation, and oil skimming, as the basis 
for the new BPT regulation for the Oily Wastes subcategory. EPA's 
decision to propose BPT limitations based on Option 6 treatment 
reflects primarily two factors: (1) the degree of effluent reductions 
attainable and (2) the total cost of the proposed treatment 
technologies in relation to the effluent reductions achieved. No basis 
could be found for identifying different BPT limitations based on age, 
size, process or other engineering factors. Neither the age nor the 
size of a facility in the Oily Wastes subcategory will directly affect 
the treatability of MP&M process wastewater. For facilities in this 
subcategory, the most pertinent factors for establishing the 
limitations are costs of treatment and the level of effluent reductions 
obtainable.
    In Table IX-1 above, EPA presents the annual pollutant removals for 
direct dischargers for Option 6, and in Table IX-2 above, it presents 
the cost per pound removed using only the pounds of COD removed. EPA 
estimates that implementation of Option 6 will cost $2.18 per pound of 
COD removed (1996$). The Agency has concluded that the costs of BPT 
Option 6 are achievable and are reasonable as compared to the removals 
achieved by this option.
    The technology proposed in Option 6 represents the average of the 
best performing facilities due to the prevalence of chemical emulsion 
breaking and oil-skimming in this subcategory. The Agency estimates 
that 11 percent of the direct discharging facilities in the Oily Wastes 
subcategory perform oil-water separation through chemical emulsion 
breaking (Option 6) while only 4 percent employ ultrafiltration (Option 
8).
    Based on the available data base, Option 8 on an annual basis only 
removes an additional 19,000 pounds of TSS, 56,600 pounds of O&G, while 
removing 1.42 million less pounds of COD, 12,000 less pounds of 
priority and nonconventional metals, and 2,400 less pounds of priority 
and nonconventional organic pollutants than Option 6. In addition, 
Option 8's annualized cost is $43 million more than Option 6. EPA 
concluded that the lack of significant overall additional pollutant 
removals achieved by Option 8 do not justify its use as a basis for BPT 
for this subcategory.
3. Calculation of BPT Limitations for the Oily Wastes subcategory
    EPA explained its data editing procedures and statistical 
methodology for calculating BPT limitations in Section VIII.B. EPA 
calculated BPT limitations for this subcategory using data from 
facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory employing Option 6 
technology. See the proposed rule Sec. 438.62 following this preamble 
for a list of the proposed BPT limitations for the Oily Wastes 
subcategory. (See Section XXI.C for a discussion of monitoring 
flexibility.) The Statistical Development Document contains detailed 
information on which facilities EPA used in calculating the proposed 
BPT limitations.

G. Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory

1. Need for BPT Regulation
    EPA describes the Railroad Line Maintenance subcategory in Section 
VI.C.7 of this preamble. The Agency estimates that there are 
approximately 34 direct discharging facilities in this subcategory. EPA 
determined that BPT limitations for this subcategory were necessary 
because of the oil and grease and potential TSS loads that facilities 
in this subcategory generate. EPA estimates that direct discharging 
facilities in the Railroad Line Maintenance subcategory currently 
discharge substantial quantities of pollutants into the surface waters 
of the United States, including 52,000 pounds per year of oil and 
grease, 170,000 pounds per year of COD, 18,000 pounds per year of total 
suspended solids, 54,000 pounds per year of priority and 
nonconventional metal pollutants, and 1,600 pounds per year of priority 
and nonconventional organic pollutants. As a result of the quantity of 
pollutant currently discharged directly to the nation's waters by 
Railroad Line Maintenance facilities, EPA determined that there was a 
need for BPT regulation for this subcategory.
2. Selected BPT Option
    Facilities in the Railroad Line Maintenance subcategory generally 
perform unit operations that produce mainly oil-bearing wastewater such 
as alkaline cleaning and its associated rinses to remove oil and dirt 
from components, and machining and grinding which use coolants and 
lubricants. Because of the oily nature of the wastewater, EPA 
considered technology options 7 through 10 for this subcategory. (EPA 
did not consider oily wastewater treatment using oil-water separation 
through emulsion breaking (Options 5 and 6) for this subcategory 
because a large number of railroad line maintenance facilities 
currently use DAF (Options 9 and 10)). As explained above, EPA only 
discusses Options 8 and 10 in detail in this preamble since these 
options costed less and removed

[[Page 458]]

more pollutant than Options 7 and 9 (respectively).
    The Agency is proposing Option 10, oil-water separation by DAF, as 
the basis for the new BPT regulation for the Railroad Line Maintenance 
subcategory. EPA's decision to propose BPT limitations based on Option 
10 treatment reflects primarily two factors: (1) the degree of effluent 
reductions attainable and (2) the total cost of the proposed treatment 
technologies in relation to the effluent reductions achieved. No basis 
could be found for identifying different BPT limitations based on age, 
size, process or other engineering factors. Neither the age nor the 
size of a facility in the Railroad Line Maintenance subcategory will 
directly affect the treatability of MP&M process wastewater. For 
facilities in this subcategory, the most pertinent factors for 
establishing the limitations are costs of treatment and the level of 
effluent reductions obtainable.
    In Table IX-1 above, EPA presents the annual pollutant removals for 
direct dischargers for Option 10, and in Table IX-2 above, it presents 
the cost per pound removed using only the pounds of O&G removed. EPA 
estimates that implementation of Option 10 will cost $20.00 per pound 
of COD removed (1996$). The Agency has concluded that the costs of BPT 
Option 10 are achievable and are reasonable as compared to the removals 
achieved by this option.
    The technology proposed in Option 10 represents the average of the 
best performing facilities due to the prevalence of DAF in this 
subcategory. The Agency estimates that 91 percent of the direct 
discharging facilities in the Railroad Line Maintenance subcategory 
employ DAF (Option 10) while no facilities employ ultrafiltration 
(Option 8). Because no facilities in this subcategory employ 
ultrafiltration for removal of O&G, the Agency concluded that Option 8 
does not represent best practicable control technology.
3. Calculation of BPT Limitations for the Railroad Line Maintenance 
Subcategory
    EPA explained its data editing procedures and statistical 
methodology for calculating BPT limitations in Section VIII.B. EPA 
calculated BPT limitations for this subcategory using data from 
facilities in the Railroad Line Maintenance subcategory employing 
Option 10 technology. In cases where data from the Railroad Line 
Maintenance subcategory was not sufficient for a particular pollutant, 
the Agency transferred effluent data from facilities in the 
Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategory in order to develop a proposed BPT 
limitation (see the Technical Development Document for a more detailed 
discussion). See the proposed rule Sec. 438.72 following this preamble 
for a list of the proposed BPT limitations for the Railroad Line 
Maintenance subcategory. (See Section XXI.C for a discussion of 
monitoring flexibility.) The Statistical Development Document contains 
detailed information on which facilities EPA used in calculating the 
proposed BPT limitations.

H. Shipbuilding Dry Dock Subcategory

1. Need for BPT Regulation
    EPA describes the Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategory in Section 
VI.C.8 of this preamble. The Agency estimates that there are six direct 
discharging facilities in this subcategory. The Agency notes that many 
shipbuilders operate multiple dry docks (or similar structures) and 
that this is the number of estimated facilities (not dry docks) that 
discharge MP&M process wastewater from dry docks (and similar 
structures). EPA determined that BPT limitations for this subcategory 
were necessary because of the oil and grease and potential TSS loads 
that facilities in this subcategory generate. EPA estimates that direct 
discharging facilities in the Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategory 
currently discharge substantial quantities of pollutants into the 
surface waters of the United States, including 8.5 million pounds per 
year of oil and grease, 18,400 pounds per year of total suspended 
solids, 976,000 pounds per year of COD, 88,500 pounds per year of 
priority and nonconventional metal pollutants, and 6,000 pounds per 
year of priority and nonconventional organic pollutants. As a result of 
the quantity of pollutant currently discharged directly to the nation's 
waters by Shipbuilding Dry Dock facilities, EPA determined that there 
was a need for BPT regulation for this subcategory.
2. Selected BPT Option
    Facilities in the Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategory generally 
perform unit operations that produce mainly oil-bearing wastewater such 
as abrasive blasting, hydroblasting, painting, welding, corrosion 
preventive coating, floor cleaning, aqueous degreasing, and testing 
(e.g., hydrostatic testing). Because of the oily nature of the 
wastewater, EPA considered technology options 7 through 10 for this 
subcategory. (EPA did not consider oily wastewater treatment using oil-
water separation through chemical emulsion breaking (Options 5 and 6) 
for this subcategory because all of the shipbuilding dry dock 
facilities in EPA's database currently use DAF (Options 9 and 10)). As 
explained above, EPA only discusses Options 8 and 10 in detail in this 
preamble since these options costed less and removed more pollutant 
than Options 7 and 9 (respectively).
    The Agency is proposing Option 10, oil-water separation by DAF, as 
the basis for the new BPT regulation for the Shipbuilding Dry Dock 
subcategory. EPA's decision to propose BPT limitations based Option 10 
treatment reflects primarily two factors: (1) The degree of effluent 
reductions attainable and (2) the total cost of the proposed treatment 
technologies in relation to the effluent reductions achieved. No basis 
could be found for identifying different BPT limitations based on age, 
size, process or other engineering factors. Neither the age nor the 
size of a facility in the Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategory will 
directly affect the treatability of MP&M process wastewater. For 
facilities in this subcategory, the most pertinent factors for 
establishing the limitations are costs of treatment and the level of 
effluent reductions obtainable.
    In Table IX-1 above, EPA presents the annual pollutant removals for 
direct dischargers for Option 10, and in Table IX-2 above, it presents 
the cost per pound removed using only the pounds of O&G removed. EPA 
estimates that implementation of Option 10 will cost $0.25 per pound of 
O&G removed (1996$). The Agency has concluded that the costs of BPT 
Option 10 are achievable and are reasonable as compared to the removals 
achieved by this option.
    The technology proposed in Option 10 represents the average of the 
best performing facilities due to the prevalence of DAF in this 
subcategory. According to EPA's database, 100 percent of the direct 
discharging facilities in the Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategory employ 
DAF (Option 10) while no facilities employ ultrafiltration (Option 8). 
Because no facilities in this subcategory employ ultrafiltration for 
removal of O&G, the Agency concluded that Option 8 does not represent 
best practicable control technology.
3. Calculation of BPT Limitations for the Shipbuilding Dry Dock 
Subcategory
    EPA explained its data editing procedures and statistical 
methodology for calculating BPT limitations in Section VIII.B. EPA 
calculated BPT limitations for this subcategory using data from 
facilities in the Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategory employing Option 10 
technology. See the proposed rule Sec. 438.82 following this preamble 
for a

[[Page 459]]

list of the proposed BPT limitations for the Shipbuilding Dry Dock 
subcategory. (See Section XXI.C. for a discussion of monitoring 
flexibility.) The Statistical Development Document contains detailed 
information on which facilities EPA used in calculating the proposed 
BPT limitations.

X. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)

A. July 9, 1986 BCT Methodology

    The BCT methodology, promulgated in 1986 (51 FR 24974), discusses 
the Agency's consideration of costs in establishing BCT effluent 
limitations guidelines. EPA evaluates the reasonableness of BCT 
candidate technologies (those that are technologically feasible) by 
applying a two-part cost test:
    (1) The POTW test; and
    (2) The industry cost-effectiveness test.
    In the POTW test, EPA calculates the cost per pound of conventional 
pollutant removed by industrial dischargers in upgrading from BPT to a 
BCT candidate technology and then compares this cost to the cost per 
pound of conventional pollutant removed in upgrading POTWs from 
secondary treatment. The upgrade cost to industry must be less than the 
POTW benchmark of $0.25 per pound (in 1976 dollars).
    In the industry cost-effectiveness test, the ratio of the 
incremental BPT to BCT cost divided by the BPT cost for the industry 
must be less than 1.29 (i.e., the cost increase must be less than 29 
percent).

B. Discussion of BCT Option for Metal-Bearing Wastewater

    For today's proposed rule, EPA considered whether or not to 
establish BCT effluent limitation guidelines for MP&M sites that would 
attain incremental levels of effluent reduction beyond BPT for TSS. The 
only technology option identified to attain further TSS reduction is 
the addition of multimedia filtration to existing BPT systems. For the 
BCT option, EPA considered the addition of multimedia filtration to the 
BPT technology option for the General Metals, Metal Finishing Job 
Shops, Non-Chromium Anodizing, Printed Wiring Board, and Steel Forming 
and Finishing subcategories (i.e., the metal-bearing subcategories).
    EPA applied the BCT cost test to use of multimedia filtration 
technology as a means to reduce TSS loadings. EPA split the MP&M sites 
into three flow categories: less than 10,000 gallons per year (gpy)); 
10,000 gpy to 1,000,000 gpy; and greater than 1,000,000 gpy. For each 
of these three flow categories, EPA chose a representative site for 
which EPA had estimated the costs of installing the Option 2 
technologies discussed under BPT (See Section IX above). The Agency 
evaluated the costs of installing a polishing multimedia filter to 
remove an estimated additional 35 percent of the TSS discharged after 
chemical precipitation and clarification treatment. This estimated 
removal reflects the reduced TSS concentrations seen when filters are 
used after chemical precipitation and sedimentation in the MP&M 
industry. The cost per pound removed for facilities discharging greater 
than 1 MGY was $13/lb of TSS (in 1976 dollars), the cost per pound 
removed for facilities discharging between 10,000 and 1,000,000 gpy was 
$518/lb and the cost per pound removed for facilities discharging less 
than 10,000 gpy was $1,926/lb of TSS (in 1976 dollars). All of these 
cases individually as well as combined exceed the $0.25/lb (in 1976 
dollars) POTW cost test value. Because these costs exceed the POTW 
benchmark, the first part of the cost test fails; therefore, the second 
part of the test was unnecessary. Therefore, EPA determined that 
multimedia filtration does not pass the cost test for BCT regulations 
development. In light of the above, EPA is proposing to set BCT 
limitations for the General Metals, Metal Finishing Job Shops, Non-
Chromium Anodizing, Printed Wiring Board, and Steel Forming and 
Finishing subcategories equivalent to BPT limitations for their 
respective subcategories.

C. Discussion of BCT Option for Oily Wastewater

    For today's proposed rule, EPA considered whether or not to 
establish BCT effluent limitation guidelines for MP&M facilities that 
would attain incremental levels of effluent reduction beyond BPT for 
O&G. EPA considered the addition of an ultrafilter to existing BPT 
systems (oil-water separation by chemical emulsion breaking, gravity 
separation, and oil skimming) as a viable technology option to attain 
further O&G reduction. EPA considered this BCT option for the Oily 
Wastes, Railroad Line Maintenance, and Shipbuilding Dry Dock 
subcategories.
    EPA applied the BCT cost test to use of ultrafiltration technology 
as a means to reduce O&G loadings. EPA split the MP&M sites into three 
flow categories: less than 10,000 gallons per year (gpy); 10,000 gpy to 
1,000,000 gpy; and greater than 1,000,000 gpy. For each of these three 
flow categories, EPA chose a representative site for which EPA had 
estimated the costs of installing the Option 2 technologies discussed 
under BPT (See Section IX above). The Agency evaluated the costs of 
installing an ultrafilter to remove an estimated additional 36 percent 
of the O&G discharged after oil-water separation by chemical emulsion 
breaking, gravity separation, and oil skimming. This estimated removal 
reflects the reduced O&G concentrations seen when ultrafilters are used 
after chemical emulsion breaking with oil skimming in the MP&M 
industry. The cost per pound removed for facilities discharging greater 
than 1 MGY was $238/lb of O&G (in 1976 dollars), the cost per pound 
removed for facilities discharging between 10,000 and 1,000,000 gpy was 
$2,213/lb, and the cost per pound removed for facilities discharging 
less than 10,000 gpy was $5,031/lb of O&G (in 1976 dollars). All of 
these cases individually as well as combined exceed the $0.25/lb (in 
1976 dollars) POTW cost test value. Because these costs exceed the POTW 
benchmark, the first part of the cost test fails; therefore, the second 
part of the test was unnecessary. Therefore, EPA determined that 
ultrafiltration does not pass the cost test for BCT regulations 
development. In light of the above, EPA is proposing to set BCT 
limitations for the Oily Wastes, Railroad Line Maintenance and 
Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategories equivalent to BPT limitations for 
their respective subcategories.

XI. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)

    EPA considers the following factors in establishing the best 
available technology economically achievable (BAT) level of control: 
the age of process equipment and facilities, the processes employed, 
process changes, the engineering aspects of applying various types of 
control techniques, the costs of applying the control technology, 
economic impacts imposed by the regulation, non-water quality 
environmental impacts such as energy requirements, air pollution and 
solid waste generation, and other such factors as the Administrator 
deems appropriate (section 304(b)(2)(B) of the Act). In general, the 
BAT technology level represents the best existing economically 
achievable performance among plants with shared characteristics. In 
making the determination about economic achievability, the Agency takes 
into consideration factors such as plant closures and product line 
closures. Where existing wastewater treatment performance is uniformly 
inadequate,

[[Page 460]]

BAT technology may be transferred from a different subcategory or 
industrial category. BAT may also include process changes or internal 
plant controls which are not common industry practice.
    EPA considered the same 10 technology options for BAT as it 
discussed under BPT. EPA did not include the application of filters, 
discussed under BPT, as a BAT option. Data collected during sampling at 
MP&M facilities demonstrated very little, if any, additional removal of 
many metal pollutants resulting from the use of filters as compared to 
concentrations of the same metals after the chemical precipitation and 
clarification treatment followed by gravity settling. Thus, although 
filtration is demonstrated to be effective in achieving additional 
removals of suspended solids, and as such EPA considered it for the 
basis of BPT, multimedia or sand filtration does not reflect the best 
available technology performance for priority and nonconventional 
pollutants.
    For all of the MP&M subcategories (except Railroad Line Maintenance 
and Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategories), EPA is proposing BAT 
limitations equivalent to BPT. For the Railroad Line Maintenance and 
Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategories, EPA is not proposing BAT 
limitations. EPA briefly discusses the BAT selection for each of the 
subcategories below and refers to Section IX for a detailed discussion 
of the need for BPT regulation, the selected BPT technology option, the 
calculation of BPT limitations, and the estimated removals and costs of 
BPT for each subcategory.

A. General Metals Subcategory

    EPA has not identified any more stringent economically-achievable 
treatment technology option which it considered to represent BAT level 
of control applicable to General Metals subcategory facilities. 
Therefore, the Agency is proposing to establish BAT equivalent to BPT 
for toxic and nonconventional pollutants for the General Metals 
subcategory. EPA estimates that 20 facilities (less than 1 percent of 
the direct dischargers in this subcategory) will close as a result of 
BAT based on Option 2. EPA found this option to be economically 
achievable for the subcategory as a whole. Additionally, the Agency 
believes that Option 2 represents the ``best available'' technology as 
it achieves a high level of pollutant control, treating all priority 
pollutants to very low levels, often at or near the analytical minimum 
level.
    EPA did evaluate BPT Option 4 as a basis for establishing BAT more 
stringent than the BPT level of control being proposed today. EPA 
estimates that the economic impact due to the additional controls at 
Option 4 levels would result in 35 facility closures (1 percent of the 
direct dischargers in this subcategory). See Section XVI.E for a 
discussion on job losses. While EPA does not have a bright line for 
determining what level of impact is economically achievable for the 
industry as a whole, EPA looked for a breakpoint that would mitigate 
adverse economic impacts without greatly affecting the toxic pound 
equivalents being removed under the proposed rule. By selecting Option 
2 as BAT, EPA was able to reduce facility closures by 43 percent, while 
only losing about 1.5 percent of the toxic pound equivalents that would 
be removed under Option 4. Option 4 resulted in some level of improved 
pollutant reductions; however, the amounts are not very large and the 
cost of implementing the level of control associated with Option 4 is 
disproportionately high. Thus, EPA rejected Option 4 as a basis for BAT 
for this subcategory.

B. Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory

    The Agency is proposing to establish BAT equivalent to BPT for 
toxic and nonconventional pollutants for the Metal Finishing Job Shop 
subcategory. EPA estimates that no facilities will close as a result of 
BAT based on Option 2. Therefore, the Agency found this Option to be 
economically achievable. Additionally, the Agency believes that Option 
2 represents the ``best available'' technology as it achieves a high 
level of pollutant control, treating all priority pollutants to very 
low levels, often at or near the analytical minimum level.
    EPA did evaluate transferring technology reflected in BPT Option 4 
as a basis for establishing BAT more stringent than the BPT level of 
control being proposed today. As was the case for BAT based on Option 
2, EPA estimates that no facilities would close as a result of BAT 
based on Option 4. Therefore, EPA does consider Option 4 to be 
economically achievable for this subcategory. However, EPA is not 
proposing to establish BAT limitations based on Option 4 because it 
determined that Option 2 achieves nearly equivalent reductions in 
pound-equivalents for much less cost. By selecting Option 2 as the 
basis for BAT, EPA reduced annualized compliance costs by $1.1 million 
(1996$) while only losing 2 percent of the toxic pound equivalents that 
would be removed under Option 4. The Agency concluded that the 
additional costs of Option 4 do not justify the lack of significant 
additional pollutant removals achieved for direct dischargers in this 
subcategory. Therefore, EPA determined that Option 2 is the ``best 
available'' technology economically achievable for the Metal Finishing 
Job Shop subcategory.

C. Non-Chromium Anodizing Subcategory

    The Agency is proposing to establish BAT equivalent to BPT for 
toxic and nonconventional pollutants for the Non-Chromium Anodizing 
subcategory. As mentioned in the BPT discussion, EPA's survey of the 
MP&M industry did not identify any non-chromium anodizing facilities 
discharging directly to surface waters. All of the non-chromium 
anodizing facilities in EPA's data base are either indirect or zero 
dischargers. EPA consequently could not evaluate any treatment systems 
in place at direct discharging non-chromium anodizing facilities for 
establishing BAT limitations. Therefore, EPA relied on information and 
data from indirect discharging facilities in the Non-Chromium Anodizing 
subcategory. Based on this analysis the Agency believes that Option 2 
represents the ``best available'' technology as it achieves a high 
level of pollutant control, treating all priority pollutants to very 
low levels, often at or near the analytical minimum level.
    EPA did evaluate transferring technology reflected in BPT Option 4 
as a basis for establishing BAT more stringent than the BPT level of 
control being proposed today. However, EPA is not proposing to 
establish BAT limitations based on Option 4 because it determined that 
Option 2 achieves nearly equivalent reductions in pound-equivalents for 
much less cost. EPA used a facility with a flow of 6.25 MGY (the median 
discharge flow for indirect discharging facilities in this subcategory) 
to model the costs and pollutant loads reduced for a direct discharging 
facility. Because direct dischargers are more likely to have treatment 
in place, EPA provided the model facility with treatment in place 
equivalent to Option 1. Based on this model facility, EPA estimated 
that annualized compliance costs per facility for Option 2 will be 
$41,000 (1996$) less than Option 4, and Option 2 will remove only 83 
pound-equivalents less than Option 4. The Agency concluded that the 
additional costs of Option 4 do not justify the additional pollutant 
removals achieved for direct dischargers in this subcategory. 
Therefore, EPA determined that Option 2 is the ``best available'' 
technology economically

[[Page 461]]

achievable for the Non-Chromium Anodizing subcategory.

D. Printed Wiring Board Subcategory

    The Agency is proposing to establish BAT equivalent to BPT for 
toxic and nonconventional pollutants for the Printed Wiring Board 
subcategory. EPA estimates that no facilities will close as a result of 
BAT based on Option 2. Therefore, the Agency found this option to be 
economically achievable. Additionally, the Agency believes that Option 
2 represents the ``best available'' technology as it achieves a high 
level of pollutant control, treating all priority pollutants to very 
low levels, often at or near the analytical minimum level.
    EPA did evaluate BPT Option 4 as a basis for establishing BAT more 
stringent than the BPT level of control being proposed today. As was 
the case for BAT based on Option 2, EPA estimates that no facilities 
would close as a result of BAT based on Option 4. Therefore, EPA does 
consider Option 4 to be economically achievable for this subcategory. 
However, EPA is not proposing to establish BAT limitations based on 
Option 4 because it determined that Option 2 achieves nearly equivalent 
reductions in pound-equivalents for much less cost. By selecting Option 
2 as the basis for BAT, EPA reduced annualized compliance costs by $2 
million (1996$) while only losing 3 percent of the toxic pound 
equivalents that would be removed under Option 4. The Agency concluded 
that the additional costs of Option 4 do not justify the lack of 
significant additional pollutant removals achieved for direct 
dischargers in this subcategory. Therefore, EPA determined that Option 
2 is the ``best available'' technology economically achievable for the 
Printed Wiring Board subcategory.

E. Steel Forming & Finishing Subcategory

    The Agency is proposing to establish BAT equivalent to BPT for 
toxic and nonconventional pollutants for the Steel Forming & Finishing 
subcategory. EPA estimates that no facilities will close as a result of 
BAT based on Option 2. Therefore, the Agency found this Option to be 
economically achievable. Additionally, the Agency believes that Option 
2 represents the ``best available'' technology as it achieves a high 
level of pollutant control, treating all priority pollutants to very 
low levels, often at or near the analytical minimum level.
    EPA did evaluate transferring technology reflected in BPT Option 4 
as a basis for establishing BAT more stringent than the BPT level of 
control being proposed today. EPA is not proposing to establish BAT 
limitations based on Option 4 because it determined that Option 2 
achieves nearly equivalent reductions in pound-equivalents for much 
less cost. By selecting Option 2 as the basis for BAT, EPA reduced 
annualized compliance costs by $2.6 million (1996$) while only losing 3 
percent of the toxic pound equivalents that would be removed under 
Option 4. The Agency concluded that the additional costs of Option 4 do 
not justify the insignificant additional pollutant removals achieved 
for direct dischargers in this subcategory.

F. Oily Wastes Subcategory

    EPA has not identified any more stringent economically-achievable 
treatment technology option which it considered to represent BAT level 
of control applicable to Oily Wastes subcategory facilities. Therefore, 
the Agency is proposing to establish BAT equivalent to BPT for toxic 
and nonconventional pollutants for the Oily Wastes subcategory. EPA 
estimates that no facilities will close as a result of BAT based on 
Option 6. Additionally, the Agency believes that Option 6 represents 
the ``best available'' technology as it achieves a high level of 
pollutant control, treating all priority pollutants to very low levels, 
often at or near the analytical minimum level.
    EPA did evaluate BPT Option 8 (ultrafiltration) as a basis for 
establishing BAT more stringent than the BPT level of control being 
proposed today. As was the case for BAT based on Option 6, EPA 
estimates that no facilities would close as a result of BAT based on 
Option 8. Therefore, EPA does consider Option 8 to be economically 
achievable for this subcategory. However, based on the available data 
base, EPA is not proposing to establish BAT limitations based on Option 
8 because it removes fewer pound-equivalents than Option 6. Therefore, 
the Agency determined that Option 6 is the ``best available'' 
technology economically achievable for the removal of priority 
pollutants from wastewater generated at Oily Wastes subcategory 
facilities.

G. Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory

    EPA is not proposing to establish BAT regulations for the Railroad 
Line Maintenance subcategory. The Agency concluded that the facilities 
in this subcategory discharge very few pounds of toxic pollutants. EPA 
estimates that 34 railroad line maintenance facilities discharge 1,100 
pound equivalents per year to surface waters, or about 32 pound 
equivalents per year per facility. The Agency based the loadings 
calculations on EPA sampling data, which found very few priority toxic 
pollutants at treatable levels in raw wastewater. Therefore, 
nationally-applicable regulations are unnecessary at this time and 
direct dischargers will remain subject to permit limitations for toxic 
and nonconventional pollutants established on a case-by-case basis 
using best professional judgement.

H. Shipbuilding Dry Dock Subcategory

    EPA is not proposing to establish BAT regulations for the 
Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategory because of the small number of 
facilities in this subcategory. EPA estimates that there are 6 
shipbuilding facilities operating one or more dry docks in the U.S. 
that discharge directly to surface waters. EPA determined that 
nationally-applicable regulations are unnecessary at this time because 
of the small number of facilities in this subcategory. The Agency 
believes that limitations established on a case-by-case basis using 
best professional judgement can more appropriately address individual 
toxic and nonconventional pollutants that may be present at these six 
facilities.

XII. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)

A. Need for Pretreatment Standards

    Indirect dischargers in the MP&M industrial category, like the 
direct dischargers, use raw materials that contain many priority 
pollutant and nonconventional metal pollutants. These indirect 
facilities may discharge many of these pollutants to POTWs at 
significant mass or concentration levels, or both. EPA estimates that 
indirect discharging facilities annually discharge approximately 125 
million pounds of priority and nonconventional metals, and 47 million 
pounds of priority and nonconventional organic pollutants.
    Unlike direct dischargers whose wastewater will receive no further 
treatment once it leaves the facility, indirect dischargers send their 
wastewater to POTWs for further treatment, which occurs unless there is 
a bypass, upset, or sewer overflow. EPA establishes pretreatment 
standards for those BAT pollutants that pass through POTWs. Therefore, 
for indirect dischargers, before proposing pretreatment standards, EPA 
examines whether the pollutants discharged by the industry ``pass 
through'' POTWs to waters of the U.S. or interfere with POTW operations 
or sludge disposal practices on a national basis. Generally, to 
determine if pollutants pass through POTWs, EPA compares the percentage

[[Page 462]]

of the pollutant removed by well-operated POTWs achieving secondary 
treatment with the percentage of the pollutant removed by facilities 
meeting BAT effluent limitations. In this manner, EPA can ensure that 
the combined treatment at indirect discharging facilities and POTWs is 
at least equivalent to that obtained through treatment by direct 
dischargers.
    This approach to the definition of pass-through satisfies two 
competing objectives set by Congress: (1) That standards for indirect 
dischargers be equivalent to standards for direct dischargers, and (2) 
that the treatment capability and performance of POTWs be recognized 
and taken into account in regulating the discharge of pollutants from 
indirect dischargers. Rather than compare the mass or concentration of 
pollutants discharged by POTWs with the mass or concentration of 
pollutants discharged by BAT facilities, EPA compares the percentage of 
the pollutants removed by BAT facilities to the POTW removals. EPA 
takes this approach because a comparison of the mass or concentration 
of pollutants in POTW effluents with pollutants in BAT facility 
effluents would not take into account the mass of pollutants discharged 
to the POTW from other industrial and non-industrial sources, nor the 
dilution of the pollutants in the POTW to lower concentrations from the 
addition of large amounts of other industrial and non-industrial water.
    The primary source of the POTW percent removal data is the ``Fate 
of Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works'' (EPA 440/1-
82/303, September 1982), commonly referred to as the ``50-POTW Study.'' 
This study presents data on the performance of 50 well-operated POTWs 
that employ secondary biological treatment in removing pollutants. Each 
sample was analyzed for three conventional, 16 non-conventional, and 
126 priority toxic pollutants.
    At the time of the 50-POTW sampling program, which spanned 
approximately 2\1/2\ years (July 1978 to November 1980), EPA collected 
samples at selected POTWs across the U.S. The samples were subsequently 
analyzed by either EPA or EPA-contract laboratories using test 
procedures (analytical methods) specified by the Agency or in use at 
the laboratories. Laboratories typically reported the analytical method 
used along with the test results. However, for those cases in which the 
laboratory specified no analytical method, EPA was able to identify the 
method based on the nature of the results and knowledge of the methods 
available at the time.
    Each laboratory reported results for the pollutants for which it 
tested. If the laboratory found a pollutant to be present, the 
laboratory reported a result. If the laboratory found the pollutant not 
to be present, the laboratory reported either that the pollutant was 
``not detected'' or a value with a ``less than'' sign () indicating 
that the pollutant was below that value. The value reported along with 
the ``less than'' sign was the lowest level to which the laboratory 
believed it could reliably measure. EPA subsequently established these 
lower levels as the minimum levels of quantitation (MLs). In some 
instances, different laboratories reported different (sample-specific) 
MLs for the same pollutant using the same analytical method.
    Because of the variety of reporting protocols among the 50-POTW 
Study laboratories (pages 27 to 30, 50-POTW Study), EPA reviewed the 
percent removal calculations used in the pass-through analysis for 
previous industry studies, including those performed when developing 
effluent guidelines for Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic 
Fibers (OCPSF) Manufacturing, Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT), and 
Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustors. EPA found that, for 12 
parameters, different analytical minimum levels were reported for 
different rulemaking studies (10 of the 21 metals, cyanide, and one of 
the 41 organics).
    To provide consistency for data analysis and establishment of 
removal efficiencies, EPA reviewed the 50-POTW Study, standardized the 
reported MLs for use in the final rules for CWT and Transportation 
Equipment Cleaning Industries and for this proposed rule and the Iron 
and Steel proposed rule. A more detailed discussion of the methodology 
used and the results of the ML evaluation are contained in the record 
for today's proposal.
    In using the 50-POTW Study data to estimate percent removals, EPA 
has established data editing criteria for determining pollutant percent 
removals. Some of the editing criteria are based on differences between 
POTW and industry BAT treatment system influent concentrations. For 
many toxic pollutants, POTW influent concentrations were much lower 
than those of BAT treatment systems. For many pollutants, particularly 
organic pollutants, the effluent concentrations from both POTW and BAT 
treatment systems were below the level that could be found or measured. 
As noted in the 50-POTW Study, analytical laboratories reported 
pollutant concentrations below the analytical threshold level, 
qualitatively, as ``not detected'' or ``trace,'' and reported a 
measured value above this level. Subsequent rulemaking studies such as 
the 1987 OCPSF study used the analytical method nominal ``minimum 
level'' (ML) established in 40 CFR part 136 for laboratory data 
reported below the analytical threshold level. Use of the nominal 
minimum level (ML) may overestimate the effluent concentration and 
underestimate the percent removal. Because the data collected for 
evaluating POTW percent removals included both effluent and influent 
levels that were close to the analytical detection levels, EPA devised 
hierarchal data editing criteria to exclude data with low influent 
concentration levels, thereby minimizing the possibility that low POTW 
removals might simply reflect low influent concentrations instead of 
being a true measure of treatment effectiveness.
    EPA has generally used hierarchic data editing criteria for the 
pollutants in the 50-POTW Study. For today's proposal, as in previous 
rulemakings, EPA used the following editing criteria:
    <bullet> Substitute the standardized pollutant-specific analytical 
minimum level for values reported as ``not detected,'' ``trace,'' 
``less than [followed by a number],'' or a ``number'' less than the 
standardized analytical minimum level,
    <bullet> Retain pollutant influent and corresponding effluent 
values if the average pollutant influent level is greater than or equal 
to 10 times the pollutant minimum level (10 x ML), and
    <bullet> If none of the average pollutant influent concentrations 
are at least 10 times the minimum level, then retain average influent 
values greater than or equal to two times the minimum level (2 x ML) 
along with the corresponding average effluent values. (In most cases, 
2 x ML will be equal to or less than 20 <greek-m>g/l.)

EPA then calculates each POTW percent removal for each pollutant based 
on its average influent and its average effluent values. The national 
POTW percent removal used for each pollutant in the pass-through test 
is the median value of all the POTW pollutant specific percent 
removals.
    The rationale for retaining POTW data using the ``10 x ML'' editing 
criterion is based on the BAT organic pollutant treatment performance 
editing criteria initially developed for the 1987 OCPSF regulation (52 
FR 42522, 42545-48; November 5, 1987). BAT treatment system designs in 
the OCPSF industry typically achieved at least 90 percent removal of 
toxic pollutants. Since most

[[Page 463]]

of the OCPSF effluent data from BAT biological treatment systems had 
values of ``not detected,'' the average influent concentration for a 
compound had to be at least 10 times the analytical minimum level for 
the difference to be meaningful (demonstration of at least 90 percent 
removal) and qualify effluent concentrations for calculation of 
effluent limits.
    Additionally, due to the large number of pollutants of concern for 
the MP&M industry, EPA also used data from the National Risk Management 
Research Laboratory (NRMRL) Treatability Database (formerly called the 
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) database) to augment the 
POTW database for the pollutants which the 50-POTW Study did not cover. 
EPA notes that the 50 POTW Study contains percent removal data for all 
of the pollutants for which EPA is proposing effluent limitations and 
pretreatment standards. The RREL database was used to estimate 
incidental pollutant reductions achieved by the technology for some 
pollutants that are not being expressly limited. This database provides 
information, by pollutant, on removals obtained by various treatment 
technologies. The database provides the user with the specific data 
source and the industry from which the wastewater was generated. For 
each pollutant of concern EPA considered for this proposed rule that 
was not found in the 50-POTW database, EPA used data from the NRMRL 
database, using only treatment technologies representative of typical 
POTW secondary treatment operations (activated sludge, activated sludge 
with filtration, aerated lagoons). EPA further edited these files to 
include information pertaining only to domestic or industrial 
wastewater. EPA used pilot-scale and full-scale data only, and 
eliminated bench-scale data and data from less reliable references. 
These and other aspects of the methodology used for this proposal are 
described in Section 7 of the Technical Development Document.
    The results of the POTW pass-through analysis for indirect 
dischargers are discussed in Sections XII.D to XII.K for each 
subcategory. In addition, Section XIV of today's proposal discusses 
several issues related to the editing criteria applied to the 50-POTW 
data base. EPA solicits comments on its pass-through methodology, 
including the revised editing criteria discussed above as well as the 
additional issues described in Section XIV and in the record for 
today's proposal.

B. Overview of Technology Options for PSES

    Indirect discharging MP&M facilities generate wastewater with 
similar pollutant characteristics to direct discharging facilities. 
Hence, in evaluating technology options for PSES, EPA considered the 
same ten treatment technologies discussed previously for BPT and BAT. 
However, as described below, along with the technology options, EPA 
also evaluated ``low flow'' exclusions for indirect discharging 
facilities (see Sections II.D and VI for additional discussion on the 
low flow exclusions).

C. Overview of Low Flow Exclusions

    For each subcategory, EPA evaluated various low flow exclusions 
(also referred to as ``flow cutoffs'') for indirect dischargers. The 
Agency considered several factors in determining what flow level, if 
any, is appropriate for excluding facilities from compliance with 
pretreatment standards. For several of the subcategories, EPA 
considered the local control authorities' increased burden associated 
with the development of new permits or other control mechanisms for 
MP&M facilities. For some subcategories, the Agency considered flow 
exclusions as a way to reduce economic impacts. EPA also considered the 
amount of pollutant (in pound-equivalents) discharged per year by the 
subcategory and by each of the facilities on an average annual basis, 
in conjunction with the costs of regulation, to identify an appropriate 
level for an exclusion. In cases where EPA is proposing an option that 
also specifies a flow cutoff, it means that facilities with annual 
wastewater flow below the cutoff would not be subject to the MP&M 
categorical pretreatment standards. These facilities would remain 
subject to the general pretreatment regulation at 40 CFR part 403 or 
their existing categorical pretreatment standards (e.g., 40 CFR part 
413 or part 433). For the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory, 
although the proposed option does not contain a flow cutoff, several 
other options with various flow cutoffs are discussed in today's 
proposal. Some of these options would require excluded facilities to 
remain covered by categorical pretreatment standards under 40 CFR part 
413 (Electroplating) and 40 CFR part 433 (Metal Finishing). In 
addition, some indirect discharging facilities in the General Metals 
subcategory that discharge less than 1 MGY will remain covered by the 
pretreatment standards in 40 CFR part 433. EPA is not proposing 
pretreatment standards for the Non-Chromium Anodizing subcategory. 
Therefore, all indirect discharging facilities in this subcategory will 
remain subject to the applicable pretreatment standards in 40 CFR part 
413 or 40 CFR part 433.
    In this section, the Agency discusses only some of the flow cutoff 
options for each subcategory. EPA presents its analysis of a full range 
of flow cutoff options for indirect dischargers in each subcategory in 
the Technical Development Document.
    Table XII.C-1 below summarizes the pounds of pollutants removed by 
the proposed options for indirect dischargers in each subcategory, and 
Table XII.C-2 summarizes the costs and economic impacts associated with 
the proposed options for indirect dischargers in each subcategory with 
proposed standards. EPA is not proposing pretreatment standards for the 
Non-Chromium Anodizing, Railroad Line Maintenance, and Shipbuilding Dry 
Dock subcategories for the reasons described later in this section. 
(See Section IX for summary tables for direct dischargers).

   Table XII.C-1.--Annual Pounds of Pollutant Removed by the Proposed PSES Option for Indirect Dischargers by
                                                   Subcategory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Priority and         Priority and
      Subcategory (number of         Selected option      nonconventional      nonconventional     Cyanide (lb-
           facilities)                (flow cutoff)     metals (lb-removed/     organics (lb-       removed/yr)
                                                                yr)              removed/yr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals (3,055)...........  Option 2 (1 MGY)...  28.1 million.......  7.7 million........        284,000.
Metal Finishing Job Shops (1,514)  Option 2...........  2.4 million........  47,000.............      1 million.
Printed Wiring Boards (621)......  Option 2...........  2.6 million........  14,000.............        230,000.
Steel Forming and Finishing (110)  Option 2...........  617,000............  16,000.............            181.

[[Page 464]]

 
Oily Waste (226).................  Option 6 (2 MGY)...  191,000............  1.1 million........              0.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Table XII.C-2.--Annual Costs and Economic Impacts of the Proposed PSES Option for Indirect Dischargers by
                                                   Subcategory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Economic
                                                                                                      impacts
                                                                                                     (facility
                                                                         Annualized compliance     closures) of
   Subcategory (number of facilities)        Selected option (flow     costs for selected option     selected
                                                    cutoff)                     ($1996)               option
                                                                                                    (percent of
                                                                                                     regulated
                                                                                                  subcategory *)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals (3,055)..................  Option 2 (1 MGY)..........  1.57 billion..............         24 (1%)
Metal Finishing Job Shops (1,514).......  Option 2..................  178 million...............       128 (10%)
Printed Wiring Boards (621).............  Option 2..................  147 million...............          7 (1%)
Steel Forming and Finishing (110).......  Option 2..................  24 million................          6 (6%)
Oily Waste (226)........................  Option 6 (2 MGY)..........  10 million................         14 (1%) 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Baseline closures will not be regulated and, therefore, are not included when estimating the percentage of
  regulatory closures (% regulatory closures = regulatory closures/all facilities in subcategory excluding
  baseline closures).

D. General Metals Subcategory

1. Need for PSES
    As discussed in Section XII.A, one of the factors that EPA uses to 
determine the need for pretreatment standards is whether the pollutants 
discharged by an industry pass through a POTW. The Agency only applied 
the pass-through analysis to pollutants that it selected for regulation 
under BAT. For the General Metals subcategory, EPA determined that 13 
pollutants pass through; and therefore, EPA is proposing pretreatment 
standards equivalent to BAT for these pollutants.
2. Selected PSES Options
    As discussed in Section XII.B, in the Agency's engineering 
assessment of the best available technology for pretreatment of 
wastewater from the General Metals Subcategory, EPA considered the same 
technology options for PSES as it did for BAT with the additional 
consideration of a flow cutoff. The Agency is proposing BAT Option 2 
with a 1 MGY flow cutoff for PSES. EPA is proposing Option 2 for many 
of the same reasons it selected that option for BPT and BAT (See 
Sections IX.A and XI.A) and provides additional rationale below.
    EPA determined that Option 2 represented the best available 
technology and that Option 2 with a 1 MGY flow cutoff was economically 
achievable and greatly reduced the burden on POTWs. This option results 
in 24 facility closures (less than 1 percent of the indirect 
discharging General Metals subcategory population). See Section XVI.E 
for a discussion on job losses. Additionally, the Agency believes that 
Option 2 represents the ``best available'' technology as it achieves a 
high level of pollutant control, treating all priority pollutants to 
very low levels, often at or near the analytical minimum level. 
Approximately 15 percent of the indirect discharging facilities in the 
General Metals subcategory employ chemical precipitation followed by a 
sedimentation (Option 2) while 1 percent employ microfiltration after 
chemical precipitation (Option 4).
    EPA did evaluate Option 4 with a 1 MGY flow cutoff as a basis for 
establishing PSES. EPA estimates that the economic impact due to the 
additional controls at Option 4 levels would result in 92 facility 
closures (less than 1 percent of the indirect dischargers in this 
subcategory). See Section XVI.E for a discussion on job losses. While 
EPA does not have a bright line for determining what level of impact is 
economically achievable for the industry as a whole, EPA looked for a 
breakpoint that would mitigate adverse economic impacts without greatly 
affecting the toxic pound equivalents being removed under the proposed 
rule. By selecting Option 2 as PSES, EPA was able to reduce facility 
closures by more than two-thirds, while only losing a little over one 
percent of the toxic pound equivalents from control under Option 4. The 
Agency concluded that the additional facility closures associated with 
Option 4 do not justify the insignificant additional pollutant removals 
achieved for indirect dischargers in this subcategory.
    Considering the large number of indirect dischargers in the General 
Metals subcategory which have the potential to be covered by this 
proposed regulation, an important issue to the affected industry and to 
permit writers is the potentially enormous administrative burden 
associated with issuing permits or other control mechanisms for all of 
these facilities. Therefore, in developing this proposal, EPA has 
looked for means of reducing the administrative burden, reducing 
monitoring requirements, and reducing reporting requirements. In order 
to meet this end, the Agency is proposing a 1 million gallon per year 
(MGY) flow cutoff for the General Metals subcategory. Under this 
proposed option, facilities in the General Metals subcategory that 
discharge greater than 1 MGY of MP&M process wastewater would be 
subject to the proposed categorical pretreatment standards. Facilities 
in the General Metals subcategory that discharge 1 MGY or less would 
not be subject to MP&M PSES requirements. However, some of the 
facilities in this subcategory discharging under 1 MGY are currently 
covered by 40 CFR part 433, Metal Finishing PSES or PSNS, and these 
indirect dischargers would remain subject to those pretreatment 
standards and the general pretreatment standards at 40 CFR part 403.
    The Agency determined that the 1 MGY flow cutoff was appropriate 
for the

[[Page 465]]

General Metals subcategory based on several factors. First, and the 
most important factor, was the overall size of the General Metals 
subcategory. EPA estimates that there are over 26,000 indirect 
discharging facilities in the General Metals subcategory, of which 74 
percent are not currently regulated by nationally established effluent 
guidelines. Establishing an MP&M pretreatment standard for all 26,000 
facilities would greatly increase the number of permits or other 
control mechanisms for which local authorities are responsible. (EPA 
estimates that there are approximately 30,000 control mechanisms 
today.) EPA concluded that this increased permit burden was not 
reasonable and therefore explored potential flow cutoffs as a way to 
reduce the impact on POTW permitting authorities.
    Second, EPA is proposing the 1 MGY flow cutoff for this subcategory 
based in part on the small number of pound-equivalents that would be 
removed by facilities with annual wastewater flows less than or equal 
to 1 MGY. EPA determined that 89 percent of the indirect discharging 
facilities in the General Metals subcategory discharge less than or 
equal to 1 MGY, yet these facilities are responsible for less than 6 
percent of the total pound-equivalents currently discharged. If the 
Agency proposed pretreatment standards for facilities in the General 
Metals subcategory that discharged less than or equal to 1 MGY, it 
estimates average removals of only 22 pound-equivalents per facility 
per year for those facilities. EPA recently decided not to promulgate 
pretreatment standards for two industrial categories, Industrial 
Laundries (64 FR 45072) and Landfills (65 FR 3008), based on low 
removals of toxic pound equivalents by facilities in those categories. 
In the industrial laundries rule, EPA decided not to promulgate 
pretreatment standards based on 32 toxic pound equivalents per facility 
per year, and in the landfills effluent guidelines, EPA decided not to 
promulgate pretreatment standards for non-hazardous landfills based on 
the removal of only 14 toxic pound equivalents per facility per year. 
In both instances, the Agency considered that the small additional 
removals that would be achieved through regulation did not warrant 
adoption of national categorical standards.
    The Agency concluded that regulation of facilities discharging only 
22 pound-equivalents per year was not justified by the additional 
permitting burden associated with these facilities. Although this 
decision is based upon a subset of small facilities, and not an entire 
subcategory as was done before, EPA believes this approach would allow 
Control Authorities to focus their efforts on the facilities 
discharging the vast majority of the pollutants, rather than 
dissipating their limited resources on sites contributing much less to 
the overall problem. EPA acknowledges that this may create an economic 
advantage for the smaller facilities, and solicits comment on this 
exclusion.
    EPA also closely evaluated Option 2 with a 2 MGY flow cutoff for 
the General Metals subcategory. The Agency is not proposing this option 
because it does not reduce the number of facility closures (24) or 
further reduce the burden on control authorities in a significant way, 
and there is a significant number of pound equivalents associated with 
facilities discharging between 1 and 2 MGY. EPA determined that only 3 
percent more of the facilities in this subcategory discharge between 1 
and 2 MGY. This small number of facilities accounts for an additional 
13 percent of the annual pollutant discharge load (in pound-
equivalents). If EPA proposed Option 2 with a 2 MGY flow cutoff, the 
economic impacts would not be reduced. Based on these considerations, 
EPA is not proposing the 2 MGY flow cutoff for the General Metals 
subcategory. EPA concluded that the 1 MGY flow cutoff was the most 
appropriate option in terms of balancing POTW burden reduction with 
pollutant removals and mitigating economic impacts. Table XII.C-1 above 
shows the pounds of pollutants removed by the proposed option, and 
Table XII.C-2 summarizes the costs and economic impacts associated with 
the proposed option. Where these General Metals facilities discharge 
less than or equal to 1 MGY to a POTW, these pretreatment standards 
proposed today do not apply; however, facilities are still subject to 
other applicable pretreatment standards, including those established 
under parts 413 and 433. EPA requests comment on the 1 MGY flow cutoff 
and whether a higher or lower cutoff would be appropriate. EPA also 
requests comment on whether the flow cutoff should be different for 
facilities currently covered under 40 CFR part 413 or part 433 and 
whether or not that would create an unfair economic advantage for those 
facilities (e.g., captive electroplating shops in General Metals 
remaining regulated under 40 CFR part 433 but Metal Finishing Job Shops 
being regulated under the proposed MP&M rule).
3. Calculation of PSES
    Based on the results of the pass-through analysis discussed in 
Section XII.D.1, EPA is proposing pretreatment standards for existing 
sources in the General Metals subcategory equivalent to those 
limitations proposed for BAT for the pollutants listed at Sec. 438.15 
(as provided in the codified regulation that accompanies this 
preamble). EPA determined that all of the pollutants listed in 
Sec. 438.15 (except for Total Sulfide, TOC, and TOP) pass through 
POTWs. EPA is proposing a limitation for total sulfide based on 
potential POTW interference or upset associated with discharges of 
total sulfide from MP&M facilities. EPA is proposing limitations for 
TOC and TOP as part of a compliance alternative for organic pollutant 
discharges. (See Section XXI.C. for a discussion of monitoring 
flexibility.) (See Section XXII.C. for a discussion of monitoring 
flexibility.)
4. Compliance Date
    EPA is proposing to establish a three-year deadline for compliance 
with PSES. Design and construction of systems adequate for compliance 
with PSES will be a substantial undertaking for many MP&M sites.

E. Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory

1. Need for PSES
    As discussed above in Section XII.A., one of the factors that EPA 
uses to determine the need for pretreatment standards is whether the 
pollutants discharged by an industry pass through a POTW. The Agency 
only applies the pass-through analysis to pollutants that it selected 
for regulation under BAT. For the Metal Finishing Job Shops 
subcategory, EPA determined that 12 pollutants pass through; and 
therefore, EPA is proposing pretreatment standards equivalent to BAT 
for these pollutants.
2. Selected PSES Option
    As discussed in Section XII.B, in the Agency's engineering 
assessment of the best available technology for pretreatment of 
wastewater from the Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory, EPA 
considered the same technology options for PSES as it did for BAT with 
the additional consideration of a flow cutoff. The Agency is proposing 
BAT Option 2 for PSES for many of the same reasons it selected that 
option for BPT and BAT (See Section IX.B and XI.B) and provides 
additional rationale below. EPA is proposing that pretreatment 
standards based on Option 2 be applied to all facilities (i.e., no flow 
exclusion) for the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory.

[[Page 466]]

    The Agency estimates that 1,514 metal finishing job shop facilities 
currently discharge MP&M process wastewater to POTWs. The Agency 
projects that 128 of these facilities (10 percent of the indirect 
discharging facilities when baseline closures are taken into 
consideration) might close as a result of the proposed option (see 
Section XVI.E for a discussion on job losses). EPA concluded that this 
level of impact was economically achievable for the subcategory as a 
whole, but in an effort to minimize the impacts, considered several 
flow exclusions and compliance alternatives.
    The Agency believes that Option 2 represents the ``best available'' 
technology as it achieves a high level of pollutant control, treating 
all priority pollutants to very low levels, often at or near the 
analytical minimum level. Approximately 55 percent of the indirect 
discharging facilities in the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory 
employ chemical precipitation followed by sedimentation (Option 2) 
while less than 1 percent employ microfiltration after chemical 
precipitation (Option 4).
    EPA did evaluate Option 4 as a basis for establishing PSES. EPA 
estimates that the economic impact due to the additional controls at 
Option 4 levels would result in 393 facility closures (32 percent of 
the indirect discharging facilities in this subcategory). (See Section 
XVI.E for a discussion on job losses). Thus, EPA rejected Option 4 as 
not economically achievable.
    The Agency evaluated Option 2 with several levels of flow cutoffs, 
compliance options, and various combinations of the two. EPA analyzed 
the cutoffs and alternative compliance options in terms of reduction in 
economic impacts and quantity of toxic pound-equivalents discharged to 
the environment. EPA did not consider the reduction in POTW burden for 
this subcategory, unlike the General Metals subcategory, because EPA 
has already established PSES for all of the facilities in this 
subcategory under 40 CFR part 413 and 40 CFR part 433, and local 
control authorities would not have to develop entirely new permits (or 
other control mechanisms) for these facilities.
    With respect to alternatives, first, EPA analyzed a 1 MGY flow 
cutoff, which would exclude 831 of the 1,514 estimated metal finishing 
job shop facilities (or 457 of the 1,231 facilities after baseline 
closures are removed from the analysis), and would reduce the economic 
impacts for 23 of the 128 facilities EPA projected would close under 
Option 2. This represents less than 2 percent of the 1,231 metal 
finishing jobs that operate in the baseline and 18 percent of the 
projected facility closures under Option 2. This means that there are 
still 105 of the 128 facilities that EPA predicts to close with a 1 MGY 
flow cutoff. Further, EPA determined that the proposed regulation would 
control an average of 135 pound-equivalents per year from facilities 
discharging less than 1 MGY. This is higher than the level at which EPA 
has previously determined that discharges are not significant enough to 
warrant national regulation. Facilities discharging less than 1 MGY are 
associated with removals under the proposed option of about 61,000 
pound-equivalents (or about 3 percent of the removals associated with 
the proposed option) at an incremental cost-effectiveness of about $300 
per pound-equivalent ($1981). This is higher than has generally been 
associated with pretreatment standards in the past, though not 
necessarily higher than has been associated with the smaller facilities 
regulated with pretreatment standards in the past. This is to be 
expected since smaller facilities incur the same level of costs for 
monitoring as larger facilities and are sometimes forced to purchase 
larger capacity treatment units than they would need due to 
availability. Nonetheless, the Agency concluded that the pollutant 
reductions associated with Option 2 were feasible and achievable and 
the economic impacts were not substantially mitigated under the 1 MGY 
flow cutoff, so a 1 MGY flow cutoff is not being proposed for the Metal 
Finishing Job Shops subcategory. EPA requests comment on the use of a 
flow cutoff for this subcategory.
    Second, EPA considered an option with (a) MP&M pretreatment 
standards for facilities discharging greater than 1 MGY and (b) a 
pollution prevention alternative for those discharging less than 1 MGY. 
Under this option, EPA would exclude from the MP&M numeric pretreatment 
standards based on Option 2 those metal finishing job shops discharging 
less than 1 MGY that choose to perform the pollution prevention and 
water conservation activities discussed in Section XXI.D (referred to 
as the ``P2 alternative''). EPA would require the low flow facilities 
to continue to meet the pretreatment standards codified at 40 CFR part 
433, which remain unchanged by today's proposal. All facilities 
discharging greater than 1 MGY (and those facilities discharging less 
than 1 MGY but not choosing the P2 alternative) would be subject to the 
MP&M pretreatment standards for this subcategory. In analyzing this 
option, EPA assumed that all facilities discharging less than 1 MGY 
chose the P2 alternative. EPA's analysis shows that this option would 
reduce the facility closures for 23 of the 128 facilities EPA projected 
would close under Option 2 (no flow cutoff). As with the 1 MGY flow 
cutoff approach discussed above, this represents less than 2 percent of 
the 1,231 metal finishing jobs that operate in the baseline and about 
18% of the closures projected by the proposed option. Further, although 
the P2 alternative would be somewhat effective in reducing toxic 
discharges, the option is not as protective as the numeric pretreatment 
standards based on Option 2. For facilities discharging less than 1 
MGY, EPA estimates that the P2 alternative would control 59 pound-
equivalents per facility per year (compared to 135 pound-equivalents 
per facility at Option 2). Thus, EPA is not proposing the option of a 1 
MGY flow cutoff combined with a P2 alternative for today's proposal. 
EPA solicits comment and data on the pollutant reductions that can be 
achieved using the practices outlined in Section XXI.D.
    Third, EPA analyzed a 2 MGY flow cutoff, which would exclude 1,024 
facilities (66 percent) from MP&M pretreatment standards. Excluding a 
larger number of facilities (compared to the 1 MGY cutoff option) 
resulted in a smaller number of facility closures. For this option, EPA 
predicts that 59 facilities (approximately 5 percent of the indirect 
discharging facilities) might close. EPA estimates that the facilities 
discharging less than 2 MGY represent less than 12 percent of the total 
pound-equivalents currently discharged by facilities in this 
subcategory. For facilities discharging less than 2 MGY, EPA estimates 
that pretreatment standards would remove an average of 189 pound-
equivalents per facility per year. While a 2 MGY flow cutoff reduced 
the number of facility closures, EPA concluded that the pollutant 
reductions associated with Option 2 were feasible and achievable and is 
not proposing a 2 MGY flow cutoff. EPA requests comment on the 2 MGY 
flow cutoff for this subcategory.
    Fourth, EPA analyzed the 2 MGY flow cutoff with the pollution 
prevention alternative for those facilities below the cutoff. Under 
this option, EPA would exclude from the MP&M numeric pretreatment 
standards based on Option 2 those metal finishing job shops discharging 
less than 2 MGY that choose to perform the pollution prevention and 
water conservation activities discussed in Section XXI.D (i.e. the P2 
alternative). EPA would require the low flow facilities to continue to 
meet the

[[Page 467]]

pretreatment standards codified at 40 CFR part 433, which remain 
unchanged by today's proposal. All facilities discharging greater than 
2 MGY (and those facilities discharging less than 2 MGY but not 
choosing the P2 alternative) would be subject to the MP&M pretreatment 
standards for this subcategory. In analyzing this option, EPA assumed 
that all facilities discharging less than 2 MGY chose the P2 
alternative. EPA's analysis shows that this option may not reduce the 
number of facility closures any further than a 1 MGY flow cutoff (or 1 
MGY P2 Alternative). The model facilities representing the facilities 
that close with flows of 2 MGY or less would require annualized costs 
to be reduced at least 68 percent in order to avoid closure. Since 
there are some compliance costs associated with implementing the 
practices of the P2 alternative, EPA estimates that these may close 
under the P2 Alternative. See Section XVI.E for a discussion on job 
losses. Although the P2 alternative reduces the number of facility 
closures as compared to an option with no flow cutoff, the option is 
not as protective as numeric pretreatment standards based on Option 2. 
For facilities discharging less than 2 MGY, EPA estimates that the P2 
alternative would control an average of 67 pound-equivalents per 
facility per year (compared to 189 pound-equivalents per facility at 
Option 2). Thus, EPA is not proposing the option of 2 MGY flow cutoff 
combined with a P2 alternative. EPA solicits comment and data on the 
pollutant reductions that can be achieved using the practices outlined 
in Section XXI.D.
    In summary, for all of the flow cutoff and P2 alternatives that EPA 
considered for this subcategory, the Agency identified no combination 
that would significantly reduce the economic impacts without also 
significantly reducing control of pollutants. At all the flow cutoffs 
and compliance alternatives, EPA concluded that the potential removals 
the Agency would be choosing to forego were above levels which EPA has 
previously determined insufficient to warrant national categorical 
pretreatment standards. Thus, EPA is not proposing a flow cutoff for 
this subcategory. Under the proposed option, all facilities in this 
subcategory would be subject to the pretreatment standards, which would 
reduce pass through of pollutants based on a technology EPA has 
determined to be technologically feasible and economically achievable. 
The Agency is soliciting comment on alternatives that might reduce the 
economic impact and still provide acceptable environmental protection, 
including all of the options discussed above. See Section XXI.D for a 
discussion of the P2 alternative and Section XXIII for solicitation of 
comments on this issue. Table XII.C-1 above shows the pounds of 
pollutants removed by the proposed option, and Table XII.C-2 summarizes 
the costs and economic impacts associated with the proposed option.
3. Calculation of PSES
    Based on the results of the pass-through analysis discussed in 
Section XII.E.1., EPA is proposing pretreatment standards for existing 
sources in the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory equivalent to 
those limitations proposed for BAT for the pollutants listed at 
Sec. 438.25 (as provided in the codified regulation that accompanies 
this preamble). EPA determined that all of the pollutants listed in 
Sec. 438.25 (except for Total Sulfide, TOC, and TOP) pass through 
POTWs. EPA is proposing a limitation for total sulfide based on 
potential POTW interference or upset associated with discharges of 
total sulfide from MP&M facilities. EPA is proposing limitations for 
TOC and TOP as part of a compliance alternative for organic pollutant 
discharges. (See Section XXII.C. for a discussion of monitoring 
flexibility.)
4. Compliance Date
    EPA is proposing to establish a three-year deadline for compliance 
with PSES. Design and construction of systems adequate for compliance 
with PSES will be a substantial undertaking for many MP&M sites.

F. Non-Chromium Anodizing Subcategory

1. Rationale for Not Proposing PSES
    EPA is proposing to not establish PSES for the Non-Chromium 
Anodizing subcategory based on the economic impacts associated with 
Option 2 and the small quantity of toxic pollutants discharged by 
facilities in this subcategory remaining covered at an economically-
achievable flow cutoff. EPA determined that 60 percent of the indirect 
discharging facilities in this subcategory would close as a result of 
complying with Option 2 based standards. Pretreatment standards for 
this subcategory based on either Option 2 or Option 4 would require 
facilities to remove large quantities of aluminum, a metal that is 
beneficial to POTWs because it assists in the flocculation of 
wastewater prior to sedimentation. Aluminum anodizers use a large 
quantity of water in their anodizing processes and produce a wastewater 
that contains mostly aluminum. If the Agency proposed pretreatment 
standards for this subcategory, even without regulating aluminum, the 
standards would require facilities to install very large treatment 
systems (because of their high flow volume) and would result in the 
removal of large quantities of aluminum in order to remove small 
quantities of other metals such as nickel, zinc, and manganese. 
Therefore, EPA determined that the benefits of the aluminum discharge 
to POTWs outweighed the benefits gained from the removal of small 
quantities of other metals. In addition, because EPA has already 
promulgated pretreatment standards for non-chromium anodizers at 40 CFR 
parts 413 and 433, there is already a level of control for the small 
quantities of other metals being discharged along with the aluminum. 
Facilities subject to this subcategory must still comply with 
applicable PSES limitations (either 40 CFR part 413 or 40 CFR part 
433). 40 CFR 438.40(b).

G. Printed Wiring Board Subcategory

1. Need for PSES
    As discussed above in Section XII.A, one of the factors that EPA 
uses to determine the need for pretreatment standards is whether the 
pollutants discharged by an industry pass through a POTW. The Agency 
only applies the pass-through analysis to pollutants that it selected 
for regulation under BAT. For the Printed Wiring Board subcategory, EPA 
determined that 9 pollutants pass through; and therefore, EPA is 
proposing pretreatment standards equivalent to BAT for these 
pollutants.
2. Selected PSES Option
    As discussed in Section XII.B above, in the Agency's engineering 
assessment of the best available technology for pretreatment of 
wastewater from the Printed Wiring Board Subcategory, EPA considered 
the same technology options for PSES as it did for BAT with the 
additional consideration of a flow cutoff exclusion. The Agency is 
proposing Option 2 for PSES for many of the same reasons it selected 
that option for BPT and BAT (See Section IX.D and XI.D) and provides 
additional rationale below. EPA also determined that pretreatment 
standards based on Option 2 for all facilities (i.e., no flow 
exclusion) are appropriate for the Printed Wiring Board subcategory. 
The Agency estimates that 621 printed wiring board facilities currently 
discharge MP&M process wastewater to POTWs. The Agency projects that 7 
of these facilities (1 percent of the current indirect

[[Page 468]]

discharging population) might close as a result of the MP&M regulation 
(see Section XVI.E for a discussion on job losses). EPA concluded that 
this level of impact was economically achievable for the subcategory as 
a whole, but in an effort to minimize the impacts (and or maintain 
existing limitations for facilities where potential removals may not be 
sufficient to warrant national regulation), considered flow exemptions 
and compliance alternatives.
    The Agency believes that Option 2 represents the ``best available'' 
technology as it achieves a high level of pollutant control, treating 
all priority pollutants to very low levels, often at or near the 
analytical minimum level. Approximately 80 percent of the indirect 
discharging facilities in the Printed Wiring Board subcategory employ 
chemical precipitation followed by sedimentation (Option 2) while 2 
percent employ microfiltration after chemical precipitation (Option 4).
    EPA did evaluate Option 4 as a basis for establishing PSES. EPA 
estimates that the economic impact due to the additional controls at 
Option 4 levels would result in 18 more facility closures than Option 2 
(total of 25 closures). EPA itEPA is not proposing to establish PSES 
limitations based on Option 4 because it determined that Option 2 
achieves nearly equivalent reductions in pound-equivalents for much 
less cost. By selecting Option 2 as the basis for PSES, EPA reduced 
annualized compliance costs by $75 million (1996$) while only losing 
0.5 percent of the toxic pound equivalents that would be removed under 
Option 4. The Agency concluded that the additional costs of Option 4 do 
not justify the additional insignificant amount of pollutant removals 
achieved for indirect dischargers in this subcategory. Therefore, EPA 
determined that Option 2 is the ``best available'' technology 
economically achievable for the Printed Wiring Board subcategory.
    Although EPA concluded that the level of economic impact associated 
with Option 2 with no flow cutoff was economically achievable, it 
considered flow exclusions in an effort to minimize the impacts and/or 
maintain existing limitations for facilities where potential removals 
may not be significant enough to warrant national regulations. EPA did 
not consider the reduction in POTW burden for this subcategory, unlike 
the General Metals subcategory, because EPA has already established 
PSES for all of the facilities in this subcategory under 40 CFR parts 
413 and 433, and local control authorities would not have to develop 
entirely new permits (or other control mechanisms) for these 
facilities. EPA analyzed a 1 MGY flow cutoff, which would exclude 85 
facilities, but would not reduce economic impacts. The same 7 
facilities that EPA predicted to close with no flow cutoff are also 
expected to close with a 1 MGY flow cutoff. EPA determined that the 
proposed regulation would remove a total of less than 500 pound 
equivalents from the facilities discharging less than 1 MGY (after 
removing baseline closures from the analysis), or less than 10 pound-
equivalents per facility. The incremental removals beyond current 
regulations is very small for facilities less than 1 MGY, and therefore 
EPA will consider the 1 MGY cutoff at final. However, the Agency 
concluded that the pollutant reductions associated with Option 2 were 
feasible and achievable, the economic impacts were not mitigated at a 1 
MGY flow cutoff for this subcategory, and POTW burden would not be 
reduced with a flow cutoff, and is thus not proposing a 1 MGY flow 
cutoff for this subcategory. The Agency solicits comments on a 1 MGY 
flow cutoff, with the existing regulation applying to facilities under 
1 MGY. EPA also solicits comment on the implementation and market 
consequences of this option. Table XII.C-1 above shows the pounds of 
pollutants removed by the proposed option, and Table XII.C-2 summarizes 
the costs and economic impacts associated with the proposed option.
3. Calculation of PSES
    Based on the results of the pass-through analysis discussed in 
Section XII.G.1., EPA is proposing pretreatment standards for existing 
sources in the Printed Wiring Board subcategory equivalent to those 
limitations proposed for BAT for the pollutants listed at Sec. 438.45 
(as provided in the codified regulation that accompanies this 
preamble). EPA determined that all of the pollutants listed in 
Sec. 438.45 (except for Total Sulfide, TOC, and TOP) pass through 
POTWs. EPA is proposing a limitation for total sulfide based on 
potential POTW interference or upset associated with discharges of 
total sulfide from MP&M facilities. EPA is proposing limitations for 
TOC and TOP as part of a compliance alternative for organic pollutant 
discharges. (See Section XXI.C for a discussion of monitoring 
flexibility.)
4. Compliance Date
    EPA is proposing to establish a three-year deadline for compliance 
with PSES. Design and construction of systems adequate for compliance 
with PSES will be a substantial undertaking for many MP&M sites.

H. Steel Forming and Finishing Subcategory

1. Need for PSES
    As discussed above in Section XII.A, one of the factors that EPA 
uses to determine the need for pretreatment standards is whether the 
pollutants discharged by an industry pass through a POTW. The Agency 
only applies the pass-through analysis to pollutants that it selected 
for regulation under BAT. For the Steel Forming and Finishing 
subcategory, EPA determined that 13 pollutants pass through; and 
therefore, EPA is proposing pretreatment standards equivalent to BAT 
for these pollutants.
2. Selected PSES Option
    As discussed in Section XII.B above, in the Agency's engineering 
assessment of the best available technology for pretreatment of 
wastewater from the Steel Forming and Finishing Subcategory, EPA 
considered the same technology options for PSES as it did for BAT with 
the additional consideration of a flow cutoff exclusion. The Agency is 
proposing Option 2 for PSES for many of the same reasons it selected 
that option for BPT and BAT (See Section IX.E and XI.E) and provides 
additional rationale below. EPA is proposing pretreatment standards 
based on Option 2 for all facilities (i.e., no flow exclusion) for the 
Steel Forming and Finishing subcategory.
    The Agency estimates that 110 steel forming and finishing 
facilities currently discharge MP&M process wastewater to POTWs. The 
Agency projects that 6 of these facilities (6 percent of the current 
indirect discharging population) might close as a result of the MP&M 
regulation (see Section XVI.E for a discussion on job losses). EPA 
concluded that this level of impact was economically achievable for the 
subcategory as a whole, but in an effort to minimize the impacts, 
considered flow exemptions and compliance alternatives.
    The Agency believes that Option 2 represents the ``best available'' 
technology as it achieves a high level of pollutant control, treating 
all priority pollutants to very low levels, often at or near the 
analytical minimum level. Approximately 63 percent of the indirect 
discharging facilities in the Steel Forming and Finishing subcategory 
employ chemical precipitation followed by sedimentation (Option 2) 
while no facilities employ microfiltration after chemical precipitation 
(Option 4).
    EPA did evaluate Option 4 as a basis for establishing PSES. EPA 
estimates

[[Page 469]]

that the economic impact due to the additional controls at Option 4 
levels would result in the same number of facility closures (6) as 
Option 2. Therefore, EPA does consider Option 4 to be economically 
achievable for this subcategory. However, EPA is not proposing to 
establish PSES limitations based on Option 4 because it determined that 
Option 2 achieves nearly equivalent reductions in pound-equivalents for 
much less cost. By selecting Option 2 as the basis for PSES, EPA 
reduced annualized compliance costs by $12 million (1996$) while only 
losing 0.6 percent of the toxic pound equivalents that would be removed 
under Option 4. The Agency concluded that the additional costs of 
Option 4 do not justify the additional insignificant pollutant removals 
achieved for indirect discharging facilities in this subcategory. 
Therefore, EPA determined that Option 2 is the ``best available'' 
technology economically achievable for the Steel Forming and Finishing 
subcategory.
    Although EPA concluded that the level of economic impact associated 
with Option 2 with no flow cutoff was economically achievable, it 
considered flow exclusions in an effort to minimize the impacts. EPA 
did not consider the reduction in POTW burden for this subcategory, 
unlike the General Metals subcategory, because EPA has already 
established PSES for all of the facilities in this subcategory under 40 
CFR 420, and local control authorities would not have to develop 
entirely new permits (or other control mechanisms) for these 
facilities. However, to mitigate economic impacts (and or maintain 
existing limitations for facilities where potential removals may not be 
sufficient to warrant national regulation), EPA analyzed a 1 MGY flow 
cutoff, which would exclude 21 facilities (after accounting for 
baseline closures), and a 2 MGY flow cutoff which would exclude 30 
facilities. Neither a 1 MGY flow cutoff nor a 2 MGY flow cutoff would 
reduce economic impacts. The same 6 facilities that EPA predicted to 
close with no flow cutoff are also expected to close with either a 1 or 
2 MGY flow cutoff. However, a 1 MGY flow cutoff would eliminate less 
than 100 total pound-equivalents that would be removed under the 
proposed option, or less than 5 pound-equivalents per excluded 
facility, while a 2 MGY flow cutoff would eliminate less than 200 
pound-equivalents total, or less than 7 pound-equivalents per excluded 
facility. These incremental removals beyond current regulations are 
very small, and therefore EPA will consider the 1 and 2 MGY cutoffs as 
final. Although a 3 MGY flow cutoff would reduce projected economic 
impacts by half (3 projected closures instead of 6), it would eliminate 
2,157 pound-equivalent removals, or about 58 pound-equivalents per 
facility. These incremental removals are nearly twice the removals (on 
a per facility basis) than would have been realized by regulating 
industrial laundry and landfill facilities. Because EPA has concluded 
that the proposed option is feasible and achievable, and POTW burden 
would not be reduced with a flow cutoff, EPA is not proposing a flow 
cutoff for the Steel Forming and Finishing subcategory. However, EPA 
solicits comment on flow cutoffs at the 1, 2, and 3 MGY levels. Under 
these scenarios, existing regulations in 40 CFR part 420 would continue 
to apply to the excluded facilities. Unlike the facilities in the Metal 
Finishing Job Shops or Printed Wiring Board subcategories, the 
facilities in the MP&M Steel Forming & Finishing subcategory are 
covered in their current regulations as parts of several subcategories, 
thus creating problems for control authorities in implementing the 
appropriate requirements. EPA solicits comment on implementation and 
market consequences of these options. Table XII.C-1 above shows the 
pounds of pollutants removed by the proposed option, and Table XII.C-2 
summarizes the costs and economic impacts associated with the proposed 
option.
3. Calculation of PSES
    Based on the results of the pass-through analysis discussed in 
Section XII.H.1., EPA is proposing pretreatment standards for existing 
sources in the Steel Forming and Finishing subcategory equivalent to 
those limitations proposed for BAT for the pollutants listed at 
Sec. 438.55 (as provided in the codified regulation that accompanies 
this preamble). EPA determined that all of the pollutants listed in 
Sec. 438.55 (except for Total Sulfide, TOC, and TOP) pass through 
POTWs. EPA is proposing a limitation for total sulfide based on 
potential POTW interference or upset associated with discharges of 
total sulfide from MP&M facilities. EPA is proposing limitations for 
TOC and TOP as part of a compliance alternative for organic pollutant 
discharges. (See Section XXI.C for a discussion of monitoring 
flexibility.)
4. Compliance Date
    EPA is proposing to establish a three-year deadline for compliance 
with PSES. Design and construction of systems adequate for compliance 
with PSES will be a substantial undertaking for many MP&M sites.

I. Oily Wastes Subcategory

1. Need for PSES
    As discussed in Section XII.A, two of the factors that EPA uses to 
determine the need for pretreatment standards is whether the pollutants 
discharged by an industry pass through or interfere with a POTW. For 
the Oily Wastes subcategory, EPA is proposing pretreatment standards 
equivalent to BAT for the following three pollutants or pollutant 
parameters: TOC, TOP and total sulfide.
2. Selected PSES Option
    As discussed in Section XII.B, in the Agency's engineering 
assessment of the best available technology for pretreatment of 
wastewater from the Oily Wastes Subcategory, EPA considered the same 
technology options for PSES as it did for BAT with the additional 
consideration of a flow cutoff exclusion. The Agency is proposing BAT 
Option 6 with a 2 MGY flow cutoff for PSES. The Agency is proposing 
Option 6 for PSES for many of the same reasons it selected that option 
for BPT and BAT (See Section IX.F and XI.F) and provides additional 
rationale below. EPA is proposing the 2 MGY flow cutoff primarily to 
reduce the burden on POTWs, and solicits comment on a 3 MGY cutoff as a 
possible alternative to further reduce impacts.
    EPA determined that Option 6 represented the best available 
technology and that Option 6 with a 2 MGY flow cutoff was economically 
achievable and greatly reduced the burden on POTWs. This option results 
in 14 facility closures (less than 1 percent of the indirect 
discharging Oily Wastes subcategory population). See Section XVI.E for 
a discussion on job losses. Additionally, the Agency believes that 
Option 6 represents the ``best available'' technology as it achieves a 
high level of pollutant control, treating all priority pollutants to 
very low levels, often at or near the analytical minimum level. 
According to EPA's detailed questionnaires, approximately 44 percent of 
the indirect discharging facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory 
employ oil-water separation by chemical emulsion breaking followed by 
gravity separation and oil skimming (Option 6) while no facilities 
employ ultrafiltration (Option 8).
    EPA did evaluate BPT Option 8 with a 2 MGY flow cutoff as a basis 
for establishing PSES more stringent than the level of control being 
proposed

[[Page 470]]

today. EPA estimates that the economic impact due to the additional 
controls at Option 8 levels would result in the same number of facility 
closures (14) as Option 6. Therefore, EPA does consider Option 8 to be 
economically achievable for this subcategory. However, based on the 
available data base, EPA is not proposing to establish PSES limitations 
based on Option 8 because it removes fewer pound-equivalents than 
Option 6. Therefore, the Agency determined that Option 6 is the ``best 
available'' technology economically achievable for the removal of 
priority pollutants from wastewater generated at Oily Wastes 
subcategory facilities.
    Considering the large number of indirect dischargers which have the 
potential to be covered by this proposed regulation, an important issue 
to the affected industry and to permit writers is the potentially 
enormous administrative burden associated with issuing permits or other 
control mechanisms for all these facilities. Therefore, in developing 
this proposal, EPA has looked for means of reducing the administrative 
burden, reducing monitoring requirements, and reducing reporting 
requirements. In order to meet this end, the Agency is proposing a 2 
MGY flow cutoff for the Oily Wastes subcategory. Under this proposed 
option, facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory that discharge 
greater than 2 MGY per year of MP&M process wastewater would be subject 
to the proposed pretreatment standards. However, those facilities in 
the Oily Wastes subcategory that discharge 2 MGY or less would not be 
subject to MP&M PSES requirements. These facilities would, however, 
remain subject to the existing general pretreatment standards at 40 CFR 
Part 403.
    The Agency is proposing the 2 MGY flow cutoff exclusion for the 
Oily Wastes subcategory based on several factors. First, and the most 
important factor, was the overall size of the Oily Wastes subcategory. 
EPA estimates that there are approximately 28,500 indirect discharging 
facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory, of which over 99 percent are 
not currently regulated by categorical pretreatment standards. 
Establishing an MP&M pretreatment standard for all 28,500 facilities 
would nearly double the number of permits that local authorities are 
currently responsible for. EPA concluded that this increased permit 
burden was not reasonable given the projected loadings reductions and 
therefore explored potential flow cutoffs as a way to reduce the impact 
on POTW permitting authorities.
    Second, EPA is proposing the 2 MGY flow cutoff for this subcategory 
based in part on the small number of pound-equivalents that would be 
removed by facilities with annual wastewater flows less than or equal 
to 2 MGY. EPA determined that after removing facilities that close in 
the baseline (``baseline closures'') from the analysis, over 99 percent 
of the indirect discharging facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory 
discharge less than or equal to 2 MGY. EPA estimates average removals 
of only 2 pound-equivalents per facility per year for these facilities.
    In addition, EPA determined that for those facilities in this 
subcategory that discharge between 1 and 2 MGY the MP&M regulation 
would remove an average of 31 pound-equivalents per year per facility. 
These reductions, as discussed previously, are lower than those 
projected for industrial laundries and landfills, for which EPA 
determined national regulation was not warranted. The Agency concluded 
that regulation of facilities discharging only 2 pound-equivalents per 
year (with those discharging between 1 and 2 MGY at 31 pound-
equivalents per year) was not justified by the additional permitting 
burden associated with these facilities. EPA believes this approach 
would allow Control Authorities to focus their efforts on the 
facilities discharging the vast majority of the pollutants, rather than 
dissipating their limited resources on sites contributing much less to 
the overall problem. EPA does note, however, that the indirect 
discharging facilities that discharge less than or equal to 2 MGY are 
responsible for an estimated 78 percent of the total pound-equivalents 
currently discharged (approximately 51,000 of the 65,000 pound-
equivalents discharged after removing baseline closures from the 
analysis).
    EPA also closely evaluated Option 6 with a 3 MGY flow cutoff for 
the Oily Waste subcategory. Based on EPA's data collection efforts, 
after removing facilities that close in the baseline (``baseline 
closures'') from the analysis, over 99 percent of the indirect 
discharging facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory discharge less 
than or equal to 3 MGY. The Agency determined that after removing 
baseline closures from the analysis there are approximately 64 indirect 
discharge facilities in this subcategory between 2 and 3 MGY and that 
they discharge an average of 24 pound-equivalents per year per 
facility. If EPA proposed Option 2 with a 3 MGY flow cutoff, the 
economic impacts would decrease slightly (12 facility closures rather 
than 14 at the proposed option). The Agency concluded that the 3 MGY 
flow cutoff was not necessary to reduce POTW burden for the Oily Wastes 
subcategory although it would reduce the economic impact somewhat. EPA 
solicits comment on a 3 MGY cutoff, but notes that these approximately 
28,160 facilities are responsible for an estimated 81 percent of the 
total pound-equivalents currently discharged (approximately 52,500 of 
the 65,000 pound-equivalents discharged after removing baseline 
closures from the analysis).
    Therefore, EPA is proposing the 2 MGY flow cutoff but is also 
seriously considering a 3 MGY cutoff. EPA believes this approach would 
allow Control Authorities to focus their efforts on the facilities 
discharging the vast majority of the pollutants, rather than 
dissipating their limited resources on sites contributing much less to 
the overall problem. Table XII.C-1 above shows the pounds of pollutants 
removed by the proposed option, and Table XII.C-2 summarizes the costs 
and economic impacts associated with the proposed option (both tables 
include facilities that close in the baseline). EPA's methodology for 
identifying baseline closures is discussed in Section XVI.
3. Calculation of PSES
    Based on the results of the pass-through analysis discussed in 
Section XII.I.1., EPA is proposing pretreatment standards for existing 
sources in the Oily Wastes subcategory equivalent to those limitations 
proposed for BAT for the pollutants listed at Sec. 438.65 (as provided 
in the codified regulation that accompanies this preamble). EPA is 
proposing a pretreatment standard for total sulfide based on potential 
POTW interference or upset associated with discharges of total sulfide 
from MP&M facilities. EPA is proposing pretreatment standards for TOC 
and TOP as part of a compliance alternative for organic pollutant 
discharges. (See Section XXI.C for a discussion of monitoring 
flexibility.)
4. Compliance Date
    EPA is proposing to establish a three-year deadline for compliance 
with PSES. Design and construction of systems adequate for compliance 
with PSES will be a substantial undertaking for many MP&M sites.

J. Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory

1. Rationale for Not Proposing PSES
    EPA is proposing to not establish PSES for the Railroad Line 
Maintenance subcategory based on the small quantity

[[Page 471]]

of toxic pollutants discharged by facilities in this subcategory. The 
Agency estimates that there are 799 indirect discharging railroad line 
maintenance facilities that currently discharge 1,800 pound-equivalents 
per year to our nation's waters (taking into account removals at the 
POTW), or just over 2 pound-equivalents per facility per year. Based on 
this analysis, EPA preliminarily concluded that there is no need to 
develop nationally applicable regulations for this subcategory due to 
the low levels of pollutants discharged by facilities in this 
subcategory.

K. Shipbuilding Dry Dock Subcategory

1. Rationale for Not Proposing PSES
    EPA is proposing to not establish PSES for the Shipbuilding Dry 
Dock subcategory based on the small number of facilities in this 
subcategory and on the small quantity of toxic pollutants removed by 
the technology options evaluated by EPA for this proposal. The Agency 
estimates that there are 6 indirect discharging facilities that have 
one or more dry docks that currently discharge 852 pound-equivalents 
per year to our nation's waters (taking into account removals at the 
POTW). On a national basis, Option 8 (ultrafiltration + P2) removed 
less than 1 pound-equivalent per year while Option 10 (DAF plus P2) 
only removed 26 pound-equivalents per year (or less than 5 pound-
equivalents removed per facility per year). The Agency estimates that 
all of these facilities currently have DAF treatment in place. EPA 
determined that nationally-applicable regulations are unnecessary at 
this time because of the small number of facilities in this subcategory 
and based on the small amount of toxic pounds removed by the technology 
options evaluated by the Agency. The Agency believes that pretreatment 
local limits implemented on a case-by-case basis can more appropriately 
address any individual toxic parameters present at these six 
facilities.

XIII. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and Pretreatment 
Standards for New Sources (PSNS)

    Section 307(c) of the Act calls for EPA to promulgate pretreatment 
standards for new sources (PSNS) at the same time that it promulgates 
new source performance standards (NSPS). New facilities have the 
opportunity to incorporate the best available demonstrated technologies 
including process changes, in-plant controls, and end-of-pipe treatment 
technologies.
    The same technologies discussed previously for BAT and PSES are 
available as the basis for NSPS and PSNS. Since new sites have the 
potential to install pollution prevention and pollution control 
technologies more cost effectively then existing sources, EPA strongly 
considered the more advanced treatment options for NSPS and PSNS. The 
Agency discusses its analysis of these more stringent options for NSPS 
and PSNS on a subcategory-by-subcategory basis below.

A. NSPS for the General Metals Subcategory

1. Need for NSPS
    EPA expects that new facilities in the General Metals subcategory 
will discharge similar quantities of the same pollutants that existing 
sources discharge. Therefore, the need for NSPS regulation is the same 
as the need for BPT regulation. (See Section IX.A.1).
2. Selected NSPS Option
    EPA is proposing New Source Performance Standards for this 
subcategory based on BAT Option 4. The Agency determined that Option 4 
is the best available demonstrated technology for the removal of 
pollutants in this subcategory. EPA's analytical data shows that Option 
4 is capable of achieving much lower long-term averages than Option 2 
for several of the metal pollutants of concern. In addition, EPA's data 
shows that microfiltration greatly reduces the variability in the 
concentration of the metal pollutants in the treatment effluent. 
Although Option 4 costs $54,500 (1996$) more than Option 2 annually for 
a new facility with a wastewater flow of 1.1 MGY (the wastewater flow 
for a representative direct discharging facility in the General Metals 
subcategory), EPA is proposing Option 4 because of the lower levels of 
metal pollutants in the wastewater effluent. EPA noted in the 
discussion of its consideration of this technology for BPT/BAT that it 
is not being proposed for BPT because the additional removals, while 
large when considered across the entire population of existing 
facilities, were not significant on a per facility basis, and because 
of concerns with potential increased loadings (relative to Option 2) of 
COD and organic pollutants. EPA requests comment on basing NSPS on 
Option 2 for the same reasons it is proposing to base BPT/BAT on Option 
2.
    The Agency also strongly considered proposing NSPS based on 
ultrafiltration for oil and grease removal and chemical precipitation 
followed by sedimentation for TSS and metals removal. This option is 
equivalent to BAT Option 2 with the oil/water separator replaced by an 
ultrafilter. The Agency is soliciting comment and data on this NSPS 
option for the final rule.
3. Calculation of NSPS Limitations
    The Agency is proposing NSPS limitations for all of the pollutants 
that it proposed BPT and BAT limitations for in this subcategory. The 
NSPS limitations for this subcategory can be found in the proposed rule 
(which accompanies this preamble) at Sec. 438.16. (See Section XXI.C. 
for a discussion of monitoring flexibility.) EPA based these proposed 
regulations on EPA sampling episodes at four facilities that employed 
Option 4 technologies. Three of the four facilities are General Metals 
facilities while the fourth is a printed wiring board manufacturer. The 
Agency used the same statistical methods for determining the effluent 
limitations for NSPS as it described in Section VIII. Because of the 
limited number of facilities that EPA has analytical sampling data on 
for Option 4, the Agency is soliciting comment and data on Option 4 
technologies. Specifically, the Agency is interested in wastewater 
treatment data from MP&M facilities employing Option 4 technologies 
(ultrafiltration for oil and grease removal and microfiltration 
following chemical precipitation for removal of TSS and metals). See 
Section XXIII ``Solicitation of Comments.''
4. NSPS Analysis
    The Agency also performed an economic analysis in order to 
determine if Option 4 presented a barrier to entry for new facilities 
in the General Metals subcategory. EPA determined that the cost of 
compliance with NSPS based on Option 4 would make up only 0.04 percent 
of a new facility's projected revenues. Therefore, EPA concluded that 
NSPS based on Option 4 would not create a barrier to entry.

B. PSNS for the General Metals Subcategory

1. Need for PSNS
    EPA expects that new facilities in the General Metals subcategory 
will discharge similar quantities of the same pollutants that existing 
sources discharge. Therefore, the need for PSNS regulation is the same 
as the need for PSES regulation. (See Section XII.D.1).
2. Selected PSNS Option
    EPA is proposing Pretreatment Standards for New Sources for this 
subcategory based on BAT Option 4 for the same reasons it is proposing 
this option for NSPS. EPA is also requesting comment on basing PSNS on 
Option 2, as with NSPS. In addition, EPA is

[[Page 472]]

proposing a 1 MGY flow cutoff exclusion for PSNS. This is the same flow 
cutoff level that EPA is proposing for PSES for the existing indirect 
discharging facilities in the General Metals subcategory. The Agency 
concluded that a 1 MGY flow cutoff is appropriate for new indirect 
discharging facilities in the General Metals subcategory based on the 
potential POTW permitting burden that would be associated with 
developing and then maintaining permits for new sources with low flows 
and the likelihood that these facilities discharge a small amount of 
pound-equivalents at these low flow rates. The Agency assumes that the 
pound-equivalents removed per facility for new facilities with flows 
below or equal to 1 MGY would be even lower than the 22 pound-
equivalents per facility for similarly sized existing sources in this 
subcategory. The Agency concluded that a similar (or even smaller) 
amount of pollutant removal is not significant and does not justify 
regulation of these facilities by a national categorical regulation. 
EPA solicits comment on whether it is appropriate to exclude new 
sources that discharge process wastewater equal to 1 million gallons or 
less for the reasons described above.
    The Agency also strongly considered proposing PSNS based on 
ultrafiltration for oil and grease removal and chemical precipitation 
followed by sedimentation for TSS and metals removal. This option is 
equivalent to BAT Option 2 with the oil/water separator replaced by an 
ultrafilter. The Agency is soliciting comment and data on this PSNS 
option for the final rule.
3. Calculation of PSNS Limitations
    The Agency is proposing PSNS limitations for the same pollutants 
that it proposed PSES regulations. The PSNS limitations for this 
subcategory can be found in the proposed rule (which accompanies this 
preamble) at Sec. 438.17. EPA determined that all of the pollutants 
listed in Sec. 438.17 (except for Total Sulfide, TOC, and TOP) pass 
through POTWs. EPA is proposing a limitation for total sulfide based on 
potential POTW interference or upset associated with discharges of 
total sulfide from MP&M facilities. EPA is proposing limitations for 
TOC and TOP as part of a compliance alternative for organic pollutant 
discharges. (See Section XXI.C. for a discussion of monitoring 
flexibility.) The Agency based these proposed limitations on the same 
four EPA sampling episodes that EPA discussed in Section XIII.A.3.
4. PSNS Analysis
    Like NSPS, the Agency determined that the cost of compliance with 
PSNS based on Option 4 would make up only 0.09 percent of a new 
facility's projected revenues and concluded that this would not create 
a barrier to entry.

C. NSPS for the Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory

1. Need for NSPS
    EPA expects that new facilities in the Metal Finishing Job Shops 
subcategory will discharge similar quantities of the same pollutants 
that existing sources discharge. Therefore, the need for NSPS 
regulation is the same as the need for BPT regulation. (See Section 
IX.B.1).
2. Selected NSPS Option
    EPA is proposing New Source Performance Standards for this 
subcategory based on BAT Option 4. The Agency determined that Option 4 
is the best available demonstrated technology for the removal of 
pollutants in this subcategory. EPA's analytical data shows that Option 
4 is capable of achieving much lower long term averages than Option 2 
for several of the metal pollutants of concern. In addition, EPA's data 
shows that microfiltration greatly reduces the variability in the 
concentration of the metal pollutants in the treatment effluent. 
Although Option 4 costs $72,500 (1996$) more than Option 2 annually for 
a new facility with a wastewater flow of 6.0 MGY (the wastewater flow 
for a representative direct discharging facility in the Metal Finishing 
Job Shops), EPA is proposing Option 4 because of the lower levels of 
metal pollutants in the treated wastewater effluent. EPA is not 
proposing Option 4 for BPT for this subcategory because of the lack of 
significant overall pollutant removals achieved, and the fact that it 
removes less COD, O&G, and organic pollutants. EPA requests comment on 
using Option 2 as the basis for NSPS.
    The Agency also strongly considered proposing NSPS based on 
ultrafiltration for oil and grease removal and chemical precipitation 
followed by sedimentation for TSS and metals removal. This option is 
equivalent to BAT Option 2 with the oil/water separator replaced by an 
ultrafilter. The Agency is soliciting comment and data on this NSPS 
option for the final rule.
3. Calculation of NSPS Limitations
    The Agency is proposing NSPS limitations for all of the pollutants 
that it proposed BPT and BAT limitations for in this subcategory. The 
NSPS limitations for this subcategory can be found in the proposed rule 
(which accompanies this preamble) at Sec. 438.26. (See Section XXI.C 
for a discussion of monitoring flexibility.) EPA based these proposed 
regulations on the same four EPA sampling episodes that it used to 
calculate NSPS for the General Metals subcategory. See Section XIII.A.
4. NSPS Analysis
    The Agency also performed an economic analysis in order to 
determine if Option 4 presented a barrier to entry for new facilities 
in the Metal Finishing subcategory. EPA determined that the cost of 
compliance with NSPS based on Option 4 would make up only 1.41 percent 
of a new facility's projected revenues. Therefore, EPA concluded that 
NSPS based on Option 4 would not create a barrier to entry.

D. PSNS for the Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory

1. Need for PSNS
    EPA expects that new facilities in the Metal Finishing Job Shops 
subcategory will discharge similar quantities of the same pollutants 
that existing sources discharge. Therefore, the need for PSNS 
regulation is the same as the need for PSES regulation. (See Section 
XII.E.1).
2. Selected PSNS Option
    EPA is proposing Pretreatment Standards for New Sources for this 
subcategory based on BAT Option 4 for the same reasons it is proposing 
this option for NSPS. EPA is also requesting comment on PSNS limits 
based on Option 2. In addition, EPA is not proposing a flow cutoff 
exclusion for PSNS for this subcategory for the same reasons that it 
did not propose a flow cutoff for PSES, but is requesting comment on 
flow cutoffs of 1 and 2 MGY, as with PSES. (See Section XII.E.)
    The Agency also strongly considered proposing PSNS based on 
ultrafiltration for oil and grease removal and chemical precipitation 
followed by sedimentation for TSS and metals removal. This option is 
equivalent to BAT Option 2 with the oil/water separator replaced by an 
ultrafilter. The Agency is soliciting comment and data on this PSNS 
option for the final rule.
3. Calculation of PSNS Limitations
    The Agency is proposing PSNS limitations for the same pollutants 
that it proposed PSES regulations. The PSNS limitations for this 
subcategory can be found in the proposed rule (which accompanies this 
preamble) at Sec. 438.27. EPA determined that all of the pollutants 
listed in Sec. 438.27 (except for Total Sulfide, TOC, and TOP) pass 
through POTWs. EPA is proposing a

[[Page 473]]

limitation for total sulfide based on potential POTW interference or 
upset associated with discharges of total sulfide from facilities in 
this subcategory. EPA is proposing limitations for TOC and TOP as part 
of a compliance alternative for organic pollutant discharges. (See 
Section XXI.C for a discussion of monitoring flexibility.) The Agency 
based these proposed limitations on the same four EPA sampling episodes 
that EPA discussed in Section XIII.A.3.
4. PSNS Analysis
    Like NSPS, the Agency determined that the cost of compliance with 
PSNS based on Option 4 would make up 4.64 percent of a new facility's 
projected revenues and expects that this would not create a barrier to 
entry. EPA notes that this is a higher percentage than for other 
subcategories and solicits comment on whether EPA should consider 
Option 2 for these facilities.

E. NSPS for the Non-Chromium Anodizing Subcategory

1. Need for NSPS
    EPA expects that new facilities in the Non-Chromium Anodizing 
subcategory will discharge similar quantities of the same pollutants 
that existing sources discharge. EPA notes that it did not identify any 
existing direct dischargers in this subcategory and that estimates of 
costs and pollutant loadings were transferred from the best performing 
indirect dischargers in this subcategory (see Section IX.C). Therefore, 
the need for NSPS regulation is the same as the need for BPT 
regulation. (See Section IX.C.1).
2. Selected NSPS Option
    EPA is proposing New Source Performance Standards for this 
subcategory based on BAT Option 2. As discussed in the BPT analysis for 
this subcategory, non-chromium anodizers discharge large quantities of 
aluminum but have very low levels of other metals in their wastewater. 
EPA determined that Option 2 is capable of removing most of the 
aluminum discharged by facilities in this subcategory and that any 
additional removals achieved by Option 4 are not justified by the 
additional cost.
    The Agency also evaluated not proposing NSPS for facilities in this 
subcategory and instead continuing to require compliance with NSPS 
limitations established under 40 CFR part 433. However, the Agency has 
tentatively rejected this option because these new proposed NSPS 
limitations require an increased removal of TSS and the Agency feels 
that the pollutants proposed for regulation here are more appropriate 
for the non-chromium anodizing industry. The NSPS limitations 
established in 40 CFR part 433 require facilities to meet an average 
monthly discharge of 31 mg/L of TSS and allow for a maximum daily 
discharge of 60 mg/L. These proposed MP&M limitations require non-
chromium anodizers to meet an average monthly discharge for TSS of 22 
mg/L and allow for a monthly maximum discharge of 52 mg/L. EPA believes 
that the costs associated with NSPS are justified by the additional 
removal of TSS from this subcategory. In addition, 40 CFR part 433 
requires non-chromium anodizers to meet effluent limitations for 7 
metal pollutants. EPA's data show that these seven metals are present 
only in very small quantities at non-chromium anodizing facilities. In 
40 CFR part 433, EPA did not establish a limit for aluminum, the metal 
found in the largest quantity in non-chromium anodizers' wastewater. 
The Agency has determined that direct discharging facilities in the 
Non-Chromium Anodizing subcategory should have a limit for aluminum and 
thus is proposing to cover them here. The Agency notes that this will 
reduce the number of pollutants that non-chromium anodizers would have 
to monitor for.
3. Calculation of NSPS Limitations
    The Agency is proposing NSPS limitations for all of the pollutants 
that it proposed BPT and BAT limitations for in this subcategory. The 
NSPS limitations for this subcategory can be found in the proposed rule 
(which accompanies this preamble) at Sec. 438.36. (See Section XXI.C 
for a discussion of monitoring flexibility.)
4. NSPS Analysis
    A barrier to entry analysis is typically performed for new 
facilities by using existing facilities as a model. However, there are 
no existing direct dischargers in this subcategory. Therefore, the 
Agency could not perform an economic analysis in order to determine if 
Option 2 presented a barrier to entry for new facilities in the Non-
Chromium Anodizing subcategory.

F. PSNS for the Non-Chromium Anodizing Subcategory

1. Need for PSNS
    EPA expects that new facilities in the Non-Chromium Anodizing 
subcategory will discharge similar quantities of the same pollutants 
that existing sources discharge and therefore EPA is not proposing 
pretreatment standards for new sources for this subcategory for the 
same reasons it is not proposing PSES for this subcategory. See Section 
XII.F and VI.C.3.

G. NSPS for the Printed Wiring Board Subcategory

1. Need for NSPS
    EPA expects that new facilities in the Printed Wiring Board 
subcategory will discharge similar quantities of the same pollutants 
that existing sources discharge. Therefore, the need for NSPS 
regulation is the same as the need for BPT regulation. (See Section 
IX.D.1).
2. Selected NSPS Option
    EPA is proposing New Source Performance Standards for this 
subcategory based on BAT Option 4. The Agency determined that Option 4 
is the best available demonstrated technology for the removal of 
pollutants in this subcategory. EPA's analytical data shows that Option 
4 is capable of achieving much lower long term averages than Option 2 
for several of the metal pollutants of concern. In addition, EPA's data 
shows that microfiltration greatly reduces the variability in the 
concentration of the metal pollutants in the treatment effluent. 
Although Option 4 costs $162,000 more than Option 2 annually for a new 
facility with a wastewater flow of 25.5 MGY (the wastewater flow for a 
representative direct discharging facility in the Printed Wiring Board 
subcategory), EPA is proposing Option 4 because of the lower levels of 
metal pollutants in the wastewater effluent. EPA is not proposing 
Option 4 for BPT/BAT because of the lack of significant overall 
additional removals and the fact that it removes less COD, O&G, and 
organic pollutants, relative to Option 2. EPA also requests comment on 
basing NSPS on Option 2.
    The Agency also strongly considered proposing NSPS based on 
ultrafiltration for oil and grease removal and chemical precipitation 
followed by sedimentation for TSS and metals removal. This option is 
equivalent to BAT Option 2 with the oil/water separator replaced by an 
ultrafilter. The Agency is soliciting comment and data on this NSPS 
option for the final rule.
3. Calculation of NSPS Limitations
    The Agency is proposing NSPS limitations for all of the pollutants 
that it proposed BPT and BAT limitations for in this subcategory. The 
NSPS limitations for this subcategory can be found in the proposed rule 
(which accompanies this preamble) at Sec. 438.46.

[[Page 474]]

(See Section XXI.C for a discussion of monitoring flexibility.) EPA 
based these proposed regulations on the same four EPA sampling episodes 
that it used to calculate NSPS for the General Metals subcategory. (See 
Section XIII.A.3). As mentioned above, EPA collected analytical 
wastewater treatment data from a printed wiring board manufacturer that 
employed this technology.
4. NSPS Analysis
    The Agency also performed an economic analysis in order to 
determine if Option 4 presented a barrier to entry for new facilities 
in the Printed Wiring Board subcategory. EPA determined that the cost 
of compliance with NSPS based on Option 4 would make up only 0.02 
percent of a new facility's projected revenues. Therefore, EPA 
concluded that NSPS based on Option 4 would not create a barrier to 
entry.

H. PSNS for the Printed Wiring Board Subcategory

1. Need for PSNS
    EPA expects that new facilities in the Printed Wiring Board 
subcategory will discharge similar quantities of the same pollutants 
that existing sources discharge. Therefore, the need for PSNS 
regulation is the same as the need for PSES regulation. (See Section 
XII.G.1).
2. Selected PSNS Option
    EPA is proposing Pretreatment Standards for New Sources for this 
subcategory based on BAT Option 4 for the same reasons it is proposing 
this option for NSPS. It is also requesting comment on PSNS based on 
Option 2. As was the case for PSES, EPA is not proposing a flow cutoff 
exclusion for this subcategory for the same reasons discussed in 
Section XII.G.2, but is requesting comment on a flow cutoff of 1 MGY , 
as with PSES.
    The Agency also strongly considered proposing PSNS based on 
ultrafiltration for oil and grease removal and chemical precipitation 
followed by sedimentation for TSS and metals removal. This option is 
equivalent to BAT Option 2 with the oil/water separator replaced by an 
ultrafilter. The Agency is soliciting comment and data on this PSNS 
option for the final rule.
3. Calculation of PSNS Limitations
    The Agency is proposing PSNS limitations for the same pollutants 
that it proposed PSES regulations. The PSNS limitations for this 
subcategory can be found in the proposed rule (which accompanies this 
preamble) at Sec. 438.47. EPA determined that all of the pollutants 
listed in Sec. 438.47 (except for Total Sulfide, TOC, and TOP) pass 
through POTWs. EPA is proposing a limitation for total sulfide based on 
potential POTW interference or upset associated with discharges of 
total sulfide from facilities in this subcategory. EPA is proposing 
limitations for TOC and TOP as part of a compliance alternative for 
organic pollutant discharges. (See Section XXI.C for a discussion of 
monitoring flexibility.) EPA determined that all of these pollutants 
pass through POTWs. The Agency based these proposed limitations on the 
same four EPA sampling episodes that EPA discussed in Section XIII.A.3. 
As mentioned above, EPA collected analytical wastewater treatment data 
from a printed wiring board manufacturer that employed this technology.
4. PSNS Analysis
    Like NSPS, the Agency determined that the cost of compliance with 
PSNS based on Option 4 would make up only 0.20 percent of a new 
facility's projected revenues and concluded that this would not create 
a barrier to entry.

I. NSPS for the Steel Forming and Finishing Subcategory

1. Need for NSPS
    EPA expects that new facilities in the Steel Forming and Finishing 
subcategory will discharge similar quantities of the same pollutants 
that existing sources discharge. Therefore, the need for NSPS 
regulation is the same as the need for BPT regulation. (See Section 
IX.E.1).
2. Selected NSPS Option
    EPA is proposing New Source Performance Standards for this 
subcategory based on BAT Option 4. The Agency determined that Option 4 
is the best available demonstrated technology for the removal of 
pollutants in this subcategory. EPA's analytical data shows that Option 
4 is capable of achieving much lower long-term averages than Option 2 
for several of the metal pollutants of concern. In addition, EPA's data 
shows that microfiltration greatly reduces the variability in the 
concentration of the metal pollutants in the treatment effluent. 
Although Option 4 costs $42,400 more than Option 2 annually for a new 
facility with a wastewater flow of 18.4 MGY (the wastewater flow for a 
representative direct discharging facilities in the Steel Forming and 
Finishing subcategory), EPA determined that the additional cost of 
Option 4 are justified by the lower levels of metal pollutants in the 
wastewater effluent.
    The Agency also strongly considered proposing NSPS based on 
ultrafiltration for oil and grease removal and chemical precipitation 
followed by a clarifier for TSS and metals removal. This option is 
equivalent to BAT Option 2 with the oil/water separator replaced by an 
ultrafilter. The Agency is soliciting comment and data on this NSPS 
option for the final rule.
3. Calculation of NSPS Limitations
    The Agency is proposing NSPS limitations for all of the pollutants 
that it proposed BPT and BAT limitations for in this subcategory. The 
NSPS limitations for this subcategory can be found in the proposed rule 
(which accompanies this preamble) at Sec. 438.56. (See Section XXI.C 
for a discussion of monitoring flexibility.) The Agency based these 
proposed limitations on the same four EPA sampling episodes that EPA 
discussed in Section XIII.A.3.
4. NSPS Analysis
    The Agency also performed an economic analysis in order to 
determine if Option 4 presented a barrier to entry for new facilities 
in the Steel Forming and Finishing subcategory. EPA determined that the 
cost of compliance with NSPS based on Option 4 would make up only 0.14 
percent of a new facility's projected revenues. Therefore, EPA 
concluded that NSPS based on Option 4 would not create a barrier to 
entry.

J. PSNS for the Steel Forming and Finishing Subcategory

1. Need for PSNS
    EPA expects that new facilities in the Steel Forming and Finishing 
subcategory will discharge similar quantities of the same pollutants 
that existing sources discharge. Therefore, the need for PSNS 
regulation is the same as the need for PSES regulation. (See Section 
XII.H.1).
2. Selected PSNS Option
    EPA is proposing Pretreatment Standards for New Sources for this 
subcategory based on BAT Option 4 for the same reasons it is proposing 
this option for NSPS. In addition, EPA is not proposing a flow cutoff 
exclusion for PSNS for this subcategory for the same reasons that it 
did not propose a flow cutoff for PSES, but is requesting comment on 
flow cutoffs of 1, 2, and 3 MGY as with PSES. (See Section XII.H.)
    The Agency also strongly considered proposing PSNS based on 
ultrafiltration for oil and grease removal and chemical precipitation 
followed by sedimentation for TSS and metals removal. This option is 
equivalent to BAT Option 2 with the

[[Page 475]]

oil/water separator replaced by an ultrafilter. The Agency is 
soliciting comment and data on this PSNS option for the final rule.
3. Calculation of PSNS Limitations
    The Agency is proposing PSNS limitations for the same pollutants 
that it proposed PSES regulations. The PSNS limitations for this 
subcategory can be found in the proposed rule (which accompanies this 
preamble) at Sec. 438.57. EPA determined that all of the pollutants 
listed in Sec. 438.57 (except for Total Sulfide, TOC, and TOP) pass 
through POTWs. EPA is proposing a limitation for total sulfide based on 
potential POTW interference or upset associated with discharges of 
total sulfide from facilities in this subcategory. EPA is proposing 
limitations for TOC and TOP as part of a compliance alternative for 
organic pollutant discharges. (See Section XXI.C for a discussion of 
monitoring flexibility.) The Agency based these proposed limitations on 
the same four EPA sampling episodes that EPA discussed in Section 
XIII.A.3.
4. PSNS Analysis
    Like NSPS, the Agency determined that the cost of compliance with 
PSNS based on Option 4 would make up only 0.17 percent of a new 
facility's projected revenues and concluded that this would not create 
a barrier to entry.

K. NSPS for the Oily Wastes Subcategory

1. Need for NSPS
    EPA expects that new facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory will 
discharge similar quantities of the same pollutants that existing 
sources discharge. Therefore, the need for NSPS regulation is the same 
as the need for BPT regulation. (See Section IX.F.1).
2. Selected NSPS Option
    EPA is proposing New Source Performance Standards for this 
subcategory based on BAT Option 6, oil-water separation by chemical 
emulsion breaking, gravity separation, and oil skimming. The Agency 
determined that Option 6 is the best available demonstrated technology 
for the removal of pollutants in this subcategory and is proposing this 
option for the same reasons it selected this option for BPT and BAT. 
(See Section IX.F.2).
3. Calculation of NSPS Limitations
    The Agency is proposing NSPS limitations equivalent to those 
proposed for BPT for this subcategory. The NSPS limitations for this 
subcategory can be found in the proposed rule (which accompanies this 
preamble) at Sec. 438.66. (See Section XXI.C for a discussion of 
monitoring flexibility.)
4. NSPS Analysis
    Since EPA is proposing to set NSPS equal to BAT (Option 6) and this 
option is determined to be economically-achievable for these facilities 
under BAT, EPA concluded that NSPS based on Option 6 would not create a 
barrier to entry.

L. PSNS for the Oily Wastes Subcategory

1. Need for PSNS
    EPA expects that new facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory will 
discharge similar quantities of the same pollutants that existing 
sources discharge. Therefore, the need for PSNS regulation is the same 
as the need for PSES regulation. (See Section XII.I.1).
2. Selected PSNS Option
    EPA is proposing Pretreatment Standards for New Sources for this 
subcategory based on BAT Option 6 for the same reasons it is proposing 
this option for NSPS. In addition, EPA is proposing a 2 MGY flow cutoff 
exclusion for PSNS with serious consideration of a 3 MGY flow cutoff as 
well. This is the same flow cutoff level that EPA is proposing for PSES 
for the existing indirect discharging facilities in the Oily Wastes 
subcategory. The Agency is proposing a 2 MGY flow cutoff for new 
indirect discharging facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory based on 
the potential POTW permitting burden that would be associated with 
developing and then maintaining permits for new sources with low flows 
and the likelihood that these facilities discharge a small amount of 
pound-equivalents at these low flow rates. The Agency assumes that the 
pound-equivalents per facility for new facilities with flows below or 
equal to 2 MGY would be even lower than the 2 pound-equivalents per 
facility for similarly sized existing sources in this subcategory. The 
Agency concluded that a similar (or even smaller) amount of pollutant 
removal is not justified by the cost of the regulation for new indirect 
Oily Waste facilities discharging less than or equal to 2 MGY.
3. Calculation of PSNS Limitations
    The Agency is proposing PSNS limitations equivalent to PSES for the 
same pollutants that it proposed PSES regulations. The PSNS limitations 
for this subcategory can be found in the proposed rule (which 
accompanies this preamble) at Sec. 438.67. (See Section XII.I.3. for 
PSES discussion and see Section XXI.C for a discussion of monitoring 
flexibility.)
4. PSNS Analysis
    Since EPA is proposing to set PSNS equal to PSES (Option 6) and 
this option is determined to be economically achievable for these 
facilities under PSES, the Agency concluded that this would not create 
a barrier to entry.

M. NSPS for the Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory

1. Need for NSPS
    EPA expects that new facilities in the Railroad Line Maintenance 
subcategory will discharge similar quantities of the same pollutants 
that existing sources discharge. Therefore, the need for NSPS 
regulation is the same as the need for BPT regulation. (See Section 
IX.G.1.)
2. Selected NSPS Option
    EPA is proposing New Source Performance Standards for this 
subcategory based on BAT Option 10, dissolved air flotation plus in-
process flow control and pollution prevention. The Agency determined 
that Option 10 is the best available demonstrated technology for the 
removal of pollutants in this subcategory and is proposing this option 
for the same reasons it selected this option for BPT and BAT. (See 
Section IX.G.2).
3. Calculation of NSPS Limitations
    The Agency is proposing NSPS limitations equivalent to those 
proposed for BPT for this subcategory. The NSPS limitations for this 
subcategory can be found in the proposed rule (which accompanies this 
preamble) at Sec. 438.76. (See Section XXI.C for a discussion of 
monitoring flexibility.)
4. NSPS Analysis
    EPA notes that railroad line maintenance facilities do not have 
revenue reported at the facility level, and it is therefore not 
possible to compare costs as a percent of facility revenue for new and 
existing facilities in this subcategory. In addition, EPA is proposing 
to set NSPS equal to BAT (Option 10) and has determined this option is 
economically achievable for these facilities under BAT, therefore, EPA 
concluded that NSPS based on Option 10 would not create a barrier to 
entry.

N. PSNS for the Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory

1. Rationale for Not Proposing PSNS
    EPA expects that new facilities in the Railroad Line Maintenance 
subcategory will discharge similar quantities of the

[[Page 476]]

same pollutants that existing sources discharge. Therefore, EPA is 
proposing to not establish PSNS for this subcategory for the same 
reasons that it did not propose PSES. (See Section XII.J.1).

O. NSPS for the Shipbuilding Dry Dock Subcategory

1. Need for NSPS
    EPA expects that new facilities in the Shipbuilding Dry Dock 
subcategory will discharge similar quantities of the same pollutants 
that existing sources discharge. Therefore, the need for NSPS 
regulation is the same as the need for BPT regulation. (See Section 
IX.H.1).
2. Selected NSPS Option
    EPA is proposing New Source Performance Standards for this 
subcategory based on BAT Option 10, dissolved air flotation plus in-
process flow control and pollution prevention. The Agency determined 
that Option 10 is the best available demonstrated technology for the 
removal of pollutants in this subcategory and is proposing this option 
for the same reasons it selected this option for BPT. (See Section 
IX.H.2).
3. Calculation of NSPS Limitations
    The Agency is proposing NSPS limitations equivalent to those 
proposed for BPT for this subcategory. The NSPS limitations for this 
subcategory can be found in the proposed rule (which accompanies this 
preamble) at Sec. 438.76. (See Section XXI.C for a discussion of 
monitoring flexibility.)
4. NSPS Analysis
    Since EPA is proposing to set NSPS equal to BAT (Option 10) and has 
determined that this option is economically achievable for these 
facilities under BAT, EPA concluded that NSPS based on Option 10 would 
not create a barrier to entry.

P. PSNS for the Shipbuilding Dry Dock Subcategory

1. Rationale for Not Proposing PSNS
    EPA expects that new facilities in the Shipbuilding Dry Dock 
subcategory will discharge similar quantities of the same pollutants 
that existing sources discharge. Therefore, EPA is proposing to not 
establish PSNS for this subcategory for the same reasons that it did 
not propose PSES. (See Section XII.K.1)

XIV. Issues Related to the Methodology Used to Determine POTW 
Performance

    For today's proposal, EPA used its traditional methodology to 
determine POTW performance (percent removal) for toxic and non-
conventional pollutants. POTW performance is a component of the pass-
through methodology used to identify the pollutants to be regulated for 
PSES and PSNS. It is also a component of the analysis to determine net 
pollutant reductions (for both total pounds and toxic pound-
equivalents) for various indirect discharge technology options. 
However, as discussed in more detail below, EPA is evaluating several 
issues related to its traditional methodology for determining POTW 
performance and solicits comments a variety of methodological changes.

A. Assessment of Acceptable POTWs

    EPA developed the principal pass-through analysis for today's MP&M 
proposal by using data from all 50 POTWs that were part of the 50 POTW 
Study data base. Some of these POTWs were not operated to meet the 
secondary treatment requirements at 40 CFR part 133 for all portions of 
their wastestream. Most POTWs today have secondary treatment or better 
in place. EPA estimates that as of 1996, POTWs with at least secondary 
treatment in place service greater than 90 percent of the indirect 
discharging population. If the POTW removal calculations do not reflect 
the upgrades and system improvements that have occurred since the time 
of the 50 POTW Study, they would tend to under-estimate POTW removals. 
This would result in overestimating the pollutant reductions that are 
achieved through the regulation of indirect dischargers, thereby making 
the regulation appear more cost-effective for indirect dischargers than 
it is.
    One partial solution to this methodological issue would be to 
evaluate individual treatment trains in the 50 POTW Study data base, 
and include only those treatment trains that achieved compliance with 
40 CFR part 133 in the analysis of POTW pollutant removal rates. There 
were 29 treatment trains that achieved BOD<INF>5</INF> and TSS effluent 
concentrations between 15 mg/l and 45 mg/l during the sampling and 
could potentially be considered reflective of secondary treatment 
(based on 40 CFR 133.102 limitations of 30 mg/l monthly average and 45 
mg/l weekly max for secondary treatment), and an additional 2 treatment 
trains were either trickling filters or waste stabilization ponds that 
achieved BOD<INF>5</INF> and TSS effluent concentrations between 40 mg/
l and 65 mg/l and could potentially be considered equivalent to 
secondary treatment pursuant to 40 CFR 133.101(g) (based on 40 CFR 
133.105 limitations of 45 mg/l monthly average and 65 mg/l weekly 
maximum). In addition, 15 treatment trains achieved BOD<INF>5</INF> and 
TSS effluent concentrations below 15 mg/l each, and could potentially 
be considered greater than secondary treatment.
    Using data from these 46 treatment trains only would omit the worst 
performers in the 50 POTW Study that are probably not reflective of 
current performance. It might not fully correct, however, for 
additional upgrades and optimization that may have occurred over the 
past two decades.

B. Assessment of Acceptable Data

    EPA developed the pass-through analysis that is the basis for 
today's proposal using POTW data editing criteria that are generally 
consistent with those used for the industry data. Specifically, EPA 
included only data from POTWs for which influent concentrations were 10 
times the analytical minimum (quantitation) level (10xML) if available. 
If none of the average pollutant influent concentrations are at least 
10 times the ML, then EPA retained only data from POTWs for which 
influent concentrations were 2 times the analytical minimum level. 
Because it is difficult to achieve the same pollutant reduction (in 
terms of percent) in a dilute wastestream as in a more concentrated 
wastestream, EPA believes that a 10 X ML editing criteria may 
overestimate the percent removals that are calculated for both industry 
and POTWs in the pass-through analysis.
    As a general rule, more POTW data than industry data is eliminated 
through this editing criteria for the specific pollutants that are 
being examined. This is not surprising since the pass-through analysis 
would not even be performed on pollutants generally found at less than 
10 times the method minimum level in industry since EPA would, in many 
cases, not require pretreatment for such low levels of a pollutant. As 
a result of this imbalance (pollutant influent levels at POTWs being 
less than pollutant influent levels to industrial pretreatment), EPA 
believes that it is possible that this editing criteria may bias the 
pass-through results by over-estimating POTW removals where influent 
concentrations are generally lower. This would result in 
underestimating the pollutant reductions that are achieved through the 
regulation of indirect dischargers thereby making the rule appear less 
cost-effective than it is. On the other hand, there may be little 
difference in percent removals across the range of

[[Page 477]]

influent concentrations generally experienced by POTWs.
    One potential solution to this methodological question would be to 
include data (for both indirect dischargers and POTWs) even if the 
influent concentration is not 10 times the analytical minimum level. 
This solution needs to be considered in context, however, with data 
handling criteria for effluent measurements of ``non-detect'' discussed 
below.

C. Assessment of Removals When Effluent Is Below the Analytical Method 
Minimum Level

    EPA developed the pass-through analysis that is the basis for 
today's proposal using the analytical method minimum level as the 
effluent value when the pollutant was not detected in the effluent. 
This is the approach that is generally used when developing pollutant 
reduction estimates for the regulation, performing cost-effectiveness 
calculations, and developing effluent limitations. EPA believes that 
this methodology may underestimate the performance of the selected 
technology option for both directs and indirects. Once again, this 
would result in underestimating the removals estimated for direct 
dischargers, and thereby making the rule appear less cost-effective 
than it is. For indirect dischargers, EPA believes that the overall 
effect of using the minimum level for non-detect values for both 
industry and POTW data creates a bias for underestimating POTW removals 
in comparison to industry removals. This may result in an 
overestimation of pollutant removals by indirect dischargers, and may 
make the rule appear more cost-effective than it is. [Note that this 
problem is minimized by only using data with influent levels exceeding 
10 X ML, because a non-detect assures that at least 90 percent of the 
pollutant has been removed. It is arguably less important that the true 
removal may be greater than 90 percent, rather than exactly 90 percent. 
Using a less stringent editing criteria of 2 X ML as discussed above 
would exacerbate this problem. If the influent were only 2 X ML, then 
removals greater than 50 percent could never be measured.]
    One potential alternative would be to assume a value of one half of 
the minimum level for effluent values of non-detect. This approach 
would have to be applied uniformly for the indirect dischargers as well 
as the POTWs in order for the percent removal calculations to be 
reasonable.
    For a more detailed discussion of alternative approaches to the 
POTW pass-through analysis, see the Appendix to Section 7 of the 
Technical Development Document. EPA solicits comment on the 
significance of each of these methodological issues and the potential 
alternatives.

XV. Methodology for Estimating Costs and Pollutant Reductions

    EPA estimated industry-wide compliance costs and pollutant loadings 
using model sites based on technical questionnaire respondents and a 
computerized design and cost model for the MP&M technology options (see 
Sections 11 and 12 of the Technical Development Document for a detailed 
discussion of EPA's MP&M Design & Cost Model). The Agency estimated 
industry-wide costs and pollutant loadings for several technology 
options based on technologies designed for each subcategory of model 
sites. EPA used these model sites to estimate costs for 63,000 MP&M 
wastewater-discharging sites nationwide using statistically calculated 
industry weights (i.e., survey sample weights). EPA notes that once the 
low flow exclusion is applied, the number of sites expected to incur 
costs under the MP&M regulation is 10,300.
    There are 890 sites which indicated that they were water 
dischargers on their technical questionnaire and provided EPA with 
enough data to include them in the cost model. EPA assessed each of the 
890 sites selected to determine the unit operations, wastewater 
characteristics and treatment technologies currently in place at the 
sites.
    Based on the information provided by the sites in their 
questionnaire responses, follow-up letters, and phone calls, EPA 
classified each wastewater stream by the type of unit operation (e.g., 
machining, electroplating, acid treatment, etc.) and base metal type 
(e.g., steel, aluminum, zinc, etc.). The Agency used the following 
additional questionnaire data to characterize process wastewater 
streams: wastewater discharge flow rate, production rate, operating 
schedule, and discharge destination. Many of the sites provided these 
data for all wastewater streams generated on site. For sites that did 
not provide complete data, EPA either estimated the missing data based 
on technical considerations specific to the site, or statistically 
imputed the data. The Agency modeled the concentration of each 
pollutant in each wastewater stream from field sampling of wastewater 
discharges from the unit operations at MP&M sites. EPA used 
questionnaire responses to identify the following information about 
end-of-pipe technologies in place at MP&M sites: the types of treatment 
units in place; the unit operations discharging process wastewater to 
each treatment unit; and the operating schedule of each treatment unit.
    EPA developed a computerized design and cost model to estimate 
compliance costs and pollutant loadings for the MP&M technology 
options, taking into account each site's level of treatment in place. 
As a conservative estimate for estimating baseline (prior to compliance 
with these proposed regulations) pollutant loadings, EPA assumed that 
all sites with treatment currently in place (including those sites not 
currently covered by the Metal Finishing regulations) were currently 
meeting the long-term average (LTA) concentrations (i.e., design 
concentrations) for the pollutants limited under the Metal Finishing 
effluent guidelines (40 CFR part 433) with the exception of cyanide and 
were meeting the LTA concentrations achieved by EPA's sampled MP&M BAT 
facilities for cyanide and other pollutants of concern. For sites that 
did not report treatment in place, EPA based baseline pollutant 
loadings on EPA's unit operation-by-unit operation sampling data for 
raw wastewater. The Agency programmed the model with technology-
specific modules which calculated the costs for various combinations of 
technologies included in the technology options for each subcategory. 
EPA based design and cost data on MP&M site data, literature data, and 
vendor data. The Agency developed technology-specific cost modules for 
the in-process pollution prevention and water use reduction 
technologies and end-of-pipe treatment technologies discussed in 
Section VII.A of this notice.
    The model provided the following types of information for each 
technology designed for a model site: capital costs; operating and 
maintenance costs; electricity used and associated cost; sludge 
generation and associated disposal costs; waste oil generation and 
associated disposal costs; water use reduction and associated cost 
credit; chemical usage reduction and associated cost credit; effluent 
flow rate; and effluent pollutant concentrations. This data enabled EPA 
to develop site by site compliance costs and pollutant reductions for 
the costed sites.
    If contract hauling of wastewater for off-site treatment and 
disposal was less costly than on-site treatment, EPA estimated costs 
assuming the model site would contract haul the wastewater. EPA made 
this assessment on a technology-specific basis. When estimating costs 
for sludge disposal, EPA assumed all sludge to be F006

[[Page 478]]

listed (or other F-listed hazardous waste) hazardous waste under RCRA 
(40 CFR 261.31) and would, therefore, be disposed of off-site as 
hazardous waste. As a conservative estimate for the model, EPA did not 
allow the time for storage of the sludge prior to disposal to exceed 90 
days, regardless of the facilities RCRA generator status (i.e., exempt, 
small, large). EPA notes that on March 8, 2000 (65 FR 12377), the 
Agency published a final regulation in the Federal Register extending 
the accumulation time, under RCRA, for certain wastewater treatment 
sludges from electroplating processes to be held on-site without 
requiring a hazardous waste storage permit. Facilities implementing 
pollution prevention, recycling and metals recovery meeting certain 
requirements can accumulate F006 sludge for up to 180 days for large 
quantity generators (or 270 days for small quantity generators).
    After estimation of capital and operating and maintenance costs, 
EPA calculated the total capital investment (TCI), and the total 
annualized cost (TAC). The Agency assumed that facilities meeting local 
limitations or national effluent limitation guidelines and pretreatment 
standards will already incur monitoring costs. EPA solicits comment on 
the whether facilities will incur additional monitoring costs to comply 
with today's proposal (and how much that monitoring would cost). EPA 
has incorporated several options for adding additional flexibility in 
regards to monitoring (See Section XXI.C for a discussion on monitoring 
flexibility). EPA expects that these proposed flexibilities will 
decrease the overall burden and costs of analytical wastewater 
monitoring for facilities within the scope of this rule.

XVI. Economic Impact and Social Cost Analysis

A. Introduction

    EPA's economic analyses are presented in the report titled 
``Economic, Environmental, & Benefit Analysis of the Proposed Metal 
Products & Machinery Rule [EPA-821-B-00-008] (hereafter referred to as 
the ``EEBA''). This report presents the social costs and benefits of 
the proposed rule and alternatives, and estimates the expected economic 
impacts of compliance with the proposed rule in terms of facility 
closures and associated losses in employment. Other measures of 
economic impact include firm-level impacts, local community impacts, 
international trade effects, employment effects, and effects on new 
MP&M facilities. An analysis of impacts on small businesses supports 
EPA's compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended 
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA). 
This section of the preamble summarizes the economic impact and social 
cost findings from the EEBA. The reader is referred to the full report 
for the details of these analyses.
    EPA's determination of economic achievability are based on the 
findings reported in the EEBA and discussed below. The options analyzed 
consist of combinations of comparable technology options for the 
different subcategories. The three options analyzed in the economic 
analyses are defined as follows:

                      Table XVI-1.--Regulatory Options Considered in the Economic Analyses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Subcategory                    Proposed rule            Option 2/6/10              Option 4/8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals.......................  Technology option 2; 1   Technology option 2....  Technology option 4.
                                        mgy flow cutoff for
                                        indirect dischargers.
Metal Finishing Job Shop.............  Technology option 2....  Technology option 2....  Technology option 4.
Non-Chromium Anodizing...............  Technology option 2; no  Technology option 2....  Technology option 4.
                                        PSES/PSNS for indirect
                                        dischargers.
Printed Wiring Board.................  Technology option 2....  Technology option 2....  Technology option 4.
Steel Forming & Finishing............  Technology option 2....  Technology option 2....  Technology option 4.
Oily Wastes..........................  Technology option 6; 2   Technology option 6....  Technology option 8.
                                        mgy flow cutoff for
                                        indirect dischargers.
Railroad Line Maintenance............  Technology option 10;    Technology option 10...  Technology option 8.
                                        no PSES/PSNS for
                                        indirect dischargers.
Shipbuilding Dry Dock................  Technology option 10;    Technology option 10...  Technology option 8.
                                        no PSES/PSNS for
                                        indirect dischargers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology options 1 through 10 are described in Section VIII.A. of the preamble.

Technology options 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 (without pollution prevention) were 
not further analyzed, because they remove fewer pollutants and cost 
more than the comparable technology options with pollution prevention.
    The economic impact analyses assess how facilities will be affected 
financially by the proposed rule. Key outputs of the facility impact 
analysis include expected facility closures in the MP&M industries, 
associated losses in employment, and the number of facilities 
experiencing financial stress short of closure (``moderate impacts''). 
The findings from the facility impact analysis also provide the basis 
for the following analyses:
    <bullet> A firm-level analysis, which assesses the impact on the 
financial performance and condition of firms owning MP&M facilities;
    <bullet> An employment effects analysis, which assesses the 
increase in employment associated with compliance activities, the loss 
of employment due to facility closures, and the net effect on overall 
employment;
    <bullet> A community impact analysis, which assesses the job losses 
caused by facility closures and job gains associated with compliance;
    <bullet> A foreign trade analysis, which assesses the effect of the 
proposed rule on the U.S. balance of trade;
    <bullet> A new source impact analysis, which assesses the effect of 
effluent guidelines on the costs and financial viability of new 
facilities in the MP&M industries; and
    <bullet> The Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IFRA), which 
assesses the economic and financial impacts of the proposed rule on 
small entities.

B. Facility Level Impacts

1. Facility Categories Analyzed
    EPA performed economic impact analyses for three categories of 
facilities, using different methodologies to evaluate each of the 
groups. The three groups are:
    <bullet> Private MP&M Facilities. This group includes privately-
owned facilities that do not perform railroad line maintenance and are 
not owned by governments. This major category

[[Page 479]]

includes private businesses in a wide range of sectors or industries, 
including. This segment includes facilities that manufacture and 
rebuild railroad equipment. Only facilities that repair railroad track 
and equipment along the railroad line are not included.
    <bullet> Railroad line maintenance facilities maintain and repair 
railroad track, equipment and vehicles.
    <bullet> Government-owned facilities include MP&M facilities 
operated by municipalities, State agencies and other public sector 
entities such as State universities. Many of these facilities repair, 
rebuild, and maintain buses, trucks, cars, utility vehicles (e.g., snow 
plows and street cleaners), and light machinery.
    The specific methodology used to assess impacts differs for each of 
the three types of MP&M facilities. In each case, EPA established 
thresholds for measures of financial performance and compared the 
facilities' performance before and after compliance with each 
regulatory option with these thresholds.
2. Data Sources for the Facility Impact Analysis
    The economic analyses rely on data provided by the financial 
portion of the detailed questionnaire distributed to MP&M facilities by 
EPA under the authority of Section 308 of the Clean Water Act 
(``Section 308 Survey''). (See Section V.B for information on the MP&M 
survey questionnaires). The survey was conducted in two phases, 
covering different MP&M industries in each phase. The Phase I survey 
covered seven industry sectors and reported data for fiscal years 1987 
to 1989. The Phase II survey covered an additional ten industry sectors 
(all remaining MP&M sectors except Steel Forming and Finishing, which 
was the subject of a separate survey) and reported data for fiscal 
years 1994 to 1996. The survey financial data were extrapolated to 1999 
dollars using the Producer Price Index. The survey financial data 
included three years of income statements and balance sheets for the 
facility; the composition of revenues by customer type and MP&M 
business sector; estimated value of facility assets and liabilities in 
liquidation; borrowing costs; ownership of the facility; and total 
revenues and employment of the owning entity (if separate from the 
facility). The impacts assessed for these sample facilities were 
extrapolated to the national level using facility sample weights that 
are based on the sample design for the industrial detailed surveys.
    Data for facilities in the railroad line maintenance subcategory 
came from a modified version of the Phase II survey administered to 
railroad operating companies. The questionnaire was modified because 
railroad operating companies generally do not monitor financial 
performance or collect financial data at the facility level for line 
maintenance facilities. The railroad operating companies reported the 
number of MP&M facilities in each operating unit, and provided detailed 
operating company financial data and technical data for each line 
maintenance facility.
    Data for the Steel Forming and Finishing Subcategory came from a 
1997 Section 308 survey of iron and steel facilities. This survey 
requested financial data generally similar to that collected by the 
MP&M surveys, including income statements and balance sheets for Fiscal 
Years 1995-1997 for the facility and the parent firm.
    Government-owned MP&M facilities provided data in response to a 
Phase II Section 308 survey of municipal and other government agency 
facilities. This survey requested information on fiscal year 1996 
sources and amounts of revenue and debt levels for both the government 
entity and the MP&M facilities; and demographic data for the population 
served by the government entity.
    In addition to the survey data, a number of secondary sources 
provided data for the analysis. Secondary source data were used to 
characterize background economic and financial conditions in the 
industries subject to the MP&M effluent guideline. Secondary sources 
used in the analysis include:
    <bullet> Department of Commerce economic census and survey data, 
including the Censuses of Manufactures, Annual Surveys of Manufactures, 
and international trade data;
    <bullet> The Benchmark Input-Output Tables of the United States, 
published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis in the Department of 
Commerce;
    <bullet> Price index series from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
Department of Labor;
    <bullet> U.S. Industry and Trade Outlook, published by McGraw-Hill 
and the U.S. Department of Commerce;
    <bullet> Industry trade publications; and
    <bullet> Financial publications, including the Value Line 
Investment Survey and Robert Morris Associates annual data summaries.
3. Methodology and Impact Measures for the Facility Level Analysis
a. Private MP&M Facilities
    EPA performed two categories of financial analysis, one to assess 
the potential for facility closures and the other to assess the 
potential for moderate financial impacts on MP&M facilities. These 
analyses considered facility financial condition in the absence of the 
rule (under baseline conditions) and changes in financial condition 
that would result from the proposed rule.
    EPA used two financial tests to estimate closures among general 
MP&M facilities:
    <bullet> After-Tax Cash Flow: EPA examined after-tax cash flow 
(ATCF) over a three year period to determine the financial condition of 
general MP&M facilities.
    <bullet> Net Present Value: EPA also performed a net present value 
(NPV) test, which compared the liquidation value of each facility to 
the present value of expected future earnings. A business may close if 
the value of closing (its liquidation value) exceeds its value as an 
ongoing business (calculated as the present value of expected future 
earnings).
    EPA determined that a facility is subject to severe financial 
stress and is a potential closure if ATCF is negative, since businesses 
generally cannot sustain negative cash flows for long periods of time. 
This test used the average of reported financial data over three fiscal 
years. Baseline cash flow is defined as the sum of reported net income 
and depreciation. The measure is widely used within industry in 
evaluating capital investment decisions because both net income and 
depreciation (which is an accounting offset against income, but not an 
actual cash expenditure) are potentially available to finance future 
investment. However, assuming that total baseline cash flow is 
available over an extended time horizon (for example, 15 years) to 
finance investments related to environmental compliance could overstate 
a site's ability to comply. In particular, the cost of existing capital 
equipment (not associated with regulatory compliance) is not netted out 
of cash flow, as it is of income through the subtraction of 
depreciation. Thus, any costs associated with either replacing existing 
capital equipment, or repaying money that was previously borrowed to 
pay for it, are omitted from the facility analysis. EPA requests 
comment on its use of cash flow as a measure of resources available to 
finance environmental compliance and suggestions for alternative 
methodologies. (See Section XXII of today's notice.)
    Where estimates of liquidation values were available, EPA also 
conducted the NPV test. NPV is the present value of expected future 
earnings less the

[[Page 480]]

liquidation value (including closure and post-closure costs) of the 
facility. If NPV is negative, then a business owner is financially 
better off closing the facility and liquidating its assets, rather than 
keeping the facility open. EPA estimated the present value of the 
facility's expected future earnings by discounting its annual after-tax 
cash flow over a fifteen-year period using a 7 percent discount rate. 
EPA presumed that a facility was a potential closure if the facility 
had an NPV less than zero.
    Where liquidation values were available, facilities that failed 
both tests under baseline conditions are baseline closures. Facilities 
that pass at least one of the two tests in the baseline case but then 
fail both tests post-compliance were considered closures due to the 
rule. Where liquidation values were not provided by the survey, EPA 
applied only the ATCF test to identify baseline and regulatory 
closures.
    In many past rules, EPA has used only the cash flow test to predict 
both baseline and regulatory closures. Using both tests presents a 
higher hurdle and thus makes it less likely that a facility 
experiencing stress will be projected to close. Due to data 
limitations, both tests were used for only 18,913 (approximately a 
third) of the 58,421 private MP&M facilities considered in the 
analysis. For the remaining two-thirds of the facilities, only the 
after-tax cash flow test was used. Table XVI-2 shows the impacts on 
estimated closures of using both tests, rather than the cash flow test 
alone, to predict closures.

  Table XVI-2.--Baseline Closures, Regulatory Closures, and National Estimates of Compliance Costs for Private
      MP&M Facilities by Status under Tests for Closures: 18,913 Facilities for Which Both Tests Were Used
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Status under proposed option
                                                                    Facilities   -------------------------------
                                                     Baseline     remaining open                      Pre-tax
                  Closure test                       closures         in the        Regulatory      compliance
                                                                     baseline        closures      costs  ($1999
                                                                                                     million)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fail ATCF Only..................................           3,211          15,766             225        $1,782.6
Fail NPV Only...................................           4,243          14,734             244         1,657.2
Double Test: Fail ATCF and NPV Text.............           2,711          16,266             169         1,793.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the cash test alone had been used, about 500 additional baseline 
closures and 56 additional regulatory closures would have been 
projected for the proposed rule. Depending on the subcategories in 
which these facilities were located, this could have affected EPA's 
achievability determinations in some cases. EPA requests comment on its 
methodology for estimating facility closures for this rule.
    All sellers in an affected market may benefit from higher prices 
when prices rise in response to compliance costs, whether or not they 
incur compliance costs under the rule. Some facilities that have very 
low compliance costs may even gain more from increased prices than they 
lose due to increased costs associated with the rule. The analysis 
takes into account the effect of price increases that are attributable 
to the regulation. The estimated price increases were generally less 
than 1 percent and in no case exceeded 2 percent.
    EPA also identified private MP&M facilities that are not expected 
to close but that might nonetheless experience moderate financial 
impacts as a result of the rule. The analysis of moderate financial 
impacts examined two financial indicators:
    <bullet> Pre-Tax Return on Assets (PTRA): The ratio of cash 
operating income to total assets measures the facility's profitability.
    <bullet> Interest Coverage Ratio (ICR): The ratio of cash operating 
income to interest expenses measures the facility's ability to service 
its debt and borrow for capital investments.
    These two measures are among the criteria that creditors and equity 
investors use to determine whether and under what terms to provide 
financing to a business. The PTRA and ICR also provide insight into the 
ability of a business to generate funds for compliance investments 
internally. A business may have some trouble obtaining financing if its 
profitability is low and its ability to pay its continuing interest 
expenses is uncertain. EPA compared baseline and post-compliance PTRA 
to an 8 percent threshold and ICR to a threshold of 4. A facility is 
considered subject to incremental moderate impacts attributable to the 
proposed regulation if its PTRA and its ICR both pass these thresholds 
in the baseline but it fails one or both of the tests after compliance 
with the rule. Facilities failing one of the tests in the baseline and 
both tests post-compliance were not counted as experiencing moderate 
impacts, but this may in some cases be indicative of moderate rule-
related impacts as well.
    EPA assumed that MP&M facilities would be able to recover some of 
their regulatory costs by raising prices to their customers. An 
analysis of the potential for cost recovery considered conditions in 
each individual MP&M industrial sector industry (e.g. aircraft, 
aerospace, electronic equipment, etc.) Cost pass-through factors were 
estimated for each sector. The cost pass-through factor blends findings 
from two separate analyses to estimate a composite measure of pass-
through potential:
    <bullet> An econometric analysis of the historical relationship 
between output prices and changes in input costs; and
    <bullet> An analysis of indicators of pass-through potential based 
on market structure and performance.
    Market structure factors include:
    <bullet> Market power based on the degree of horizontal and 
vertical integration;
    <bullet> Extent of competition from foreign suppliers (in both 
domestic and export markets);
    <bullet> Barriers to competition as indicated by above normal, 
risk-adjusted profitability; and
    <bullet> Long term growth trends in the industry.
The analysis of pass-through potential indicates the percentage of 
compliance costs that EPA expects firms subject to regulation to 
recover from customers through increased prices. The estimated 
percentage price increases were very small for the proposed rule, 
ranging from 0.02 percent to less than two percent in different 
sectors. This analysis can be found in Appendix B of the EEBA.
    Table XVI-3 summarizes the measures used to assess impacts for 
private MP&M facilities.

[[Page 481]]



                Table XVI-3.--Summary of Facility Impact Methodology for Private MP&M Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             Significance of
           Impact category                   Description                Criteria             negative finding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Closure.....................  Identifies facilities    1. After-tax cash flow   Facilities failing both
                                        that are in jeopardy     (ATCF) negative? and     tests are considered
                                        of financial failure    2. Liquidation value      baseline closures and
                                        independent of the       exceed going concern     excluded from
                                        proposed regulation.     value (NPV test)?.       subsequent analyses.
Post-Compliance Closure..............  Identifies facilities    1. Post-compliance       Facilities failing both
                                        that are likely to       after-tax cash flow      tests are projected to
                                        close instead of         (ATCF) negative? and     close as the result of
                                        implementing the        2. Liquidation value      regulation--an
                                        pollution prevention     exceed post-compliance   incremental severe
                                        and treatment systems    going concern value?.    economic impact.
                                        required to comply
                                        with the rule.
Moderate Financial Impacts...........  Identifies facilities    1. Decline in pre-tax    Facilities passing both
                                        that may have            return on assets         tests in the baseline
                                        difficult financing      (PTRA) to a level that   but failing one or
                                        compliance investments   jeopardizes access to    both tests post-
                                        or on-going business     financing? or            compliance are
                                        investments as a        2. Decline in interest    considered to
                                        result of the rule.      coverage ratio (ICR)     experience incremental
                                                                 to a level that          moderate economic
                                                                 jeopardizes access to    impacts attributable
                                                                 financing?.              to the regulation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Railroad Line Maintenance Facilities
    Railroad operators are unlikely to evaluate the financial 
performance of repair and maintenance facilities as separate profit 
centers, and are therefore not likely to estimate revenues at the 
facility level. EPA conducted an analysis of impacts of these 
facilities at the railroad operating company level, and assessed 
whether the combined impact of compliance costs for the regulated 
facilities owned by each operating company would cause a deterioration 
in the company's financial performance. The analysis predicted that 
railroad line maintenance facilities would close only if the railroad 
operating company as a whole was predicted to close, based on the same 
closure tests described above for other private MP&M facilities. 
Railroad facilities other than the line maintenance facilities perform 
the same type of operations as other MP&M facilities and are included 
in the General Metals and Oily Wastes subcategories, depending on their 
MP&M activities.
c. Government-Owned Facilities
    Governments with facilities affected by the proposed rule may take 
one of three actions in response to the rule:
    <bullet> Replace one or more MP&M municipal facilities with a non-
municipal provider for services;
    <bullet> Discontinue these services altogether; or
    <bullet> Pay for compliance and continue operations.
    EPA assumed that all government-owned facilities would continue 
operating under the proposed rule. The economic impact analysis for 
these facilities evaluates whether a government entity would incur a 
major budgetary burden as a result of complying with the proposed rule. 
Like private firms, governments could in some cases minimize the impact 
of the proposed rule on their budgets by discontinuing operations at 
the regulated facility, rather than paying the costs of compliance. 
Unlike the analysis for private sector MP&M facilities, the analysis of 
government impacts did not consider potential closures and therefore 
may overstate the impacts of the rule on governments that own MP&M 
facilities.
    EPA evaluated impacts for government-owned facilities by performing 
three tests.
    <bullet> Impacts on site-level cost of service: This test assesses 
whether facility compliance costs would exceed one or more percent of 
the total baseline cost of service at that facility. EPA assumed that 
facilities can absorb compliance costs within their current budget if 
the costs do not exceed one percent of total costs in the baseline.
    <bullet> Impacts on taxpayers: This test compared compliance costs 
to the income of households that are served by the relevant government, 
and that may support the government through taxes and fees. (If the 
government is a regional transit authority, for example, then the 
households included in this analysis are all households in the region 
that provides funding for the transit authority, as reported in the 
Phase II Section 308 survey.) A government might be expected to 
experience impacts if the ratio of total annualized pollution control 
costs per household to median household income exceeds one percent 
post-compliance. This comparison considered the government entity's 
existing pollution control costs plus the compliance costs incurred by 
all of its MP&M facilities under this rule. EPA uses this test in its 
Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards as a screening measure to 
determine when communities would incur ``little economic impact'' from 
total pollution control costs. EPA recognizes that most local 
governments receive at most a few percent of the income of their tax or 
fee base (and some receive much less). Thus, one percent of median 
income for pollution control costs alone may be a very significant 
share of the local government's total budget.
    <bullet> Impact on government debt levels: This test assessed the 
impact of financing the capital costs of compliance on the government's 
overall debt burden. The government might be expected to experience 
impacts if financing all of the compliance capital investments would 
increase its total debt service payments to more than 25 percent of 
baseline revenue. This criterion is used in EPA's MUNIPAY model as a 
level beyond which debt service costs might adversely affect a 
community's credit-worthiness. EPA determined that a government 
facility that failed all three tests is likely to suffer severe adverse 
impacts as a result of the rule. As shown in Table XVI-12 below, no 
governments fail the latter two tests. However, 215 facilities failed 
the site-level cost of service test. The governments operating these 
facilities could experience some level of impacts as a result of the 
rule, if these facilities represent a significant cost to their 
budgets. Government owned facilities perform the same type of 
operations as other MP&M facilities and are included in the General 
Metals and Oily Wastes subcategories, depending on their MP&M 
activities.
4. Baseline Closure Analysis
    The estimated baseline closures for both indirect and direct 
discharge facilities are summarized in Table XVI-4. Of the estimated 
62,752 discharging facilities, 6.1 percent or 3,829 facilities

[[Page 482]]

were assessed as baseline closures. The 3,829 baseline closures include 
3,678 indirect dischargers, or 6.3 percent of indirect dischargers, and 
151 direct dischargers, or 3.1 percent of direct dischargers. The 
facilities estimated to close in the baseline analysis are in jeopardy 
of financial failure independent of the proposed rule. These facilities 
were excluded from the post-compliance analysis of regulatory impacts. 
Data on facility start-ups and closures from the Census Statistics of 
U.S. Businesses indicate that between 6 and 12 percent of facilities in 
the major metal products manufacturing industries close in any given 
year. EPA's estimate may therefore understate actual baseline closures 
somewhat.

                                   Table XVI-4.--Summary of Baseline Closures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of      Percent of
                   Subcategory                     Total number      baseline        baseline      Operating in
                                                  of dischargers     closures        closures        baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals..................................          29,975           3,199            10.7        * 26,776
Metal Finishing Job Shop........................           1,530             286            18.7           1,244
Non-Chromium Anodizing..........................             190              40            21.1             150
Printed Wiring Board............................             635               3             0.5             632
Steel Forming & Finishing.......................             153               6             3.9             147
Oily Wastes.....................................          29,425             295             1.0          29,130
Railroad Line Maintenance.......................             832               0             0.0             832
Shipbuilding Dry Dock...........................              11               0             0.0              11
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    All Categories..............................          62,752           3,829             6.1       * 58,922
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Excludes 64 facilities that close under baseline conditions but that are expected to continue operating under
  the proposed rule.
Note: may not sum to totals due to independent rounding.

    Of the facilities closing in the baseline, 64 are projected to 
continue operating under the proposed rule because they qualify for the 
low flow cutoff (and therefore incur no compliance costs) but benefit 
from price increases caused by the rule. These 64 facilities are not 
considered in the remainder of the economic impact analysis.
5. Facility Level Costs by Subcategory
    The Technical Development Document presents EPA's engineering 
estimates of costs that will be incurred by facilities to comply with 
the proposed rule and other regulatory options. EPA adjusted the 
engineering costs from 1996 to 1999 dollars using the Engineering News-
Record Construction Cost Index (CCI), and adjusted the costs to reflect 
the effect of taxes using the maximum Federal income tax rate of 34 
percent. The annual equivalent of capital and other one-time costs is 
calculated by annualizing costs at a seven percent discount rate over 
an estimated 15 year equipment life.
    The compliance costs of the rule are the costs paid by those 
facilities that continue to operate in compliance with the rule. 
Aggregate compliance costs presented in this section differ from the 
costs presented in Section IX because they exclude costs for facilities 
that are baseline closures or that close due to regulatory 
requirements. They therefore represent only the compliance outlays of 
facilities that continue to operate. Section H presents EPA's estimates 
of social costs, which include costs for regulatory closures. Table 
XVI-5 shows the total annualized compliance costs by subcategory for 
the 9,577 dischargers (direct and indirect) that are subject to 
requirements, make the necessary investments to meet the requirements, 
and continue operating under the proposed rule. The table also presents 
costs for Option 2/6/10 and Option 4/8, but results are discussed for 
only the proposed option to reduce the length of this document.
    Total annualized costs are the sum of the annual operating and 
maintenance costs and the annualized equivalent of capital and other 
one-time costs. Annualized after-tax compliance costs are estimated to 
be $1,328.9 million ($1.33 billion) \3\ per year under the proposed 
rule, of which 13 percent is paid by direct dischargers and 87 percent 
is paid by indirect dischargers. A total of 49,147 indirect dischargers 
are excluded from regulation by the proposed exclusions and low flow 
cutoffs. Total compliance costs would be 36 percent higher under Option 
2/6/10 ($1,812 million per year paid by 57,641 facilities) and 120 
percent higher under Option 4/8 ($2,918 million per year paid by 55,959 
facilities) than under the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA notes that pre-tax annualized compliance costs are 
estimated to be $1.98 billion (in 1999 dollars).

                    Table XVI-5.--Total Annualized Facility * Compliance Costs by Subcategory, Discharge Status and Regulatory Option
                                                               [After-tax, million $1999]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Proposed rule                   Option 2/6/10                    Option 4/8
                       Subcategory                       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Direct         Indirect         Direct         Indirect         Direct         Indirect
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals..........................................          $132.3          $969.9          $132.3        $1,295.8          $195.1        $1,885.5
Metal Finishing Job Shop................................             0.8            80.1             0.8            80.1             1.5           112.1
Non-Chromium Anodizing..................................  ..............             0.0  ..............            17.5  ..............            26.0
Printed Wiring Board....................................             1.7            93.4             1.7            93.4             3.0           141.2
Steel Forming & Finishing...............................            20.9            14.0            20.9            14.0            22.7            21.8
Oily Wastes.............................................             9.3             4.3             9.3           143.8            50.0           457.4
Railroad Line Maintenance...............................             0.8             0.0             0.8             0.2             0.9             0.4

[[Page 483]]

 
Shipbuilding Dry Dock...................................             1.4             0.0             1.4             0.1             0.4             0.1
All Categories: Annual Costs............................           167.2         1,161.7           167.2         1,644.9           273.6         2,644.5
All Categories: Number of Regulated Facilities                     4,633           4,944           4,633          53,008           4,615          51,344
 Continuing to Operate Post-Regulation..................
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Costs to Industry by Option, Directs + Indirects..              $1,328.9
                                                                      $1,812.1
                                                                     $2,918.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This table includes facility compliance costs only. Section XVI.H. discusses the social costs of the rule. The estimates in this table exclude
  baseline and regulatory closures.
Note: May not sum to totals due to independent rounding.

6. Facility Level Impacts by Subcategory
    The findings from the post-compliance impact analyses are 
summarized below, first for the PSES requirements considered for 
indirect discharging facilities, and then for the BAT/BPT options 
considered for direct discharging facilities. A third section 
summarizes the findings for both discharger classes. Impacts are 
discussed for only the proposed option, to reduce the length of the 
document; however, the tables present the results for Option 2/6/10 and 
Option 4/8. Impacts are not presented for Options 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 
(without pollution prevention) because these options remove fewer 
pollutants and cost more than the comparable Options 2, 4, 6, 8, and 
10.
a. Indirect Dischargers
    Of the 54,270 indirect discharging facilities subject to regulation 
after baseline closures, EPA estimates that 179 facilities or 0.3 
percent could be expected to close as the result of the proposed rule, 
as shown in Table XVI-6. More than 90 percent of the indirect 
dischargers are excluded from the regulation by the low-flow cutoffs 
for the General Metals and Oily Wastes subcategories, and the 
exclusions for Non-Chromium Anodizers, Railroad Line Maintenance and 
Shipbuilding Dry Docks. The employment losses associated with the 
facility closures are estimated at 5,738 full-time equivalent (FTE) 
positions. The estimated losses in employment are probably substantial 
overestimates because the analysis does not account for the likelihood 
that non-closing facilities will absorb some of the employment lost 
from closing facilities. The proposed rule also creates new employment 
demand to build, install, maintain and operate compliance equipment, 
which offset these job losses. These job gains are discussed in Section 
XVI-H.4.
    Another 575 facilities, or one percent of the indirect dischargers 
operating in the baseline, are expected to experience moderate economic 
impacts under the proposed rule, as shown in Table XVI-7. Both closures 
and moderate impacts increase substantially for Option 2/6/10 and 
Option 4/8, compared to the proposed rule.

              Table XVI-6.--Incremental Severe Impacts (Facility Closures) on Indirect Dischargers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Number of facility closures due to the rule
             Subcategory               Total operating  --------------------------------------------------------
                                         in baseline       Proposed rule      Option 2/6/10        Option 4/8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals......................             23,140                 24              1,017              2,140
Metal Finishing Job Shops...........              1,231                128                128                393
Non-Chromium Anodizing..............                150                  0                 91                 91
Printed Wiring Board................                620                  7                  7                 25
Steel Forming & Finishing...........                105                  6                  6                  6
Oily Wastes.........................             28,219                 14                 14                271
Railroad Line Maintenance...........                799                  0                  0                  0
Shipbuilding Dry Dock...............                  6                  0                  0                  0
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    All Categories..................             54,270                179              1,262             2,925
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: May not sum to totals due to independent rounding.


                       Table XVI-7.--Incremental Moderate Impacts on Indirect Dischargers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Number of facilities experiencing moderate impacts due
                                       Total operating                         to the rule
             Subcategory                 in baseline    --------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Proposed rule      Option 2/6/10        Option 4/8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals......................             23,140                153              1,753              1,737
Metal Finishing Job Shops...........              1,231                117                117                117
Non-Chromium Anodizing..............                150                  0                  0                  0
Printed Wiring Board................                620                301                301                315
Steel Forming & Finishing...........                105                  4                  4                  4
Oily Wastes.........................             28,219                  0                  0                 26
Railroad Line Maintenance...........                799                  0                  0                  0
Shipbuilding Dry Dock...............                  6                  0                  0                  0
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 484]]

 
    All Categories..................             54,270                575              2,175             2,199
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: May not sum to totals due to independent rounding.

    Another 575 facilities, or one percent of the indirect dischargers 
operating in the baseline, are expected to experience moderate economic 
impacts under the proposed rule, as shown in Table XVI-7. Both closures 
and moderate impacts increase substantially for Option 2/6/10 and 
Option 4/8, compared to the proposed rule.
b. Direct Dischargers
    Of the 4,653 direct discharging facilities subject to regulation 
after baseline closures, EPA estimates that 20 facilities or 0.4 
percent could be expected to close as the result of the proposed rule. 
These 20 are all General Metals facilities, and represent 0.6 percent 
of the 3,636 General Metals Direct Dischargers operating in the 
baseline. The employment losses associated with these facility closures 
are estimated at 178 FTEs. Again, estimated losses in employment 
associated with closures are likely to be overstated, because the 
analysis does not account for the likelihood that non-closing 
facilities will absorb some of the employment from closing facilities. 
In addition, compliance requirements at facilities that continue to 
operate will lead to off-setting increases in employment.
    Another 41 facilities, or 0.9 percent of the 4,653 direct 
dischargers operating in the baseline, would be expected to experience 
moderate financial impacts due to the rule, as shown in Table XVI-9.

               Table XVI-8.--Incremental Severe Impacts (Facility Closures) on Direct Dischargers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Number of facility closures due to the rule
             Subcategory              Total in baseline --------------------------------------------------------
                                          operating        Proposed rule      Option 2/6/10        Option 4/8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals......................              3,636                 20                 20                 35
Metal Finishing Job Shops...........                 12                  0                  0                  0
Non-Chromium Anodizing *............  .................  .................  .................  .................
Printed Wiring Board................                 11                  0                  0                  0
Steel Forming & Finishing...........                 43                  0                  0                  2
Oily Wastes.........................                911                  0                  0                  0
Railroad Line Maintenance...........                 34                  0                  0                  0
Shipbuilding Dry Dock...............                  6                  0                  0                  0
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    All Categories..................              4,653                 20                 20                37
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* EPA estimates that there are no facilities in the Non-Chromium Anodizing subcategory that discharge directly
  to surface waters.
Note: May not sum to totals due to independent rounding.


                        Table XVI-9.--Incremental Moderate Impacts on Direct Dischargers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Number of facilities experiencing moderate  impacts due
                                       Total operating                         to the rule
             Subcategory               in the baseline  --------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Proposed rule      Option 2/6/10        Option 4/8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals......................              3,636                 34                 34                103
Metal Finishing Job Shops...........                 12                  0                  0                  0
Non-Chromium Anodizing *............  .................  .................  .................  .................
Printed Wiring Board................                 11                  0                  0                  0
Steel Forming & Finishing...........                 43                  7                  7                  7
Oily Wastes.........................                911                  0                  0                  0
Railroad Line Maintenance...........                 34                  0                  0                  0
Shipbuilding Dry Dock...............                  6                  0                  0                  0
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    All Categories..................              4,653                 41                 41               110
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* EPA estimates that there are no facilities in the Non-Chromium Anodizing subcategory that discharge directly
  to surface waters.
Note: May not sum to totals due to independent rounding.

c. Summary of Facility Impacts
    Table XVI-10 summarizes the results of the economic impact analysis 
for all facilities and for all regulatory options analyzed. Closures 
and moderate impacts under the proposed option are substantially lower 
than in Option 2/6/10 and Option 4/8. Of the 616 facilities 
experiencing moderate impacts due to the proposed rule, 137 facilities 
fell below the threshold for pre-tax return on assets only, 38 fell 
below the interest coverage ratio threshold only, and 441 fell below 
both thresholds due to the rule. Job losses due to closures are more 
than off-set by job gains associated with compliance requirements under 
the proposed option. (See Section XVI-H.4 for a discussion of 
employment impacts.)

[[Page 485]]



                    Table XVI-10.--Summary of Incremental Facility Impacts for All Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Regulatory option
             Subcategory              --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Proposed rule            Option 2/6/10              Option 4/8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Facilities Operating in      58,922.................  58,922.................  58,922.
 Baseline.
Number of Closures (severe impacts)..  199....................  1,282..................  2,963.
Percent Closing......................  0.3....................  2.2....................  5.0.
Job losses due to closures (FTE-       5,916 (over 3 years)...  16,834 (over 3 years)..  48,070 (over 3 years).
 years).
Job gains due to compliance            8,487 (over 15 years)..  12,023 (over 15 years).  27,535 (over 15 years).
 requirements (FTE-years).
Number of Additional Facilities with   616....................  2,216..................  2,309.
 Moderate Impacts.
Percent with Moderate Impacts........  1.0....................  3.8....................  3.9.
Annualized Compliance Costs (pre-tax,  $1.98..................  $2.67..................  $4.18.
 billion $1999).
Annualized Compliance Costs (after-    $1.33..................  $1.81..................  $2.92.
 tax, billion $1999).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Firm Level Impacts

    EPA examined the impacts of the proposed rule on firms that own 
MP&M facilities, as well as on the financial condition of the 
facilities themselves. A firm that owns multiple MP&M facilities could 
experience adverse financial impacts at the firm level if its 
facilities are among those that incur significant impacts at the 
facility level. The firm-level analysis is also used to compare impacts 
on small versus large firms, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. (RFA/
SBREFA issues are discussed in Section XX.C of this preamble.)
    EPA compared compliance costs with revenue at the firm level as a 
measure of the relative burden of compliance costs. EPA applied this 
analysis only to MP&M facilities owned by private entities. (Section 
XVI.D discusses impacts on governments that own MP&M facilities). The 
Phase I, Phase II industrial detailed, and Iron & Steel surveys 
identified the parent firm that owns each facility that responded to 
the survey. In addition, the Phase II industrial detailed survey 
requested that respondents provide information on other MP&M facilities 
owned by the same firm, on a voluntary basis. EPA estimated firm-level 
compliance costs by summing costs for all facilities owned by the same 
firm that responded to the survey plus estimated compliance costs for 
additional facilities for which respondents submitted information.
    The Agency was not able to estimate the national numbers of firms 
that own MP&M facilities precisely, because the sample weights based on 
the survey design represent numbers of facilities rather than firms. 
Most MP&M facilities (43,118 of 54,590, or 80 percent) are single-
facility firms, however. These firms can be analyzed using the survey 
weights. In addition, there are 289 firms that own more than one sample 
facility. These firms are included in the analysis with a sample weight 
of one, since it is not known how many firms these 289 sample firms 
represent. EPA's analysis of firm-level impacts is presented in Chapter 
9 of the EEBA.
    Table XVI-11 shows the results of the firm-level analysis. The 
results represent a total of 43,407 MP&M firms (43,118 + 289), owning 
54,590 facilities (43,118 owned by single-facility firms + 11,473 owned 
by multi-facility firms).

 Table XVI-11.--Firm Level Before-Tax Annual Compliance Costs as a Percent of Annual Revenues for Private Small
                                            Businesses: Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Number and percent with before-tax annual compliance  costs/
                                                                    annual revenues equal to:
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
       Number of firms in the analysis*             Less than 1%              1-3%                 Over 3%
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Number    Percent     Number    Percent     Number    Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
43,407........................................     41,236         95      1,070        2.5      1,101       2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Firms whose only MP&M facilities close in the baseline are excluded.

    A small percentage (2.5 percent) of the firms in the analysis incur 
before-tax compliance costs equal to 3 percent or more of annual 
revenues. Ninety-five percent incur compliance costs less than 1 
percent of annual revenues, and the remaining 2.5 percent incur costs 
between 1 and 3 percent of revenues. Of 2,171 firms in the analysis 
that incur costs greater than 1 percent of revenues, 636 are single-
facility small firms that were reported in the facility impact analysis 
to close (161 firms) or experience moderate impacts (475 firms) due to 
the rule.
    This analysis is likely to overstate costs at the firm level for 
two reasons. First, it includes compliance costs for facilities that 
are projected to close due to the rule. The estimated compliance costs 
for these facilities are higher than the true cost to the firm of 
shutting down the facility, as illustrated by the detailed facility 
impact analysis that projects closures. Second, the analysis does not 
take account of actions a multi-facility firm might take to reduce its 
compliance costs under the proposed rule. These include transferring 
functions among facilities to consolidate wet processes and take 
advantage of scale economies in wastewater treatment.

D. Impacts on Governments

    The proposed MP&M rule will affect governments in two ways:
    <bullet> Government-owned MP&M facilities may be directly affected 
by the MP&M regulation and therefore incur compliance costs; and

[[Page 486]]

    <bullet> Municipalities that own Publically Owned Treatment Works 
(POTWs) that receive influent from MP&M facilities subject to the 
regulation may incur additional costs to implement the proposed rule. 
These include costs associated with permitting MP&M facilities that 
have not been previously permitted, and with repermitting some MP&M 
facilities with existing control mechanisms (e.g., permits) earlier 
than would otherwise be required. In addition, POTWs may elect to issue 
mass-based control mechanisms to some MP&M facilities that currently 
have concentration-based control mechanisms, at an additional cost.
1. Impacts on Government-Owned Facilities
    EPA administered a survey (the ``Municipal Survey'') to government-
owned facilities to assess the cost of the regulation on these 
facilities and the government entities that own them. (See Section V.B 
for a discussion of EPA's data collection efforts.) The survey 
requested information that provides the basis for EPA's analysis of the 
budgetary impacts of the proposed regulation, including the size and 
income of the populations served by the affected government entities; 
the government's current revenues by source, taxable property, debt, 
pollution control spending and bond rating; and the costs, funding 
sources and other characteristics of the MP&M facilities owned by each 
government entity.
    EPA discusses the methodology for assessing impacts on government-
owned facilities in more detail in Section XVI.B.3.c. In summary, EPA 
used three tests to assess whether MP&M facility compliance costs would 
impose major budgetary impacts on the governments that own the 
facilities: impacts on site-level cost of service, impacts on 
taxpayers, and impacts on government debt. The first test assesses 
impacts at the facility level and the second two tests assess impacts 
at the government level. The Agency judged that a government would 
incur major budgetary impacts due to the rule if it failed all three 
tests.
    The two government-level tests are applied incrementally. 
Governments that fail the test in the baseline are not considered to 
experience budgetary impacts attributable to the rule.
    Table XVI-12 provides national estimates of the number of MP&M 
facilities operated by governments that are potentially subject to the 
proposed rule, by type and size of government.

                               Table XVI-12.--Number of Government-Owned Facilities by Type and Size of Government Entity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                         Regional
   Size of government and status under proposed option         Municipal      State  government        County          governmental          Total
                                                               government                            government         authority
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large Governments (population> 50,000)...................                572                366                686                 36              1,660
Small Governments (population =50,000)...................              2,191  .................                481  .................              2,672
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    All Governments......................................              2,763                366              1,167                 36              4,332
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table XVI-13 summarizes the status of government-owned facilities 
under the various regulatory options, their compliance costs and 
measures of impacts on government that own MP&M facilities.

    Table XVI-13.--Number of Regulated Government-Owned Facilities, Compliance Costs and Budgetary Impacts by
                                                Regulatory Option
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Proposed option    Option 2/6/10        Option 4/8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Number of Government-Owned Facilities............              4,332              4,332              4,332
Number of facilities exempted by low-flow cutoff.......              3,603  .................  .................
Number of facilities subject to regulation.............                729              4,332              4,332
Compliance costs ($1999 million).......................              $14.1              $64.8             $224.7
Number of facilities with compliance costs > one                       215
 percent of baseline cost of service*..................
Number of governments failing the ``impact on                            0
 taxpayers'' criterion**...............................
Number of governments failing the ``impacts on                           0
 government debt'' criterion***........................
Number of governments failing all three impacts                          0
 criteria <SUP>+</SUP>............................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Annualized compliance costs as a percent of total facility costs and expenditures, including operating,
  overhead and debt service costs and expenses.
** Based on comparison of compliance costs for all facilities owned by the government to the income of
  households that are served by the relevant government. A government is judged to experience impacts if the
  proposed rule results in a ratio of total annualized pollution control costs per household to median household
  income that exceeds one percent post-compliance. Includes existing pollution control costs plus the compliance
  costs due to the MP&M rule.
*** Based on comparison of total debt service costs (including costs to finance MP&M capital costs entirely with
  debt) with baseline government revenue. A government is judged to experience impacts if the rule causes its
  total debt service payments to exceed 25% of baseline revenue.
<SUP>+</SUP> A government is judged to experience major budgetary impacts if it has one or more facilities with costs of
  compliance above 1% of baseline cost of service and fails both the taxpayers impact and government debt impact
  tests.

    Table XVI-13 shows that the proposed rule substantially reduces 
costs and impacts relative to the other options considered for 
government-owned facilities, because 3,603 (83 percent) of the 
facilities are exempted under the low flow cutoffs (110 General Metals 
facilities and 3,492 Oily Wastes facilities.) Compliance costs would be 
more than 4\1/2\ times higher under Option 2/6/10 and 16 times higher 
under Option 4.
    An estimated 215 government-owned facilities (5 percent of the 
total) would incur costs under the proposed rule exceeding one percent 
of their baseline cost of service. Therefore, 95 percent of the 
government-owned facilities either incur no costs or are likely to be 
able to absorb the added costs within their existing budgets. None of 
the

[[Page 487]]

governments incur costs that cause them to exceed the thresholds for 
impacts on taxpayers or for government debt burden. EPA therefore 
concludes that the proposed rule will not impose major budgetary 
burdens on any of the governments that own MP&M facilities.
2. POTW Administrative Costs
    EPA also evaluated the costs incurred by governments to administer 
the rule. The rule is not expected to impose any new administrative 
costs associated with direct dischargers, which are already permitted 
by States. However, control authorities will have to issue control 
mechanisms (e.g., permits) for the first time to some indirect 
discharging facilities and will have to accelerate repermitting for 
some indirect dischargers that currently hold control mechanisms.
    The costs of issuing and enforcing permits and control mechanisms 
associated with the proposed rule are discussed in Section XVI.H.3 of 
this preamble. EPA is able to estimate total costs to POTWs, but is not 
able to estimate the costs to any one POTW, since it is not possible to 
determine what POTWs receive discharges from MP&M facilities except for 
those that responded to the surveys.
    EPA estimates that POTWs as a whole will incur incremental average 
annualized costs over 15 years of between $115,000 and $912,000 under 
the proposed rule. The maximum expenditures by all affected POTWs in 
any one year will be between $186,000 and $1,607,000. These costs 
include issuing new control mechanisms (e.g., permits) to facilities 
that do not currently have permits, issuing mass-based permits to some 
facilities that currently have concentration-based permits, and 
repermitting some facilities sooner than would otherwise be required to 
meet the three-year compliance schedule. On average, a POTW's costs for 
the incremental permitting are only $23 to $184 per permitted MP&M 
indirect discharger under the proposed rule.
    EPA is requiring mass-based permits/control mechanisms only for the 
Steel Forming & Finishing subcategory; permits/control mechanisms for 
other subcategories may be concentration-based. EPA is encouraging 
permit writers and control authorities to issue mass-based permits and 
control mechanisms, however, where appropriate and feasible. The 
analysis of permitting costs assumes for costing purposes that one-
third of the new or reissued permits/control mechanisms in 
subcategories other than Steel Forming & Finishing will be mass-based.
    EPA expects that these increases in costs will be partially offset 
by reductions in government administrative costs for facilities that 
are already permitted under local limits and that will be repermitted 
under this rule. The proposed technical guidance provided by EPA as a 
part of this rulemaking may reduce the research required by permit 
writers/control authorities in developing permits and control 
mechanisms based on Best Professional Judgement (BPJ) for industrial 
dischargers not previously covered by a categorical standard or a water 
quality standard. Further, the establishment of discharge standards may 
reduce the frequency of evidentiary hearings. The promulgation of 
limitations may also enable EPA and the authorized States to cover more 
facilities under general permits. EPA did not estimate these cost 
savings to permitting authorities that may result from the rule.

E. Community Level Impacts

    EPA considered the potential impacts of changes in employment due 
to the proposed rule on the communities where MP&M facilities are 
located. Changes in employment due to the rule include both job losses 
that occur when facilities close and job gains associated with 
facilities' compliance activities. EPA estimated that a total of 5,916 
jobs would be lost at the 199 facilities projected to close under the 
proposed rule. At the same time, EPA estimated that manufacturing and 
installing compliance equipment would lead to 4,488 full-time 
equivalent (FTE) positions, and that operating and maintaining 
compliance systems would result in another 286 FTEs per year. Over a 15 
year analysis period, the net effect of job gains and losses caused by 
the rule is an increase of 2,575 FTE-years or an average of 172 FTEs 
per year. This estimate assumes that workers that lose their job are 
unemployed for an average of one year, and that compliance investments 
and closures occur evenly over the first three years after 
promulgation. This estimate of employment impacts is likely to 
understate the net increase, because it ignores the fact that some 
production and employment lost at closing plants is likely to result in 
increased production and employment at other MP&M facilities. (EPA's 
analysis of employment impacts is discussed in more detail in Section 
XVI-H.4 below and in Chapter 6 of the EEBA.)
    Given the projected overall increase in employment due to the 
proposed rule, EPA does not expect the rule to have significant impacts 
at the community level. It is not possible to predict precisely where 
the job gains and losses will occur. However, facilities that are 
projected to close due to the rule have employment ranging from 2 to 
205 FTEs. MP&M facilities tend to be located in industrialized urban 
areas, and closures of this size are not likely to have a major impact 
on a local economy.

F. Foreign Trade Impacts

    U.S. MP&M producers as a group exported products with a value of 
$380.3 billion in 1999. Imports to the U.S. of the same products in 
1999 totaled $539.1 billion, resulting in an overall net MP&M commodity 
trade deficit of $153.8 billion. Some MP&M sectors contribute to a 
positive commodity trade balance (e.g. aircraft, with a $37.0 billion 
positive balance in 1999). In other sectors, substantially more 
products are imported than exported (e.g. motor vehicles, with a net 
negative balance of $96.8 billion.) Exports and imports by MP&M sector 
are discussed in Chapter 3 of the EEBA.
    The proposed rule will have an impact on the balance of trade in 
MP&M products to the extent that prices for MP&M products increase and 
MP&M facilities reduce production. Imports may increase if domestic 
customers switch from domestic suppliers to foreign suppliers of MP&M 
products, and exports may decrease if foreign customers switch from 
purchasing U.S. exports to other suppliers. On the other hand, business 
lost by the regulated MP&M facilities due to their increased costs may 
be captured by other domestic producers.
    Section XVI.B of this preamble and Chapter 5 of the EEBA describe 
EPA's analysis of changes in output that are expected to result from 
the proposed rule. EPA assessed the impact of these market-level 
changes on the U.S. balance of trade using information provided by the 
industrial general surveys on the source of competition in domestic and 
foreign markets. This analysis allocates the value of changes in output 
for each facility that is projected to close due to the rule to 
exports, imports or domestic sales, based on the predominant source of 
competition in each market reported in the surveys.
    Table XVI-14 shows the results of this analysis. The table compares 
the projected changes in exports, imports and balance of trade 
(expressed in $1999) to baseline 1999 values for both the MP&M 
industries and for the U.S. balance of trade in commodities as a whole. 
The projected changes in trade under the proposed rule have a very

[[Page 488]]

small impact on the balance of trade. The total U.S. balance of trade 
in commodities would decline by less than 0.01 percent and the balance 
of trade in the MP&M industries would decline by 0.01 percent.

                              Table XVI-14.--Proposed Rule Impacts on Foreign Trade
                                                 [Million $1999]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   1999 value of   1999 value of    Balance of
                                                                      exports         imports          Trade
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Commodity Trade............................................         695,797       1,024,618       (328,821)
MP&M Industries.................................................         380,305         534,141       (153,836)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Post-Compliance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change Due to the Proposed Rule.................................               0            21.1          (21.1)
Percent Change In U.S. Commodity Trade Balance..................              0%           0.01%          0.01%
Percent Change in MP&M Industries Trade Balance.................              0%           0.01%         0.01%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Census and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

G. Impacts on New Facilities

    EPA assessed the impacts of the proposed rule on new facilities 
based on the characteristics of a model facility in each subcategory 
and (in some cases) discharge category (direct and indirect). 
Engineering estimates of compliance costs for Option 2/6/10 and Option 
4/8 for a representative facility reflect the typical flow size and 
other technical characteristics of facilities in each category. (See 
the Technical Development Document.) Table XVI-15 lists the compliance 
costs and flow size for a representative model facility in each 
category, along with the regulatory option considered for each 
subcategory.
    In absence of the MP&M rule, new sources in the Metal Finishing Job 
Shop and Printed Wiring Board subcategories would comply with 40 CFR 
part 433 new source requirements, and Steel Forming & Finishing new 
sources would comply with 40 CFR part 420 new source requirements. 
Therefore, the analysis considers only the incremental costs of 
proposed MP&M new source requirements beyond those baseline 
requirements.
    EPA estimated facility revenues for the model facilities based on 
the revenues reported for existing facilities in the Section 308 
surveys. The analysis excludes facilities that are projected to close 
or to experience moderate economic impacts in the baseline, since the 
economic characteristics of these financially-weak facilities are 
unlikely to be representative of new facilities. EPA sorted the 
existing financially-sound facilities in each subcategory/discharge 
status by flow size, and identified facilities in each quartile based 
on flow size. The Agency then identified the flow size quartile that 
the hypothetical facility would fall into. Finally, EPA calculated the 
average revenue for the existing facilities in that same flow size 
quartile, and assumed that the hypothetical new facility would have 
revenues equal to that average. Table XVI-15 shows the facility revenue 
estimated for each model facility.
    EPA calculated compliance costs as a percentage of post-compliance 
revenues as a measure of impacts. The projected revenues include 
estimated prices increases due to the rule. The analysis assumes that 
new sources would benefit from the small price increases resulting from 
the proposed rule for existing sources, and applies the same percentage 
price increase to calculate post-regulation revenues for the new 
sources. Table XVI-15 shows before-tax annual compliance costs as a 
percent of facility post-regulation revenues.
    Finally, Table XVI-15 presents the cost-to-revenue percentage 
estimated for new facilities in each subcategory.

                                                            Table XVI-15.--New Source Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  New source         Annualized      Facility Revenue
              Subcategory                Discharge status   Existing source        options        compliance costs     \c\ ($1999)     New Source ACC as
                                                            options proposed    considered \a\      \b\ ($1999)                           % of Revenue
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals........................                  I                  2                  4           $393,220       $417,071,318               0.09
General Metals........................                  D                  2                  4            167,342        398,818,659               0.04
Metal Finishing Job Shops.............                  I                  2                  4             65,369          1,428,443               4.64
Metal Finishing Job Shops.............                  D                  2                  4             70,735          5,089,823               1.41
Non-Chromium Anodizing................                  I                  2                  4             97,108         24,201,166               0.40
Oily Wastes...........................                  I                  6                  8            355,874        474,228,616               0.08
Oily Wastes...........................                  D                  6                  8             37,815        116,772,943               0.03
Printed Wiring Board..................                  I                  2                  4             70,563         35,930,097               0.20
Printed Wiring Board..................                  D                  2                  4            160,184      1,029,783,596               0.02
Railroad Line Maintenance.............                I&D                 10                  8            184,261               n.a.               n.a.
Shipbuilding Dry Dock.................                I&D                 10                  8            220,492        192,018,827               0.11
Steel Forming & Finishing.............                  I                  2                  4            114,851         69,640,244               0.17
Steel Forming & Finishing.............                  D                  2                  4             46,945         32,759,295              0.14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Technology Options 1 through 10 are described in Section VIII.A of the preamble.
<SUP>a</SUP> EPA is not proposing the new source option considered in this analysis for the Non-Chromium Anodizing, Oily Wastes, Railroad Line Maintenance, and
  Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategories. See Section XIII for a discussion on new source options selection.
<SUP>b</SUP> Incremental to baseline new source requirements (found in 40 CFR 433 and 420, as applicable) for Metal Finishing Job Shop, Printed Wiring Board and
  Steel Forming & Finishing new sources.
<SUP>c</SUP> Equal to the average revenues of existing facilities in the same quartile based on flow size of the new source model facility, excluding existing
  facilities that close or experience moderate impacts in the baseline. Assumes the same percentage price increases for new as for existing sources
  under the proposed option.
<SUP>d</SUP> Includes existing facilities in all flow categories that continue operating post-compliance.


[[Page 489]]

    New sources in all but the Metal Finishing Job Shop direct 
discharger subcategory incur costs that are below one percent of post-
regulation revenues. Cost increases of this magnitude are unlikely to 
place new facilities at a competitive disadvantage relative to existing 
sources. Moreover, costs as a percentage of revenues are generally 
comparable for new sources and existing sources with which they will 
compete.
    Railroad line maintenance facilities do not have revenue reported 
at the facility level, and it is therefore not possible to compare 
costs as a percent of facility revenue for new and existing facilities 
in this subcategory. The representative new source railroad line 
maintenance facility would incur annualized costs ($184,261) that are 
somewhat higher than those incurred by existing facilities in this 
subcategory (which range from zero to $122,042.)
    See Section XIII for a discussion of new source options selection. 
EPA notes that it did not select the ``New Source Option Considered'' 
in Table XVI-15, above, for the Non-Chromium Anodizing, Oily Wastes, 
Railroad Line Maintenance, and Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategories, but 
rather selected a lower cost option for new sources.

H. Social Costs

1. Components of Social Costs
    The social costs of regulatory actions are the opportunity costs to 
society of employing scarce resources in pollution control activity. 
The largest component of economic costs to society is the cost incurred 
by MP&M facilities for the labor, equipment, material, and other 
economic resources needed to comply with the proposed rule.
    The social costs associated with the proposed MP&M regulation 
differ from the compliance costs estimated to assess impacts on the 
regulated facilities and firms, because of different treatment of 
taxes. Social costs include compliance costs that are considered on a 
before-tax basis. Privately-owned facilities are able to deduct the 
costs of compliance as business expenses, reduce their tax liability 
for a given level of revenue, and thereby share the burden of the costs 
with other taxpayers. The burden is shared with other taxpayers because 
the Federal government loses the money saved by industry through tax 
shields. The cost to society includes the costs borne by industry, as 
well as the cost borne by the Federal government through lost tax 
revenues. The cost to society, therefore, is higher than the cost to 
industry. The annualized lost Federal tax revenues can be calculated as 
the difference between the annualized cost before and after tax 
shields.
    Social costs also include lost producers' and consumers' surplus 
that result when the quantity of goods and services produced decreases 
as a result of the rule. Lost producers' surplus is measured as the 
difference between revenues earned and the cost of production for the 
lost production. Lost consumers' surplus is the difference between the 
price paid by consumers for the lost production and the maximum amount 
they would have been willing to pay for those goods and services. 
Calculating lost producers' and consumers' surplus accurately requires 
knowledge of the characteristics of market supply and demand for each 
affected industry. EPA instead calculated an upper-bound estimate of 
social compliance costs using the simplifying assumption that all 
facilities continue operating in compliance with the rule, and pay the 
associated compliance costs (i.e., assuming that there are no 
regulation-related closures.) This provides an upper-bound estimate of 
social costs because, for facilities predicted to close, continuing to 
operate and incurring compliance costs is more costly than closing the 
facility with the lost producers' and consumers' surplus associated 
with the closure.
    In addition to the resource costs to society associated with 
compliance, the estimated social cost includes two other cost elements: 
the cost to local governments of implementing the rule and the costs 
associated with unemployment that may result from the proposed 
regulation. The government administration costs include the costs to 
POTWs of permitting and compliance monitoring and enforcement 
activities. The unemployment-related costs include the cost of 
administering unemployment programs for workers who would lose 
employment, and an estimate of the amount that workers would be willing 
to pay to avoid involuntary unemployment.
2. Resource Cost of Compliance
    The resource costs of compliance are the value of society's 
productive resources--including labor, equipment, and materials--
expended to achieve the reductions in effluent discharges required by 
the proposed rule. The social costs of these resources are higher than 
the costs incurred by facilities because facilities are able to deduct 
the costs from their taxable income. The costs to society, however, are 
the full value of the resources used, whether they are paid for by the 
regulated facilities or by all taxpayers in the form of lost tax 
revenues. EPA calculated costs at a 7 percent rate. EPA included 
facilities predicted to close due to the rule when calculating social 
costs.
    The estimated after-tax private compliance costs incurred by 
facilities, excluding costs for facilities that close, are $1.3 
billion. The estimated social value of these compliance costs, 
calculated before-tax assuming no regulatory closures, is $2.0 billion. 
This represents the value to society of the resources that would be 
used to comply with the proposed rule if all facilities continued to 
operate rather than some closing due to the rule. This estimate 
represents an upper-bound social value of the compliance resources 
associated with the proposed rule.
3. Cost of Administering the Proposed Regulation
    EPA estimated the cost to governments of administering the proposed 
regulation, including the use of labor and material resources to write 
permits/control mechanisms under the regulation and to conduct 
compliance monitoring and enforcement activities.
    EPA does not expect increases in administrative costs for 
facilities that discharge their wastewater directly to surface water, 
because the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 
permit program requires that these facilities hold permits. POTWs will 
incur additional permitting costs for indirect dischargers that do not 
already have a control mechanism (e.g., permit) prior to implementation 
of the proposed rule.
    Information on the baseline number of indirect dischargers with 
control mechanisms comes from the industrial detailed facility surveys, 
which reported the baseline permit status of each MP&M facility. (See 
Section V.B for a description of EPA's survey questionnaires.) EPA 
estimated costs and impacts for these facilities. Results of the impact 
analysis indicate that of the 58,922 MP&M facilities continuing to 
operate in the baseline (including 64 avoided baseline closures), 199 
facilities are expected to close rather than comply with the 
regulation. Another 49,147 are excluded or fall below the proposed low 
flow cut-offs. Of the 9,577 facilities that are expected to continue 
operating and comply with the regulation, 4,633 facilities are direct 
dischargers and 4,944 are indirect dischargers. EPA estimates that 
4,296 of the indirect dischargers already have permits or other control 
mechanisms (629 with concentration-based permits and 3,667 with mass-
based permits) and that 648 indirect discharging facilities will be 
required to get a permit/control mechanism for the first time.

[[Page 490]]

    EPA conducted the POTW survey of 150 POTWs to support analysis of 
the administrative burdens imposed by the proposed rule on POTWs that 
receive discharges from MP&M facilities. The questionnaire requested 
detailed information on the costs of various activities per facility 
permitted, including estimated hours required to develop and issue 
permits/control mechanisms, provide technical guidance, inspect 
facilities, conduct sampling, review compliance reports, take 
enforcement actions, and repermit facilities. The survey requested this 
information for facilities of different sizes (based on flow). In 
addition, the survey requested information on the frequency with which 
specific administrative activities are required for activities that are 
not required for every permitted facility (such as conducting a public 
hearing). EPA used the POTW survey responses to estimate a range of 
permitting labor hour burdens and costs per MP&M facility permitted, 
with separate estimates for concentration- and mass-based permits/
control mechanisms. This analysis is presented in Appendix C of the 
EEBA.
    Estimated annualized POTW administrative costs for each facility 
issued a new concentration-based control mechanism range from $236 to 
$1,890, and from $240 to $1,924 for each facility issued a new mass-
based control mechanism, with the range depending on the complexity of 
the facility being permitted. EPA applied these costs per facility to 
the estimated number of facilities requiring new control mechanisms or 
conversion of a concentration-based to a mass-based control mechanism 
each year, to estimate the total administrative cost to permitting 
authorities. (See Section XXI.B for a discussion on implementation of 
the MP&M limitations and standards.)
    EPA is requiring mass-based permits/control mechanisms only for the 
Steel Forming and Finishing subcategory. For other subcategories, 
permit writers and control authorities can determine what type of 
permit/control mechanism to issue. EPA is encouraging POTWs to 
institute mass-based limits where possible, however. (See Section 
XXII.B.) For purposes of estimating costs, EPA assumed that all Steel 
Forming and Finishing and one-third of the permits/control mechanisms 
issued in other subcategories will be mass-based.
    Table XVI-16 summarizes the estimated range of administrative costs 
that will be incurred by POTWs under the proposed rule. The estimates 
reflect the low and high estimates of permitting cost per facility, and 
take account of the need to repermit indirect dischargers with existing 
control mechanisms (e.g., permits) within the three year compliance 
period rather than on the normal five-year permitting schedule. These 
estimates are described in detail in Chapter 7 of the EEBA.

         Table XVI-16.--POTW Administrative Costs: Proposed Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of facilities permitted:
    Converted from existing concentration-based to                 * 223
     mass-based......................................
    Issued new concentration-based permit............              * 432
    Issued new mass-based permit.....................              * 216
    Repermitted 1-2 years earlier....................              4,073
Number of closing facilities with existing permits                   143
 not requiring repermitting under the proposed rule..
Total POTW Administrative Costs (net present value of      $1.407-$8.311
 incremental costs over 15 years) (million $1999)....
Total POTW Administrative Costs (annualized over 15       $0.115-$0.912
 years @ 7% (million $1999)..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Assumes that permitting authorities will chose to issue mass-based
  control mechanisms (e.g., permits) to \1/3\ of the facilities
  requiring new permits, and \1/3\ of the facilities with existing
  concentration-based permits, other than Steel Forming & Finishing.
  Mass-based permits are assumed for all 20 Steel Forming & Finishing
  facilities that currently have a concentration-based permit.

    Total estimated government administration costs therefore range 
from $0.1 to $0.9 million ($1999) annually. EPA expects that this 
increase in costs will be partially offset by reductions in government 
administrative costs for facilities that are already permitted under 
local limits and that will be repermitted under this rule. The 
technical guidance provided by EPA as a part of this rulemaking may 
reduce the research required by permit writers and control authorities 
in developing Best Professional Judgement (BPJ) permits/control 
mechanisms for industrial dischargers not previously covered by a 
categorical standard or a water quality standard. Further, the 
establishment of discharge standards may reduce the frequency of 
evidentiary hearings. The promulgation of limitations may also enable 
EPA and the authorized States to cover more facilities under general 
permits. EPA did not estimate these cost savings to permitting 
authorities that may result from the rule.
4. Social Cost of Unemployment
    The loss of jobs associated with facility closures represent a 
social cost of the proposed rule. The social cost of unemployment 
includes two components: the losses suffered by the workers that 
experience involuntary loss of employment, and the cost to the 
government of administering the unemployment compensation program for 
these workers.
    EPA calculated the first cost of worker dislocation based on an 
estimate of the value that workers would pay to avoid an involuntary 
job loss. The estimate of the amount that workers would pay to avoid 
job losses was derived from hedonic studies of the compensation premium 
required by workers to accept jobs with a higher probability of 
unemployment. This framework has been used in the past to impute a 
trade-off between wages and job security (Topel, 1984; Adams, 1985). 
This estimate approximates a one-time willingness-to-pay to avoid an 
involuntary episode of unemployment and reflects all monetary and non-
monetary impacts of involuntary unemployment incurred by the worker. It 
does not include any offsets to the cost of unemployment such as 
unemployment compensation or the value of increased leisure time. EPA 
estimates that workers would be willing to pay between $90,840 and 
$119,900 ($1999) to avoid a case of involuntary employment. Annualized 
over 15 years at a discount rate of 7 percent, this willingness to pay 
is between $9,974 and $13,164 per lost job. The cost associated with a 
projected loss of 5,916 jobs due to facility closures under the 
proposed rule therefore has an estimated annual social cost of $59.0 
million and $77.9 million.
    Unemployment as the result of regulation also imposes costs on 
society through the additional administrative burdens placed on the 
unemployment system. The cost of unemployment benefits themselves is 
not a social cost but instead a transfer payment within society from 
taxpayers to unemployed

[[Page 491]]

workers. Administrative costs include the cost of processing 
unemployment claims, retraining workers, and placing workers in new 
jobs. Data obtained from the Interstate Conference of Employment 
Security Agencies indicated that the cost of administering an initial 
unemployment claim over the period averaged $119 ($1999). This cost 
includes total Federal and State funding for administering unemployment 
benefit programs but excludes the value of benefits. Based on these 
data, EPA assumed that the cost of administering unemployment programs 
for job losses caused by the MP&M regulation would amount to 
approximately $120 per job loss. Multiplying this figure by estimated 
loss of 5,916 jobs due to facility closures under the proposed 
regulation yields an additional $709,920 in social costs. EPA 
annualized this value over the 15-year analysis period at the 3 percent 
social discount rate to yield an annual cost of $77,945 ($1999).
    This estimate of social costs does not take into account the 
increased production and employment at MP&M facilities that continue to 
operate under the proposed rule. These facilities are likely to gain 
business when some facilities close due to the rule. In addition, the 
analysis does not reflect the jobs created by facilities' actions to 
comply with the rule. The net effect of job losses due to facility 
closures and job gains associated with compliance activities is an 
increase of 2,575 FTE-years over 15 years. This estimate assumes that 
displaced workers remain unemployed for one year on average, and that 
all layoffs and compliance related investments occur over the first 
three years after promulgation. Table XVI-17 shows the timing of 
projected employment impacts, and the net effect on employment over 15 
years. (EPA's estimates of the employment effects of the proposed rule 
are presented in Chapter 6 of the EEBA.)

             Table XVI-17.--Estimated Direct Net Impacts on Employment Over 15 Years, Proposed Rule
                                  [Number of FTEs per year and total FTE-years]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     One-time
                                                   manufacturing                                   Net change in
                      Year                              and        Annual O&M <SUP>a</SUP>     Closures <SUP>b</SUP>      employment
                                                  installation <SUP>a</SUP>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................           1,496              95           1,972           (381)
2...............................................           1,496             190           1,972           (286)
3...............................................           1,496             286           1,972           (190)
4...............................................  ..............             286  ..............            286
5...............................................  ..............             286  ..............            286
6...............................................  ..............             286  ..............            286
7...............................................  ..............             286  ..............            286
8...............................................  ..............             286  ..............            286
9...............................................  ..............             286  ..............            286
10..............................................  ..............             286  ..............            286
11..............................................  ..............             286  ..............            286
12..............................................  ..............             286  ..............            286
13..............................................  ..............             286  ..............            286
14..............................................  ..............             286  ..............            286
15..............................................  ..............             286  ..............            286
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total FTE-years over 15 years...............           4,488           4,003           5,916         2,575
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<SUP>a</SUP> Assumes that one-third of facilities come into compliance in each of 3 years.
<SUP>b</SUP> Assumes that one-third of the facilities projected to close do so in each of the first 3 years.

    EPA calculated a range of social costs of changes in employment 
under the proposed rule, with the lower bound reflecting no net loss of 
employment and the upper bound considering only the 5,916 job losses 
resulting from closures. The social costs associated with unemployment 
were therefore estimated to range from zero to $78.0 million, including 
an upper-bound $77.9 million in worker's willingness to pay to avoid 
involuntary unemployment and less than $0.1 million in the additional 
costs of administering unemployment benefits. The estimated upper-bound 
employment-related social cost is likely to be substantially 
overstated, since it does not consider the social value of net 
increases in employment due to compliance activities and the increases 
in production that may occur at MP&M facilities that continue to 
operate post-compliance.
5. Total Social Costs
    Summing across all social costs results in a total social cost 
estimate of $2.0 to $2.1 billion annually ($1999), as shown in Table 
XVI-18. This estimate represents an upper bound value of social costs, 
since it assumes that all facilities remain open and incur compliance 
costs rather than closing in some cases. This assumption is made only 
to calculate the resource value of compliance expenditures; closures 
are considered in calculating the social cost of unemployment.

         Table XVI-18.--Annual Social Costs of the Proposed Rule
                    [Million $1999, annualized @ 7%]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Lower bound   Upper bound
            Social cost category                estimate      estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resource Value of Compliance Costs (before-
 tax).......................................            $2,033.7
                                             ---------------------------
Government Administrative Costs.............          $0.1          $0.9
Social Costs of Unemployment................           0           $78.0

[[Page 492]]

 
Total Social Costs..........................      $2,033.8      $2,122.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------

XVII. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

A. Methodology

    EPA performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of the alternative 
regulatory options for indirect dischargers (PSES) and direct 
dischargers (BAT). Cost-effectiveness analysis is used in the 
development of effluent limitations guidelines to evaluate the relative 
efficiency of alternative regulatory options in removing toxic 
pollutants from the effluent discharges to the nation's waters.
    The cost-effectiveness of a regulatory option is defined as the 
incremental annual cost (in 1981 constant dollars) per incremental 
toxic-weighted pollutant removals for that option. This definition 
includes the following concepts:
    <bullet> Toxic-weighted removals. Pollutants differ in their 
toxicity. Therefore, the estimated reductions in pollution discharges, 
or pollutant removals, are adjusted for toxicity by multiplying the 
estimated removal quantity for each pollutant by a normalizing toxic 
weight (Toxic Weighting Factors). The toxic weight for each pollutant 
measures its toxicity relative to copper, with more toxic pollutants 
having higher toxic weights. The use of toxic weights allows the 
removals of different pollutants to be expressed on a constant toxicity 
basis as toxic pound-equivalents (lb-eq). The removal quantities for 
the different pollutants may then be summed to yield an aggregate 
measure of the reduction in toxicity-normalized pollutant discharges 
that is achieved by a regulatory option. The cost-effectiveness 
analysis does not address the removal of conventional pollutants (oil 
and grease, biochemical oxygen demand, and total suspended solids), nor 
does it address the removal of bulk parameters, such as COD.
    <bullet> Annual costs. The costs used in the cost-effectiveness 
analysis are the estimated annualized before-tax costs to comply with 
the alternative regulatory options. The cost to facilities to remove 
these pollutants will be less because the costs are tax deductible. The 
annual costs include the annual expenses for operating and maintaining 
compliance equipment, meeting monitoring requirements, and some 
pollution prevention activities. Annualized components include capital 
outlays for treatment systems.
    <bullet> Incremental calculations. The incremental values are the 
changes in total annual compliance costs and changes in removals from 
the next less stringent option, or from the baseline if there is no 
less stringent option, where regulatory options are ranked by 
increasing levels of toxic-weighted removals. The resulting cost-
effectiveness values for a given option are therefore expressed 
relative to another option or, for the least stringent option 
considered, relative to the baseline.
    The result of the cost-effectiveness calculation represents the 
unit cost of removing the next pound-equivalent of pollutants and is 
expressed in constant 1981 dollars per toxic pound-equivalent removed 
($/lb-eq) to allow comparisons with other options being considered. 
Although not required by the Clean Water Act, cost-effectiveness 
analysis is a useful tool for evaluating regulatory options that 
address toxic pollutants.
    EPA performed the cost-effectiveness analysis for the MP&M 
regulation separately for indirect dischargers (subject to PSES) and 
direct dischargers (subject to BAT). The following sections summarize 
the results for the two classes of facilities. EPA notes that for all 
subcategories, it is proposing options only BPT or is setting BAT equal 
to BPT, as there is no additional technology used at BAT. The Agency 
does not use C-E analysis to assess options for BPT. Therefore, the C-E 
analysis for direct dischargers is presented only for informational 
purposes. See Section IX for a discussion of BPT cost-reasonableness.

B. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Indirect Dischargers

    Table XVII-1 summarizes the cost-effectiveness analysis for the 
PSES regulatory options applicable to indirect dischargers. Annual 
compliance costs are shown in 1999 dollars and also in 1981 dollars. 
The regulatory options are listed in order of increasing stringency on 
the basis of the estimated toxic-weighted pollutant removals. Estimates 
of costs and pollutant removals do not include facilities that close in 
the baseline. (See Section XVI.B.4 for a discussion on the baseline 
closure analysis.)

                                               Table XVII-1.--Cost-Effectiveness for Indirect Dischargers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Annual before-tax compliance costs (excluding    Weighted pollutant removals
                                                                       regulatory closures)              --------------------------------      Cost-
                                                         ------------------------------------------------                                  effectiveness
                    Regulatory option                       Total  cost     Total  cost     Incremental        Total        Incremental    ratio ($1981/
                                                             (million        (million      cost (million   removals (000   removals (000      lb-eq)
                                                              $1999)          $1981)          $1981)          lbs-eq)         lbs-eq)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option.........................................         1,730.1         1,009.2         1,009.2         9,372.3         9,372.3             108
Option 2/6/10...........................................         2,421.9         1,412.8           403.6         9,755.5           383.2           1,053
Option 4/8..............................................         3,795.1         2,213.8           801.0         9,936.9           181.4           4,416
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Table XVII-1, the proposed option removes 9.4 million 
toxic-weighted pounds. The proposed option is the least stringent of 
those considered, and the incremental and average cost-effectiveness is 
$108 per pound-equivalent removed.
    Option 2/6/10 would remove an additional 0.4 million toxic weighted 
pounds, at an incremental cost of $0.38 billion ($1981), for an 
incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $1,053 per pound-equivalent 
removed. The differences between the proposed option and Option 2/6/10 
for indirect dischargers

[[Page 493]]

include the proposed option's one million gallon per year cutoff for 
the General Metals subcategory, two million gallon per year cutoff for 
the Oily Wastes subcategory, and exclusion of new pretreatment 
standards for the Non-Chromium Anodizing, Railroad Line Maintenance and 
Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategories. These provisions of the proposed 
rule reduce before-tax compliance costs by 40 percent compared with 
Option 2/6/10, while losing 4 percent of the pound-equivalents removed. 
EPA discussed the rationale for the selected flow cutoffs for each 
subcategory in Section XII of today's proposal.
    Option 4/8 would remove an additional 0.18 million pound-
equivalents, as compared with Option 2/6/10, at an additional cost of 
$0.8 billion ($1981), or $4,416 per pound-equivalent.
    Table XVII-2 presents the results of the cost-effectiveness 
analysis for indirect dischargers by subcategory.

                    Table XVII-2.--Cost-Effectiveness for Indirect Dischargers by Subcategory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Incremental
                                                                    before-tax      Incremental        Cost-
                Subcategory and regulatory option                   compliance    removals (lbs-   effectiveness
                                                                   cost (million        eq)       ratio  ($1981/
                                                                      $1981)                          lb-eq)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Printed Wiring Boards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option.................................................           81.17       1,195,260              68
Option 2/6/10...................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
Option 4/8......................................................           40.87           8,010           5,103
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Metal Finishing Job Shops
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option.................................................           68.82       1,766,063              39
Option 2/6/10...................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
Option 4/8......................................................           26.54          62,554             424
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 General Metals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option.................................................          844.52       6,216,887             136
Option 2/6/10...................................................          279.12         318,594             876
Option 4/8......................................................          487.21         103,514           4,707
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Non-Chromium Anodizing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option.................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
Option 2/6/10...................................................           15.23          13,598           1,120
Option 4/8......................................................            7.27             434          16,756
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Oily Wastes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option.................................................            2.52          14,140             178
Option 2/6/10...................................................          109.04          51,008           2,138
Option 4/8......................................................          232.35           5,885          39,484
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Railroad Line Maintenance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option.................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
Option 2/6/10...................................................            0.15              17           8,560
Option 4/8......................................................            0.13             132             995
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Shipbuilding Dry Dock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option.................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
Option 2/6/10...................................................            0.10               0         767,794
Option 4/8......................................................            0.00              26               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Steel Forming and Finishing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option.................................................           12.19         179,900              68
Option 2/6/10...................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
Option 4/8......................................................            6.63             865           7,659
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed option for indirect dischargers in the Printed Wiring 
Board, Metal Finishing Job Shops, and Steel Forming and Finishing 
subcategories is the same as Option 2/6/10. The proposed option 
includes a flow cutoff of one million and two million gallons per year 
for General Metals and Oily Wastes, respectively. Therefore, there are 
no proposed pretreatment standards for all indirect dischargers that 
fall below those cutoffs. There are also no proposed pretreatment 
standards for indirect dischargers in the Non-Chromium Anodizing, 
Railroad Line Maintenance and Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategories. In 
developing regulatory options for indirect dischargers, EPA considered 
a range of possible exclusions from 1 mgy to 6.25 mgy for all 
subcategories. Information of

[[Page 494]]

the cost-effectiveness for each regulatory option under each flow 
cutoff by subcategory can be found in ``Analysis of Cost-Effectiveness 
by Flow Category'', which is available in the rulemaking docket.

C. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Direct Dischargers

    Table XVII-3 summarizes the cost-effectiveness analysis for the BAT 
regulatory options applicable to direct dischargers and Table XVII-4 
presents the analysis by subcategory. As before, regulatory options are 
ranked in order of increasing stringency.

                                                Table XVII-3.--Cost Effectiveness For Direct Dischargers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Annual before-tax compliance costs (excluding    Weighted pollutant removals
                                                                       regulatory closures)              --------------------------------      Cost-
                                                         ------------------------------------------------                                  effectiveness
                    Regulatory option                       Total  cost     Total  cost     Incremental        Total        Incremental    ratio ($1981/
                                                             (million        (million      cost (million   removals (000   removals (000      lb-eq)
                                                              $1999)          $1981)          $1981)          lbs-eq)         lbs-eq)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option.........................................           245.8           143.4           143.4        $1,333.6         1,333.6             107
Option 2/6/10...........................................           245.8           143.4             0.0         1,333.6             0.0  ..............
Option 4/8..............................................           381.6           222.6            79.2          1366.7            33.1           2,391
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed BAT option for direct dischargers achieves removal of 
1.3 million pounds on a toxic-weighted basis, with a cost-effectiveness 
of $107 ($1981). Because the only differences between Option 2/6/10 and 
the proposed option occur for indirects (i.e. flow cutoffs and no 
regulation options), Option 2/6/10 is the same as the proposed option 
for direct dischargers.
    Option 4/8 would remove an additional 33,000 pound-equivalents, as 
compared with the proposed option, at an additional cost of $80 million 
($1981), or $2,391 per pound-equivalent.
    Table XVII-4 presents the results of the cost-effectiveness 
analysis for direct dischargers by subcategory.

                     Table XVII-4.--Cost-Effectiveness for Direct Dischargers by Subcategory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Incremental
                                                                    before-tax      Incremental        Cost-
                Subcategory and regulatory option                   compliance    removals  (lbs-  effectiveness
                                                                  cost  (million        eq)       ratio  ($1981/
                                                                      $1981)                          lb-eq)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Printed Wiring Boards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option.................................................            1.42          64,573              22
Option 2/6/10...................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
Option 4/8......................................................            1.14           2,270             501
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Metal Finishing Job Shops
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option.................................................            0.69          14,194              49
Option 2/6/10...................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
Option 4/8......................................................            0.52             265           1,968
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 General Metals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option.................................................          114.54         899,372             127
Option 2/6/10...................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
Option 4/8......................................................           52.20          21,620           2,414
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Non-Chromium Anodizing *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option.................................................              NA              NA  ..............
Option 2/6/10...................................................              NA              NA  ..............
Option 4/8......................................................              NA              NA  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Oily Wastes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 4/8......................................................              **              **              **
Proposed Option.................................................            6.42          16,069             399
Option 2/6/10...................................................            0.00               0  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Railroad Line Maintenance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option.................................................            0.67             174           3,831
Option 2/6/10...................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
Option 4/8......................................................            0.05              23           2,181
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Shipbuilding Dry Dock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option.................................................            1.24             111          11,179

[[Page 495]]

 
Option 2/6/10...................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
Option 4/8......................................................       *** -0.91         *** 335      *** -2,728
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Steeling Forming and Finishing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option.................................................           18.39         339,147              54
Option 2/6/10...................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
Option 4/8......................................................            1.28           8,977            143
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* EPA estimates that there are no direct discharging Non-Chromium Anodizing facilities.
** Option 4/8 removes 15,703 lbs equivalent at a cost of $31.34 million. The proposed option removes more lbs
  equivalent at a lower cost. The proposed option therefore dominates Option 4/8, and results are not shown here
  for Option 4/8.
*** Option 4/8 removes more lb-eq. than the proposed option at a lower cost. See Section XVII-D for a discussion
  of the impacts of the proposed option on conventional pollutant removals. Option 4/8 removes 446 lbs-
  equivalent at a cost of $0.33 million at an average cost-effectiveness incremental to baseline of $740/lb-eq.

    The proposed option is more stringent than Option 4/8 for the Oily 
Wastes subcategory, in that it removes more toxic-weighted pounds of 
pollutants and costs less than Option 4/8. It therefore dominates 
Option 4/8 from the perspective of toxic pollutant removals, and has an 
average cost per pound-equivalent removed of $399 ($1981). Again, EPA 
is proposing options only for BPT or is setting BAT equal to BPT for 
all subcategories, as there is no additional technology used at BAT. 
The Agency does not use C-E analysis to assess options for BPT. 
Therefore, the C-E analysis for direct dischargers is presented only 
for informational purposes.
    Table XVII-4 shows a high cost-effectiveness for the Railroad Line 
Maintenance and the Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategories. EPA is not 
proposing BAT limitations for these subcategories because of the small 
quantities of toxic pollutants in the wastewater from facilities in 
these subcategories. (See Section XI.) However, EPA is proposing BPT 
limitations for these subcategories in order to control the discharge 
of conventional pollutants. See Section IX for a discussion of BPT 
options selection and the results of the BPT cost-reasonableness 
analysis.

XVIII. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts

    Sections 304(b) and 306 of the Act require EPA to consider non-
water quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements) 
associated with effluent limitations guidelines and standards. In 
accordance with these requirements, EPA has considered the potential 
impact of the proposed regulation on energy consumption, air emissions, 
and solid waste generation.
    While it is difficult to balance environmental impacts across all 
media and energy use, the Agency has determined that the impacts 
identified below are justified by the benefits associated with 
compliance with the limitations and standards (see Sections XIX and XX 
for a discussion on the environmental benefits associated with this 
proposed regulation).

A. Air Pollution

    The Agency believes that the in-process and end-of-pipe 
technologies included in the technology options for this regulation do 
not generate air emissions. (See Section VIII for a discussion of the 
technology options.)
    The use of halogenated hazardous air pollutant solvent (methylene 
chloride, perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, 1,1,1 trichloroethane, 
carbon tetrachloride and chloroform) for cleaning in the MP&M industry 
can create hazardous air pollutant emissions. The Agency believes this 
regulation will not affect the use of halogenated hazardous air 
pollutant solvent in the MP&M industry. This regulation neither 
requires nor discourages the use of aqueous cleaners in lieu of 
halogenated hazardous air pollutant solvent.
    The Agency is developing National Emission Standards for Hazardous 
Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 
to address air emissions of the hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) listed 
in Title III of the CAA Amendments of 1990. Below, EPA lists the 
current and upcoming NESHAPs that may potentially affect HAP emitting 
activities at MP&M facilities:
    <bullet> Chromium Emissions from Hard and Decorative Chromium 
Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks;
    <bullet> Halogenated Solvent Cleaning;
    <bullet> Aerospace Manufacturing;
    <bullet> Shipbuilding and ship repair (Surface Coating);
    <bullet> Large appliances (Surface Coating);
    <bullet> Metal Furniture (Surface Coating);
    <bullet> Automobile and light-duty truck manufacturing (Surface 
Coating); and
    <bullet> Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products (Surface Coating).

B. Solid Waste

    Solid waste generation includes hazardous and nonhazardous 
wastewater treatment sludge as well as waste oil removed in wastewater 
treatment. EPA estimates that compliance with this regulation will 
result in a decrease in wastewater treatment sludge and an increase in 
waste oil generated at MP&M facilities.
    According to EPA's detailed questionnaires, the Agency estimates 
that MP&M facilities generate 267 million gallons (4 million cubic 
yards) of wastewater treatment sludge and 805 million gallons of waste 
oil from the treatment of wastewater. In Table XVIII.B-1, EPA presents 
the amount of wastewater treatment sludge and waste oil expected to be 
generated at the selected technology option. The table also shows the 
amount of wastewater treatment sludge and waste oil that would be 
generated by the selected technology option if EPA had not included 
pollution prevention as part of its selected technology option.

[[Page 496]]



  Table XVIII.B-1.--Waste Treatment Sludge and Oil Generation by Option
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Wastewater
                                                 treatment    Waste oil
                                                   sludge     generated
                    Option                       generated     (million
                                                  (million     gallons/
                                                  gallons/      year)
                                                   year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline\1\...................................          267          805
Proposed Options without water conservation             207        2,000
 and P2.......................................
Proposed Options with water conservation and            206       1,600
 P2...........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
\1\ EPA calculated the baseline sludge and waste oil generation using
  responses to the 1989 MP&M Phase I Questionnaire and the 1996 MP&M
  Phase II Detailed Questionnaires.

    As shown in Table XVII.B-1, wastewater treatment sludge generation 
decreased from baseline to the selected option without in-process flow 
control. EPA attributes the net decrease to the fact that this option 
includes sludge dewatering, which may result in a significant decrease 
in sludge generation for sites that have chemical precipitation and 
settling technologies without sludge dewatering in place at baseline. 
The Agency did not estimate additional sludge reduction at facilities 
which already have sludge dewatering in place at baseline. EPA does 
expect an increase of sludge production at MP&M facilities which do not 
have treatment in place and must install treatment as a result of the 
MP&M rule.
    Table XVIII.B-1 shows that the water conservation and pollution 
prevention technologies included in the proposed options further reduce 
the amount of sludge generated. EPA expects these technologies to 
result in sludge reduction for the following reasons:
--Recycling of coolants and recycling of paint curtains reduce the mass 
of pollutants in treatment system influent streams, which in turn 
reduces the amount of sludge generated during metals removal;
--Bath maintenance practices, including good operational practices 
regarding drag out in plating processes, included in the proposed 
options, reduce the mass of metal pollutants discharged to treatment, 
which in turn reduces the amount of sludge generated during metals 
removal; and
--Water conservation technologies included in the proposed options 
reduces the discharge mass of metals present in the source water to a 
site (e.g., calcium, sodium), which in turn reduces the amount of 
sludge generated during removal of these metals.
    EPA classifies many of the sludges generated at MP&M facilities as 
either a listed or characteristic hazardous waste under the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) based on the following 
information:
--If the facility performs electroplating operations, EPA classifies 
the resulting sludge as an EPA hazardous waste number F006 (40 CFR 
261.31). If the facility mixes the wastewater from these electroplating 
operations with other non-electroplating wastewater for treatment, then 
EPA still considers all of the sludge generated from the treatment of 
this commingled wastestream to be a listed hazardous waste F006, or
--If the sludge or waste oil from wastewater treatment exceeds the 
standards for the Toxicity Characteristic (i.e., is hazardous), or 
exhibits other RCRA-defined hazardous characteristics (i.e., reactive, 
corrosive, or flammable), EPA considers it a characteristic hazardous 
waste (40 CFR 261.24.)
    It is also important to note that EPA does not include chemical 
conversion coating, electroless plating, and printing circuit board 
manufacturing under the F006 listing (51 FR 43351, December 2, 1986). 
And if the facility performs certain chemical conversion coating 
operations on aluminum, EPA classifies the resulting sludge as EPA 
hazardous waste number F019.
    Additional federal, state, and local regulations may result in MP&M 
sludges being classified as hazardous wastes. Facilities should check 
with the applicable authorized (State or EPA Regional) authority to 
determine if other regulations apply.
    Based on information collected during site visits and sampling 
episodes, the Agency believes that some of the solid waste generated 
would not be classified as hazardous. However, for purposes of 
compliance cost estimation, the Agency assumed that all solid waste 
generated as a result of the technology options would be hazardous.
    As stated above in Section XV, EPA expects that the rule will 
reduce metal contaminants in the sludges generated by POTWs and will 
allow POTWs to dispense of the lower metal content sludge by more 
environmentally beneficial methods.
    EPA attributes the increase in waste oil generation from baseline 
to the proposed option to the removal of oil from MP&M wastewater prior 
to discharge to POTWs or surface waters. MP&M facilities usually either 
recycle waste oil on site or off site, or contract haul it for disposal 
as either a hazardous or nonhazardous waste. The estimated increase of 
waste oil generation as a result of the MP&M proposed rule reflects a 
better removal of oil and grease by the proposed technology options 
than that being achieved at baseline and does not reflect an increase 
in overall oil generation at MP&M facilities. For the purpose of 
compliance cost estimation, EPA assumed that all MP&M facilities 
contract hauled waste oil for disposal; however, EPA expects that some 
facilities may recycle waste oil either on site or off site.
    Table XVIII.B-1 shows that the inclusion of water conservation and 
pollution prevention in the proposed option results in the generation 
of less waste oil. EPA attributes this decrease in waste oil generation 
to the 80 percent reduction of coolant discharge using the recycling 
technology included in the proposed technology train. This system 
recovers and recycles oil-bearing machining coolants at the source, 
reducing the generation of spent coolant.

C. Energy Requirements

    EPA estimates that compliance with this regulation will result in a 
net increase in energy consumption at MP&M facilities. EPA presents the 
estimates of increased energy usage for the selected option in Table 
XVIII.C-1. The table also shows the amount of energy that would be 
required by the selected technology option if EPA had not included 
pollution prevention as part of its selected technology option. The in-
process flow control and recycling technologies included in

[[Page 497]]

EPA's proposed options reduce the amount of water use and in doing so 
also require energy. Therefore, the amount of energy required for the 
selected option incorporating pollution prevention and water 
conservation was slightly greater than the proposed option without 
pollution prevention and water conservation techniques.

             Table XVIII.C-1.--Energy Requirements by Option
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Energy
                                                               required
                           Option                              (million
                                                               kilowatt
                                                               hrs/yr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline \1\...............................................          248
Proposed Options without water conservation and P2.........          347
Proposed Options without water conservation and P2.........         364
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
\1\ EPA calculated the baseline sludge and waste oil generation using
  responses to the 1989 MP&M Phase I Questionnaire and the 1996 MP&M
  Phase II Detailed Questionnaires.

    By comparison, electric power generation facilities generated 3,123 
billion kilowatt hours of electric power in the United States in 1997 
(The Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Annual 1998 
Volume 1, Table A1). Additional energy requirements for EPA's proposed 
options correspond to approximately 0.01 percent of national 
requirements. The increase in energy requirements due to the 
implementation of MP&M technologies will in turn cause an air emissions 
impact from the electric power generation facilities. The increase in 
air emissions is expected to be proportional to the increase in energy 
requirements or approximately 0.01 percent.

             Table XVIII.C-1.--Energy Requirements by Option
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Energy
                                                               required
                           Option                              (million
                                                               kilowatt
                                                               hrs/yr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline \1\...............................................          248
Proposed Options without water conservation and P2.........          347
Proposed Options without water conservation and P2.........         364
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
\1\ EPA calculated the baseline sludge and waste oil generation using
  responses to the 1989 MP&M Phase I Questionnaire and the 1996 MP&M
  Phase II Detailed Questionnaires.

    By comparison, electric power generation facilities generated 3123 
billion kilowatt hours of electric power in the United States in 1997 
(The Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Annual 1998 
Volume 1, Table A1). Additional energy requirements for EPA's proposed 
options correspond to approximately 0.01 percent of national 
requirements. The increase in energy requirements due to the 
implementation of MP&M technologies will in turn cause an air emissions 
impact from the electric power generation facilities. The increase in 
air emissions is expected to be proportional to the increase in energy 
requirements or approximately 0.01 percent.

XIX. Water Quality, Sewage Sludge, and Other Environmental Impacts

A. Introduction

    MP&M facilities nationwide currently discharge an estimated 5,025 
million pounds of pollutants per year to publicly-owned treatment works 
(POTWs) and approximately 410 million pounds of pollutants directly to 
surface waters. MP&M facility effluents contain 42 priority or toxic 
pollutants, 86 nonconventional pollutants, and three conventional 
pollutants (biological oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids 
(TSS), and oil and grease (O&G)).
    The release of these pollutants to our nation's surface water 
degrades aquatic environments, alters aquatic habitats, and affects the 
diversity and abundance of aquatic life. It can also increase the risks 
to the health of humans who ingest contaminated surface waters or eat 
contaminated fish and shellfish. A number of the pollutants commonly 
found in MP&M effluents also inhibit biological wastewater treatment 
systems or accumulate in sewage sludge.
    Metals are a particular concern because of their prevalence in MP&M 
effluents. Metals are inorganic compounds that are generally non-
volatile (with the notable exception of mercury) and are not broken 
down by biodegradation processes. Metals can accumulate in biological 
tissues, sequester into POTW sewage sludge, and contaminate soils and 
sediments when released to the environment. Some metals are quite toxic 
even when present at relatively low levels.
    Of the 131 MP&M pollutants of concern for which loadings were 
estimated, 35 exhibit moderate to high toxicity to aquatic life; 77 are 
human non-cancer toxicants; 13 are classified as known or probable 
human carcinogens; 46 bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms and persist in 
the environment, and 35 are hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). HAPs are 
compounds which EPA believes may represent an unacceptable risk to 
human health if present in the air.

B. Beneficial Impacts of the MP&M Proposed Rule

    Changes under the proposed rule include:
    <bullet> Water quality changes;
    <bullet> Reduced aquatic life impacts;
    <bullet> Reduced POTW inhibitions;
    <bullet> Reduced costs for sewage sludge disposal; and
    <bullet> Reduced human health impacts.
    The first three changes due to the proposed rule are discussed in 
this section, and the last two are discussed in Section XX. EPA 
estimated these changes for three options. This section presents 
results for the proposed option, Option 2/6/10 and Option 4/8. See 
Section VIII for a description of the options. Results are discussed 
for only the proposed option, however, to reduce the length of the 
document. Benefits were not estimated for Options 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 
(options without pollution prevention) because these options remove 
fewer pollutants and cost more than Option 2/6/10 and Option 4/8.
1. Water Quality Changes
    EPA estimates that the proposed rule would substantially reduce 
pollutant discharges to the waters of the U.S. as shown by the loadings 
estimates in Table XIX-1 for five categories of pollutants. The 
regulation would result in total pollutant removals of 3,872 million 
pounds per year. These removals include a 30 million pound per-year 
reduction in eight sewage sludge contaminants and a 703 million pound 
per-year reduction in 89 pollutants causing inhibition of biological 
activity of sewage sludge. The regulation would reduce discharges of 35 
HAPs by about one million pounds per-year. Discharges of pollutants 
that are known to be related to adverse acute and chronic effects on 
aquatic life would be reduced by 823 and 1,035 million pounds per year, 
respectively. These reductions result from increased wastewater 
treatment, pollution prevention, and regulatory closures. EPA estimated 
impacts of MP&M discharges on the quality of receiving waters using a 
model of the in-stream pollutant mixing and dilution process. A first 
order pollutant degradation model was used in the analysis of source 
water concentrations at the drinking water intake points. This model 
estimates in-stream concentrations for the initial discharge reach 
(i.e., waterway) and for downstream reaches, taking into account 
dilution, adsorption, volatilization, and hydrolysis.
    This analysis uses discharge information from 885 sample MP&M

[[Page 498]]

facilities (excluding two sample facilities in Puerto Rico) that 
discharge directly or indirectly to 627 receiving waterways (544 
rivers/streams, 55 bays/estuaries, and 28 lakes). Four of the 55 marine 
reaches were excluded from the in-stream water quality analysis due to 
data limitations.
    EPA extrapolated the environmental assessment results for the 
sample facilities to the entire population of MP&M facilities 
nationwide. This extrapolation uses sample facility weights developed 
as part of the sampling plan. For additional information on sample 
weights see the Statistical Summary for the Metal Products & Machinery 
Industry Surveys in the Administrative record for today's rule.
    EPA evaluated the national environmental impacts of reducing 
pollutant discharges from MP&M facilities to the nation's waterbodies 
for the proposed rule and for two alternative regulatory options. EPA 
considered only pollutant loadings from MP&M facilities to particular 
waterbodies and did not take background loadings from other sources 
into account, with one exception. The analysis of sewage sludge 
(biosolids) quality took background metal loadings into account. EPA 
used information from the POTW survey to estimate total metal loadings 
to a POTW of a given size (i.e., small, medium, and large). See Section 
V.B for a description of the POTW survey. This estimate was based on 
the average number of small, medium, and large MP&M facilities 
discharging to a POTW in each size category and the percent 
contribution of total metal loadings discharged from MP&M facilities.
2. Reduced POTW Impacts
    EPA evaluated whether MP&M pollutants may interfere with publicly-
owned treatment works (POTWs). Pollutants may impair POTW treatment 
effectiveness by inhibiting the biological activity of activated 
sludge. POTW inhibition and sludge values come from guidance published 
by EPA and other sources. The Agency also evaluated the reduced costs 
for managing and disposing of sewage sludge containing fewer pollutants 
or lower concentrations of pollutants. This is discussed in Section 
XX.D of today's proposal.
    EPA estimated inhibition of POTW operations by comparing predicted 
POTW influent concentrations to available inhibition levels for 89 
pollutants. At baseline discharge levels, EPA estimates that 
concentrations of 18 pollutants discharged from MP&M facilities exceed 
biological inhibition criteria at 515 POTWs nationwide. The proposed 
regulation would eliminate potential inhibition problems at 306 POTWs 
and reduce occurrence of pollutant concentrations in excess of 
inhibition criteria at 82 POTWs. POTWs may impose local limits to 
prevent inhibitions. If local limits are in place, the estimated 
reduction in potential inhibition problems at the affected POTWs is 
overstated. In this case, however, the estimated social cost of the 
MP&M regulation is also overstated.
3. Reduced Aquatic Life Impacts
    EPA assessed the effect of baseline and post-compliance MP&M 
facility discharges on affected waterways by estimating the cases in 
which in-waterway pollutant concentrations resulting from those 
discharges would exceed recommended acute and chronic Ambient Water 
Quality Criteria (AWQC) that protect aquatic life. Acute toxicity 
assesses the impacts of a pollutant from relatively short exposures, 
typically 48 and 96 hours for invertebrates and fish, respectively. 
Mortality is the endpoint of concern. Chronic toxicity assesses the 
impact of a pollutant after a longer exposure, typically from one week 
to several months. The endpoints of concern are one or more sublethal 
responses, such as changes in reproduction or growth in the affected 
organisms. Pollutant concentrations in excess of acute and chronic AWQC 
values indicate potential impacts to aquatic life.
    The analysis compared baseline and post-compliance exceedences of 
aquatic life AWQC to determine the effects of the rule. These 
exceedences were modeled based on the estimated discharges from MP&M 
facilities and 7Q10 stream flow rates (7Q10 refers to the lowest 
consecutive seven day average with a recurrence interval of 10 years). 
Results show that baseline pollutant concentrations exceed acute AWQC 
in 878 reaches and chronic AWQC in 2,466 reaches nationally at baseline 
discharge levels. EPA estimates that the proposed option will eliminate 
concentrations in excess of acute and chronic criteria in 775 and 1,029 
reaches, respectively. Results also show that an additional 903 
receiving reaches will experience partial water quality improvements 
from reduced occurrence of some pollutant concentrations in excess of 
acute and/or chronic AWQC limits for protection of aquatic life.

                          Table XIX.1.--National Estimates of MP&M Facility Discharges
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 MP&M discharges with potential  POTW        MP&M discharges
                                                               impacts                     exhibiting toxicity
                                              -----------------------------------------       Aquatic Life
                   Category                     Activated                              -------------------------
                                                  sludge      Biosolids        HAP
                                                inhibition  contaminants                   Acute       Chronic
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Baseline Loadings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Pollutants.........................           89          8            35             107          116
Million lbs/yr...............................        1,031         31.7           2.1         1,252        1,759
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Remaining With the Proposed Option
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Million lbs/yr...............................          328          1.61          1.11          430          723
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Remaining With Option 2/6/10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Million lbs/yr...............................          266          0.54          0.89          364          647
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Remaining With Option 4/8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Million lbs/yr...............................          484          0.43          1.05          595          895
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 499]]


                  Table XIX-2.--National Estimates of MP&M Pollutants, Exceedences & Reductions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Proposed   Option  2/6/
                                                                Baseline      option         10      Option  4/8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  POTW Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of POTWs with Inhibition Problems (18 pollutants >             515          209          123          123
 inhibition criteria).......................................
Biosolids Contamination (8 pollutants):
    Number of POTWs.........................................        6,953        6,889        5,575        5,575
    Non-qualifying Sewage Sludge (mill. of dry metric tons).         53.7         52.5         47.6         47.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Receiving Water Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Number of Streams with Human Health AWQC Exceedences
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of pollutants:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Water and organisms <SUP>a</SUP>...................................           18           11           11           13
    Organisms only <SUP>b</SUP>........................................            6            5            5            5
Number of streams > AWQC for water and organisms............       10,310        9,205        4,151        4,160
Number of streams > AWQC for organisms only.................          192           71           71           65
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Number of Streams with Aquatic Life AWQC Exceedences
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of pollutants:
    Chronic.................................................           31           25           21           17
    Acute...................................................           10           11            8            6
Number of streams > AWQC chronic............................        2,466        1,437        1,394        1,310
Number of streams > AWQC acute..............................          878          103           61          52
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<SUP>a</SUP> Both drinking water and organism consumption are considered in developing these AWQC exceedences.
<SUP>b</SUP> Only consumption of aquatic organisms is considered in these AWQC exceedences.

XX. Benefit Analysis

A. Overview of Benefits

    This section presents EPA's estimates of the national environmental 
benefits of the proposed MP&M effluent guidelines. The benefits occur 
due to the reduction in facility discharges described in the preceding 
section. EPA's complete benefit assessment can be found in ``Economic, 
Environmental, and Benefit Assessment of Proposed Metal Products and 
Machinery (MP&M) Rule.''
    Benefits analyses for past effluent guidelines have been limited in 
the range of benefits addressed, which has hindered EPA's ability to 
compare the benefits and costs of rules comprehensively. The Agency is 
working to improve its benefits analyses, including applying 
methodologies that have now become well established in the natural 
resources valuation field, but have not been used previously in the 
effluent guidelines program. EPA was particularly interested in 
expanding its benefits analyses for this rule to include water-based 
recreational activities other than fishing. The proposed MP&M rule 
addresses an industry with a large number of facilities located 
throughout the United States. These facilities are largely concentrated 
near large population centers and recreational sites.
    Individuals in the U.S. are known to participate in a wide range of 
water-based recreational activities including fishing, swimming, 
boating, and near water activities such as wildlife viewing. 
Participation rates in each activity vary significantly from state to 
state depending on the availability and quality of water resources 
suitable for recreation, climate, and demographic characteristics of 
the user population. Wildlife viewing is most popular type of water-
based recreation followed by fishing and swimming. The 1996 U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service survey showed that 62 million Americans enjoy 
wildlife viewing nationwide. In addition, 35 to 43 million people 
participate in recreational fishing and 34 million people take boating 
trips.
    EPA has therefore expanded upon its traditional methodologies in 
the benefits analyses for the proposed MP&M rule. Past effluent 
guidelines analyses have included human health benefits, economic 
productivity benefits such as reduced costs for POTW sludge disposal, 
recreational benefits for fishing, and nonuse values. The additional 
analyses expands on the traditional analyses by estimating benefits to 
participants in boating, swimming and viewing (i.e., near-water 
recreation.) EPA used a benefit transfer approach based on four studies 
to estimate the increase in value to individuals who boat and 
participate in viewing or near-water recreation at the national level. 
Three of these studies have been published in established economic 
journals, the other study is new and specific to the MP&M guideline. 
For this rule, EPA also conducted an original travel cost study in the 
State of Ohio, using the National Recreational Demand Survey (NDS) and 
a Random Utility Model (RUM) of recreational behavior, to estimate the 
changes in consumer valuation of water resources that would result from 
improvements in water quality. This study is presented in detail in 
Chapter 21 of the EEBA. A preliminary application of the travel cost 
study was reviewed by experts in the field of natural resource 
valuation, and the study has been presented at two professional 
meetings and will be subjected to a formal peer review in the coming 
year. The results of the previous review are available in the docket.
    Because EPA has not yet resolved some anomalies in the 
extrapolation of these analyses to the national level, the monetized 
benefits for these new categories are not included in the summary 
statements of benefits for the proposed rule. EPA is including these 
analyses in the EEBA, however, to present the new methodologies and 
their results as applied to the MP&M rule for public comment, 
concurrent with seeking peer review of the travel cost study.

[[Page 500]]

    The new analyses projects benefits of $500-$900 million for 
enhanced wildlife viewing, $265-$672 million for recreational boating, 
and $191 to $1,066 million in additional non-use benefits (calculated 
as \1/4\ to \2/3\ of the additional recreational use benefits.) EPA 
notes that the methodology used results in projected benefits for 57 
million wildlife viewers taking an average of 10 trips per year. This 
estimate (567 viewing days) is essentially the total number of single 
day trips as estimated by the national recreational demand survey 
(NDS). The methodology also predicts that 33 million individuals will 
each take an average 9 boating trips per year to sites benefiting from 
the rule. This amounts to 296 million boating days which is essentially 
all of the single day boating days nationally estimated from the NDS. 
Even though only about 5% of total reaches nationally are projected to 
benefit from the rule, 90% of the benefitting reaches are located in 
densely populated areas in the U..S, which is where the majority of the 
U.S. population and recreational users are located, though not 
necessarily where they recreate. Although EPA is confident in the 
sample based results, EPA believes that the large numbers of viewers 
and boaters projected to benefit from the rule at the national level 
may indicate a need to revise its procedures for scaling up from 
sampled facilities to the national level. The simple extrapolation 
technique used in both the cost and benefit analyses, may have the 
unintended effect of overcounting the number of benefitting boaters and 
wildlife viewers. EPA is also specifically soliciting comment on 
several other methodological approaches used in new analyses including 
the benefits transfer of values from studies that did not specifically 
address boating and wildlife viewing to these activities, the extent to 
which activities such as recreational boating, and wildlife viewing are 
applicable to children, and the effect of omitting other non-MP&M 
sources of impairment on affected reaches from the analyses.
    EPA may include additional categories of monetized benefits 
estimates based on these new methodologies, as revised based on comment 
and peer review, in its economic analyses of the final rule.
    Table XX.1 summarizes the benefits categories associated with the 
regulation and notes which categories EPA was able to quantify and 
monetize. The benefits include three broad classes: Human health, 
ecological, and economic productivity benefits. Within these three 
broad classes, EPA was able to assess benefits with varying degrees of 
completeness and rigor. Where possible, EPA quantified the expected 
effects and estimated monetary values. Data limitations and limited 
understanding of how society values certain water quality changes 
prevented monetizing some benefit categories. This section also 
presents a case study for the State of Ohio which provides more 
detailed analyses of the regulation's expected benefits.

Table XX-1.--Benefit Categories Associated With Water Quality Improvements Resulting From the Metal Products and
                                          Machinery Effluent Guideline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Nonquantified
                       Benefit category                         Quantified and   Quantified and        and
                                                                  monetized       nonmonetized     nonmonetized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Human Health Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced cancer risk due to ingestion of chemically-                         X
 contaminated fish and unregulated pollutants in drinking
 water.......................................................
Reduced systemic health hazards (e.g., reproductive,           ...............               X
 immunological, neurological, circulatory, or respiratory
 toxicity) due to ingestion of chemically-contaminated fish
 and unregulated pollutants in drinking water................
Reduced systemic health hazards from exposure to lead from                  X
 consumption of chemically-contaminated fish.................
Reduced cancer risk and health hazards from exposure to        ...............  ...............               X
 unregulated pollutants in chemically-contaminated sewage
 sludge......................................................
Reduced health hazards from exposure to contaminants in        ...............  ...............               X
 waters used recreationally (e.g., swimming).................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Ecological Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced risk to aquatic life.................................  ...............               X
Enhanced water-based recreation including fishing............               X
Enhanced water-based recreation including near-water or                     X
 viewing and boating.........................................     In expanded
                                                                     analyses
Other enhanced water-based recreation such as swimming,        ...............  ...............               X
 waterskiing and white water rafting.........................
Increased aesthetic benefits such as enhancement of adjoining  ...............  ...............               X
 site amenities (e.g. residing, working, traveling, and
 owning property near the water).............................
Nonuser value (i.e., existence, option, and bequest value)...               X
Reduced contamination of sediments...........................  ...............  ...............               X
Reduced non-point source nitrogen contamination of water if    ...............  ...............               X
 sewage sludge is used as a substitute for chemical
 fertilizer on agricultural land.............................
Satisfaction of a public preference for beneficial use of      ...............  ...............               X
 sewage sludge *.............................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Economic Productivity Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced sewage sludge disposal costs.........................               X
Reduced management practice and record-keeping costs for       ...............  ...............               X
 users of sewage sludge that meets exceptional quality
 criteria....................................................
Reduced interference with POTW operations....................  ...............               X
Benefits to tourism industries from increased participation    ...............  ...............               X
 in water-based recreation...................................

[[Page 501]]

 
Improved commercial fisheries yields.........................  ...............  ...............               X
Addition of fertilizer to crops (nitrogen content of sewage    ...............  ...............               X
 sludge is available as a fertilizer when sludge is land
 applied) *..................................................
Improved crop yield (the organic matter in land-applied        ...............  ...............               X
 sewage sludge increases soil's water retention) *...........
Avoidance of costly siting processes for more controversial    ...............  ...............               X
 sewage sludge disposal methods (e.g., incinerators) because
 of greater use of land application..........................
Reduced water treatment costs for municipal drinking water,    ...............  ...............              X
 irrigation water, and industrial process and cooling water..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Some of these benefit categories are accounted for and quantified under the ``reduced sewage sludge disposal
  costs.''

B. Reduced Human Health Risk

    Reduced pollutant discharges from MP&M facilities generate human 
health benefits by a number of pathways. The most important human 
health benefits stem from reduced risk of illness from consumption of 
contaminated fish, aquatic organisms other than fish, and water. EPA 
analyzed human health benefits by estimating the change in the expected 
number of adverse human health events in the populations exposed to 
MP&M discharges. While some health effects such as cancer are 
relatively well understood and can be quantified and monetized in a 
benefits analyses, others such as systemic health effects are less well 
understood and may not be assessed with the same rigor or at all. (See 
Table XX-1.)
    EPA analyzed the following measures of health-related benefits: 
reduced cancer risk from fish and water consumption; reduced risk of 
non-cancer toxic effects from fish and water consumption; lead-related 
health effects to children and adults; and reduced occurrence of in-
waterway pollutant concentrations in excess of levels of concern. The 
levels of concern include human health-based ambient water quality 
criteria (AWQC) or documented toxic effect levels for those chemicals 
not covered by water quality criteria. The Agency monetized only two of 
these health benefits: (1) Changes in the incidence of cancer from fish 
and water consumption, and (2) changes in adverse health effects to 
children and adults from reduced lead exposure. The following 
discussion includes results only for the proposed option; however, the 
tables present the results for all options evaluated.
    EPA estimates that the proposed option would eliminate 
approximately 2.29 cancer cases associated with consumption of MP&M 
pollutants in fish tissue and drinking water. The regulation would also 
result in the removal of 0.86 million pounds (1.9 toxic lb-eq.) per 
year of lead. In addition, there will be a 142 million pound reduction 
in 77 pollutants that are known to be related to a wide range of human 
health endpoints not quantified or monetized for this benefits 
analyses. Monetized health benefits are expected to result in $41.3 
million (1999 $) in benefits due to decreased human health risks under 
the proposed option.
    The analyses of changes in human health risk described in this and 
the following sections ignore the potential for joint effects of more 
than one pollutant. Each pollutant is dealt with in isolation and the 
individual effects are summed. Therefore, this approach does not 
account for the possibility that several pollutants may combine in a 
synergistic fashion to yield more or less adverse effects to human 
health than indicated by the simple sum of their individual effects.
1. Benefits from Reduced Incidence of Cancer Cases
    EPA estimated aggregate cancer risk from contaminated drinking 
water for populations served by drinking water intakes on waterbodies 
to which MP&M facilities discharge. This analyses is based on seven 
carcinogenic pollutants for which no published drinking water criteria 
are currently available. This analyses excludes six carcinogens for 
which drinking water criteria are available. EPA assumed that public 
drinking water treatment systems will remove these pollutants from the 
public water supply. To the extent that treatment for these six 
pollutants may cause incidental removals of the chemicals without 
criteria, the analyses may overstate cancer related benefits.
    Calculated in-stream concentrations serve as a basis for estimating 
changes in cancer risk for populations served by affected drinking 
water intakes. EPA estimates that the proposed regulation would 
eliminate annually 2.24 cancer cases associated with consumption of 
contaminated drinking water, or 44 percent of the cancer cases 
associated with baseline MP&M discharges.
    EPA valued the reduced cancer cases using estimated willingness-to-
pay values for avoiding premature mortality. The values used in this 
analyses are based on a range of values identified in the EPA Office of 
Policy Analysis' review of available studies. The mean value of 
avoiding one statistical death is estimated to be $5.8 million. This 
estimate does not include estimates of morbidity prior to death.
    EPA also estimated aggregate cancer risk from consuming 
contaminated fish for recreational and subsistence anglers and their 
families. This analyses is based on thirteen carcinogenic pollutants 
found in MP&M effluent discharges. Estimated contaminants in fish 
tissue reflect predicted in-stream pollutant concentrations and 
biological uptake factors. EPA used data on numbers of licensed 
fishermen by State and county, presence of fish consumption advisories, 
fishing activity rates, and average household size to estimate the 
affected population of recreational and subsistence anglers and their 
families. The analyses uses different fish consumption rates for 
recreational and subsistence anglers to estimate the change in cancer 
risk among these populations.
    The proposed rule eliminates an estimated 0.05 cancer cases per 
year for combined recreational and subsistence angler populations, 
representing a reduction of about 36 percent from a baseline of about 
0.13 cases. This translates into $0.3 million (1999$) in annual 
benefits due to reduced cancer risk from consumption of contaminated 
fish by these populations.
    Total benefits from reduced incidence of cancer cases, including 
both drinking water and fish exposures are $13.3 million (1999$) 
annually (see Table XX-2).

[[Page 502]]



    Table XX-2.--Estimated Annual Benefits from Avoided Cancer Cases from Fish and Drinking Water Consumption
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Drinking Water           Fish Consumption                Total
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Benefit                   Benefit                   Benefit
         Regulatory status             Annual       value        Annual       value        Annual       value
                                       cancer      (million      cancer      (million      cancer      (million
                                       cases        1999$)       cases        1999$)       cases        1999$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline..........................         5.10        <SUP>1</SUP> N/A        0.126          N/A         5.23          N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Proposed Option
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Cases/Value.............         2.86        $13.0        0.081         $0.3         2.94        $13.3
Percent Reduction.................        43.9%          N/A        35.7%          N/A        43.9%          N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Option 2/6/10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Cases/Value.............         2.73        $13.7        0.081         $0.3         2.81        $14.0
Percent Reduction.................        46.5%          N/A        35.7%          N/A        46.1%          N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Option 4/8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Cases/Value.............         2.73        $13.8        0.062         $0.4         2.79        $14.2
Percent Reduction.................        46.5%          N/A        49.2%          N/A        46.5%         N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
 
\1\ Not Applicable.

2. Reductions in Systemic Health Effects
    EPA expects that the proposed rule would also generate a wide range 
of non-cancer health benefits (e.g., systemic effects, reproductive 
toxicity, and developmental toxicity) from reduced contamination of 
fish tissue and drinking water sources. The change in exposure to 
pollutants through fish and water consumption relative to pollutant-
specific health effects thresholds yields an additional measure of the 
human health benefits that are likely to result from the proposed 
regulation. EPA compared estimated in-stream pollutant concentrations 
for 77 systemic toxicants with risk reference doses to calculate a 
hazard score. The systemic hazard score is the sum of the ratios of 
pollutant quantities ingested to the daily reference dose for each 
pollutant. Values above or near one indicate the potential for health 
non-cancer hazards. The hazard score assumes that the combined effect 
of ingesting multiple pollutants is proportional to the sum of their 
effects individually.
    The distribution of hazard scores was calculated for drinking water 
and fish consumption populations for baseline and post-compliance 
exposures. The results show movement in populations from higher risk 
values to lower risk values for both the fish and drinking water 
analyses. Substantial increases in the percentage of the exposed 
populations that would be exposed to no risk of systemic health hazards 
occur in both analyses.
3. Benefits from Reduced Exposure to Lead
    EPA performed a separate analyses of benefits from reduced exposure 
to lead. This analyses differs from the analyses of systemic health 
risk from exposure to other MP&M pollutants because it is based on 
dose-response functions tied to specific health endpoints to which 
monetary values can be applied.
    Many lead-related adverse health effects are relatively common and 
are chronic in nature. These effects include but are not limited to 
hypertension, coronary heart disease, and impaired cognitive function. 
Lead is harmful to any exposed individual, and the effects of lead on 
children are of particular concern. Children's rapid rate of 
development makes them more susceptible to neurobehavioral deficits 
resulting from lead exposure. The neurobehavioral effects on children 
from lead exposure include hyperactivity, behavioral and attention 
difficulties, delayed mental development, and motor and perceptual 
skill deficits.
    This analyses assessed benefits of reduced lead exposure from 
consumption of contaminated fish tissue to three sensitive populations: 
(1) Preschool age children, (2) pregnant women, and (3) adult men and 
women. This analyses uses blood-lead levels as a biomarker of lead 
exposure. EPA estimated baseline and post-compliance blood lead levels 
in the exposed populations and then used changes in these levels to 
estimate benefits in the form of avoided health damages.
    EPA assessed neurobehavioral effects on children based on a dose-
response relationship for IQ decrements. Avoided neurological and 
cognitive damages are expressed as changes in overall IQ levels, 
including reduced incidence of extremely low IQ scores (70, or two 
standard deviations below the mean) and reduced incidence of blood-lead 
levels above 20 mg/dL. The analyses uses the value of compensatory 
education that an individual would otherwise need and the impact an 
additional IQ point on individuals' future earnings to value the 
avoided neurological and cognitive damages. EPA estimated that 
implementation of the proposed rule would result in avoided IQ loss of 
489 points across all exposed children. The estimated monetary value of 
avoided IQ loss is $4.9 million (1999$). In addition, reduced 
occurrences of extremely low IQ scores (70) and reduced incidence of 
blood-lead levels above 20 mg/dL would result in a decrease in the 
annual cost of compensatory education for children with learning 
disabilities of $0.1 million (1999$).
    Prenatal exposure to lead is an important route of exposure. Fetal 
exposure to lead in utero due to maternal blood-lead levels may result 
in several adverse health effects, including

[[Page 503]]

decreased gestational age, reduced birth weight, late fetal death, 
neurobehavioral deficits in infants, and increased infant mortality. To 
assess benefits to pregnant women, EPA estimated changes in the risk of 
infant mortality due to changes in maternal blood-lead levels during 
pregnancy. This analyses used the estimated willingness-to-pay (WTP) to 
avoid a mortality to estimate the monetary benefit associated with 
reducing risks of neonatal mortality. The estimated monetary value of 
benefits from reduced neonatal mortality is $9.33 million (1999$).
    Lead exposure has been shown to have adverse effects on the health 
of adults as well as children. The health effects in adults that EPA 
was able to quantify all relate to lead's effects on blood pressure. 
Quantified health effects include increased incidence of hypertension 
(estimated for males only), initial coronary heart disease (CHD), 
strokes (initial cerebrovascular accidents and atherothrombotic brain 
infarctions), and premature mortality. This analyses does not include 
other health effects associated with elevated blood pressure, and other 
adult health effects of lead including nervous system disorders in 
adults, anemia, and possible cancer effects. EPA used cost of illness 
estimates (i.e., medical costs and lost work time) to estimate monetary 
value of reduced incidence of hypertension, initial CHD, and strokes. 
EPA then used the value of a statistical life saved to estimate changes 
in risk of premature mortality. The estimated monetary value of health 
benefits to adults is $13.6 million (1999$) (see Table XX-3).
    Total benefits from reduced exposure to lead, including both 
children and adults are $28.0 million (1999$) annually under the 
proposed option.

                                    Table XX-3.--National Adult Lead Benefits
                                          [Millions of 1999$ per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Proposed option            Option 2/6/10              Option 4/8
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Category                 Reduced      Monetary     Reduced      Monetary     Reduced      Monetary
                                       cases        value        cases        value        Cases        value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Men
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hypertension......................       959.85        $1.00       991.41        $1.04       992.20        $1.04
CHD...............................         1.24        $0.09         1.29        $0.09         1.29        $0.09
CBA...............................         0.52        $0.14         0.53        $0.14         0.53        $0.14
BI................................         0.29        $0.08         0.30        $0.08         0.30        $0.08
Mortality.........................        1.7          $9.85         1.76       $10.19         1.76       $10.20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Women
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHD...............................         0.39        $0.03         0.40        $0.03         0.40        $0.03
CBA...............................         0.17        $0.03         0.18        $0.04         0.18        $0.04
BI................................         0.10        $0.02         0.11        $0.02         0.11        $0.02
Mortality.........................         0.41        $2.38         0.42        $2.46         0.42        $2.46
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Benefits................  ...........        $13.6  ...........       $14.08  ...........       $14.09
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Level Exposed Population:
    (1) Hypertension: 428,363 men ages 20 to 74;
    (2) Coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular accidents, brain infarction, and mortality: 173,386 men and
     192,091 women ages 45-74.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Exceedences of Health-Based AWQC
    EPA also estimated the effect of MP&M facility discharges by 
comparing pollutant concentrations in affected waterways to ambient 
water criteria for protection of human health. This analysis compares 
the estimated baseline and post-compliance in-stream pollutant 
concentrations with ambient water quality criteria (AWQC). The 
comparison included AWQC for protection of human health through 
consumption of organisms and for consumption of organisms and water. 
Pollutant concentrations in excess of these values indicate potential 
risks to human health. EPA modeling results show that baseline in-
stream concentrations of 18 pollutants are estimated to exceed human 
health criteria for consumption of water and organisms in 10,310 
receiving reaches nationwide. The proposed rule eliminates 
concentrations in excess of the criteria for consumption of water and 
organisms on 1,105 of these reaches. EPA also estimates that the 
proposed rule eliminates the occurrence of concentrations in excess of 
human health criteria for consumption of organisms only on 121 of the 
192 reaches on which baseline discharges are estimated to cause 
concentrations in excess of AWQC values. Results also show that 382 
receiving reaches will experience partial water quality improvements 
from reduced occurrence of some pollutant concentrations in excess of 
AWQC limits for consumption of water and organisms.

C. Ecological, Recreational and Nonuser Benefits

    EPA expects the proposed regulation to provide ecological benefits 
by improving the habitats or ecosystems (aquatic and terrestrial) 
affected by the MP&M industry's effluent discharges. Benefits 
associated with changes in aquatic life include: restoration of 
sensitive species: Recovery of diseased species: changes in taste- and 
odor-producing algae; changes in dissolved oxygen (DO); increased 
assimilative capacity of affected waterways; and improved related 
recreational activities. These activities include swimming, fishing, 
boating and wildlife observation that may be enhanced when risks to 
aquatic life are reduced. Among these ecological benefits, EPA was able 
to estimate dollar values for improved recreational opportunities and 
for nonuser benefits.
    EPA expects the MP&M rule to improve aquatic species habitats by 
reducing concentrations of toxic and conventional contaminants in 
water. These improvements should enhance the quality and value of 
water-based recreation, such as fishing, swimming,

[[Page 504]]

wildlife viewing, camping, waterfowl hunting, and boating. The benefits 
from improved water-based recreation would be seen as increases in the 
increased value participants derive from a day of recreation or the 
increased number of days that consumers of water-based recreation 
choose to visit the cleaner waterways. This analysis measures the 
economic benefit to society from water quality improvements based on 
the increased monetary value of recreational opportunities resulting 
from those improvements.
    EPA assessed recreational benefits of reduced occurrence of 
pollutant concentrations exceeding aquatic life and/or human health 
AWQC values. This analysis combined the findings from the aquatic life 
benefits analysis and the human health AWQC exceedence analysis 
described previously. These analyses found that 10,443 stream reaches 
exceed chronic or acute aquatic life AWQC and/or human health AWQC 
values at the baseline discharge levels (see Table XIII-4). The 
proposed rule is expected to eliminate exceedences on 1,185 of these 
discharge reaches, leaving 9,258 reaches with concentrations of one or 
more pollutants that exceed AWQC limits. Of these 9,258 reaches, 1,837 
reaches will experience partial water quality improvements from reduced 
occurrence of some pollutant concentrations in excess of AWQC limits.

  Table XX-4.--Estimated MP&M Discharge Reaches with MP&M Pollutant Concentrations in Excess of AWQC Limits for
                                  Protection of Human Health or Aquatic Species
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of     Number of benefitting reaches
                                                                   reaches with  -------------------------------
                                                                  MP&M pollutant
                        Regulatory status                         concentrations     All AWQC     Number of AWQC
                                                                  exceeding AWQC    exceedences     exceedences
                                                                       limits       eliminated        reduced
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................................................          10,443  ..............  ..............
Proposed option.................................................           9,258           1,185           1,837
Option 2/6/10...................................................           4,217           6,226           1,894
Option 4/8......................................................           4,226           6,217           1,866
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA attached a monetary value to these reduced exceedences based on 
increased values for recreational fishing and for nonuser values. Since 
the benefiting reaches are close to densely populated areas potential 
recreational users may also benefit from reduced visit ``price'' to 
these sites (i.e., lower travel costs to good recreational sites). EPA 
applied a benefits transfer approach to estimate the total willingness 
to pay (WTP), including both use and non-use values, for improvements 
in surface water quality. This approach builds upon a review and 
analysis of the surface water valuation literature.
    EPA first estimated the baseline value of water-based recreation 
for the benefitting reaches based on estimated annual person-days of 
recreational fishing. The baseline per-day values of water-based 
recreation are based on studies by Walsh et. al (1992) and Bergstrom 
and Cordell (1991). The studies provide values per recreation day for a 
wide range of water-based activities, including fishing, boating, 
wildlife viewing, waterfowl hunting, camping, and picnicking. The mean 
value per recreational fishing day used in this analyses is $39.62.
    EPA then applied the percentage change in the recreational fishing 
value of water resources implied by surface water valuation studies to 
estimate changes in values for all MP&M reaches in which the regulation 
eliminates AWQC exceedences by one or more MP&M pollutants. The Agency 
selected eight of the most comparable studies and calculated the 
changes in recreational fishing values from water quality improvements 
(as percentage of the baseline) implied by those studies. Sources of 
estimates included Lyke (1993), Jakus et al. (1997), Montgomery and 
Needleman (1997), Paneuf et al. (1998), Desvousges et al. (1987), Lant 
and Roberts (1990), Farber and Griner (2000), and Tudor et al. (2000). 
EPA took a simple mean of point estimates from all applicable studies 
to derive a central tendency value for percentage change in the water 
resource values due to water quality improvements.
    This approach uses all possible applicable valuation studies, makes 
unit values more likely to be nationally representative, and avoids the 
potential bias inherent in using a single study to make estimates at 
the national level. These studies yielded estimates of increased 
recreational fishing value from water quality improvements expected 
from reduced MP&M discharges of 10 to 15 percent. The estimated 
national recreational benefits of the proposed rule (1999$) are 
provided in Table XIII-5 below. Note that the benefits transfer 
approach used in this analyses is based on eight studies as opposed to 
one used in the previous rule.
    The resulting average changes in participants' valuation of water 
resources per year resulting from the MP&M rule is modest ($18.12 per 
angler per year). EPA applied these estimates to the portion of the 
population residing in each county that is traversed by (i.e., is 
adjacent to) a water body that benefits from the proposed MP&M rule. 
The portion of the anglers adjacent to the reach is calculated based on 
the number of fishing licenses sold in the relevant counties and the 
ratio of the benefiting reach length to the number of total reach miles 
in the county. The results were then extrapolated to the national level 
based on facility sample weights.
    Removing water quality impairments would increase services provided 
by water resources to recreational users. Potential recreational users 
are expected to benefit from improved recreational opportunities, 
including an increased number of available choices of recreational 
sites. For example, some of the streams that were not usable for 
recreation under the baseline discharge conditions may be newly 
included in the site choice set for recreational users from nearby 
counties. Streams that have been used for recreation under the baseline 
conditions can become more attractive for users making recreational 
trips more enjoyable. Individuals may also take trips more frequently 
if they enjoy their recreational activities more.
    EPA estimated that 20.2 million anglers will benefit from improved 
recreational opportunities because they live in counties that are 
traversed by reaches expected to benefit from the MP&M regulation. The 
results show that roughly half of the nation's recreational

[[Page 505]]

anglers will benefit from the proposed rule. These results partially 
stem from the concentration of MP&M facilities in all heavily populated 
areas. However, EPA recognizes that extrapolating from sample facility 
to national results introduces uncertainty in the analyses, and is 
continuing to explore ways to reduce this uncertainty. The Agency is 
requesting comment on the methods used to extrapolate sample results to 
national benefit estimates. The extrapolation method used is described 
in detail in chapters 5 and 15 and appendix F of the EEBA.
    EPA also estimated non-market nonuser benefits. These non-market 
nonuser benefits are not associated with current use of the affected 
ecosystem or habitat; instead, they arise from the value society places 
on improved water quality independent of planned uses or based on 
expected future use. Past studies have shown that nonuser values are a 
sizable component of the total economic value of water resources. EPA 
estimated average changes in nonuser value to equal one-half of the 
recreational fishing benefits. The estimated increase in nonuser value 
is $182.7 million (1999$).

          Table XX-5.--Estimated Recreational Fishing and Non-Use Benefits from Reduced MP&M Discharges
                                                 [Million 1999$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Proposed
                          Benefit Type                                option       Option 2/6/10    Option 4/8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recreational Fishing............................................          $365.4          $960.3          $962.1
Nonuse Benefit (1/2 of Recreational Fishing)....................           182.7           480.2           481.1
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total Recreational Benefits.................................           548.1         1,440.5        1,443.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Categories may not sum to totals due to rounding of individual estimates for presentation purposes.

    EPA calculated the total value of enhanced water-based recreation 
opportunities by summing recreational fishing and nonuser value. The 
resulting increase in value of water resources to recreational anglers 
and nonusers is $548.1 million, with an upper and lower bound range of 
$294 to $941 million (1999$) annually.

D. Productivity Changes: Cleaner Sewage Sludge (Biosolids)

    EPA evaluated two productivity measures associated with MP&M 
pollutants. The first measure was the pollutant interference at 
publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) which were quantified but not 
monetized in Section XII. The second measure is pass-through of 
pollutants into the sludge which limits options for disposing of their 
sewage sludge. EPA quantified the reduced costs for managing and 
disposing of sewage sludge. This analyses relied on data from 147 POTW 
surveys. The survey provided information on sewage sludge use and 
disposal costs and practices, total metal loadings to the POTW, 
percentage of total metal loadings contributed by MP&M facilities, and 
the number of known MP&M dischargers to the POTW The survey also 
provided information on the percentage of qualifying sludge that is not 
land applied and reasons for not land applying qualifying sludge.
    EPA has promulgated regulations establishing standards for sewage 
sludge when it is applied to the land, disposed of at dedicated sites 
(surface disposal), and incinerated (40 CFR part 503). In addition, EPA 
has also established standards for sewage sludge when it is disposed of 
in municipal solid waste landfills (40 CFR part 258). Disposing of 
sewage sludge containing lower levels of pollutants is less expensive 
than disposing of more contaminated sewage because these regulations 
restrict disposal options based on sludge pollutant levels. The POTW 
survey indicated that the costs of alternative use/disposal practices 
follow a consistent ordinal relationship. That is, certain use/disposal 
practices (e.g., incinerating sludge) are generally more expensive than 
other practices (e.g., land application).
    EPA estimated baseline and post-compliance sludge concentrations of 
eight metals for POTWs receiving discharges from the sample MP&M 
facilities. EPA compared these concentrations with the relevant metal 
concentration limits for land application and surface disposal. In the 
baseline case, EPA estimated that concentrations of one or more metals 
at 6,953 POTWs would fail the land application limits.
    EPA estimates that 62 POTWs will be able to select the lower-cost 
land application disposal based on estimated reductions in sludge 
contamination. An estimated 1.7 million dry metric tons (DMT) of sewage 
sludge would newly qualify for land application annually. EPA also 
estimated that 21 POTWs that previously met only the land application 
pollutant limit would, as a result of regulation, meet the more 
stringent land application concentration limits. EPA expects these 
POTWs to benefit through reduced record-keeping requirements and 
exemption from certain sludge management practices. The annual 
estimated cost savings for the POTWs expected to upgrade their sludge 
disposal practices are $61.3 million (1999$).
    This analyses includes an adjustment to the estimate of national 
sludge use/disposal cost benefits for POTWs located at cost-prohibitive 
distances from agricultural, forest, or disturbed lands suitable for 
sludge application. EPA assumed that 46 percent of sludge generated in 
the United States is generated by POTWs located too far from sites 
suitable for application sewage sludge to make these practices 
economical.

E. Total Estimated Benefits of the Proposed MP&M Rule

    EPA estimates that total benefits for the five categories for which 
monetary estimates were possible are $0.651 billion (1999$) annually. 
EPA characterized uncertainty inherent in the benefits analyses by 
bounding benefit estimates. The low and upper bound benefit estimates 
of the proposed option are $0.347 and $1,144 billion (1999$) annually. 
EPA's complete benefit assessment can be found in Economic, 
Environmental, and Benefit Assessment of Proposed Effluent Limitations 
and Guidelines for the Metal Products and Machinery Industry. The 
monetized benefits of the rule underestimate the total benefits of the 
rule because it omits various sources of benefits to society may from 
reduced MP&M effluent discharges. Examples of benefit categories not 
reflected in this estimate include: non-cancer health benefits other 
than benefits from reduced exposure to lead, other water dependent 
recreational benefits such as swimming, boating, wildlife viewing, and 
waterskiing, and reduced cost of

[[Page 506]]

drinking water treatment for the pollutants with drinking water 
criteria.

                          Table XX-6.--Estimated Benefits from Reduced MP&M Discharges
                                        [Annual Benefits--Million 1999$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Proposed
                        Benefit category                              option       Option 2/6/10    Option 4/8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Reduced Cancer Risk:
    Fish Consumption............................................            $0.3            $0.3            $0.4
    Water Consumption...........................................            13.0            13.7            13.8
2. Reduced Risk from Exposure to Lead:
    Children....................................................            14.4            14.8            14.9
    Adults......................................................            13.6            14.1            14.1
3. Avoided Sewage Sludge Disposal Costs.........................            61.3            68.5           127.4
4. Enhanced Fishing.............................................           365.4           960.7           962.7
5. Nonuse benefits (\1/2\ of Recreational Use Benefits).........           182.7           480.4           481.3
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total Monetized Benefits..................................           650.6         1,553.5         1,614.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously mentioned, the EEBA includes national estimates for 
benefits in two other categories, enhanced boating and wildlife 
viewing. In addition, it also includes estimates from a travel cost 
analyses of recreational benefits from enhanced fishing, swimming, 
boating and wildlife viewing performed for the state of Ohio. The case 
study analyses supplements the national level analyses performed for 
the proposed MP&M regulation by using improved data and methods to 
determine MP&M pollutant discharges from both MP&M facilities and other 
sources and by estimating swimming, fishing, boating, and near-water 
activities. The random utility model (RUM) used in the analyses 
estimates the effects of the specific water quality characteristics 
analyzed for the proposed MP&M regulation (i.e., the presence of AWQC 
exceedances and concentrations of the nonconventional nutrient Total 
Kjeldahl Nitrogen.) The direct link between the water quality 
characteristics analyzed for the rule and the characteristics valued in 
the RUM analyses reduces uncertainty in benefit estimates and makes the 
analyses of recreational benefits more robust. This analyses is 
presented in Chapters 20, 21, and 22 of the EEBA.

F. Benefit-Cost Comparison

    EPA cannot perform a complete benefit-cost comparison because not 
all of the benefits resulting from the proposed regulatory alternative 
can be valued in dollar terms. A comparison of costs and benefits is 
thus limited by the lack of a comprehensive benefits valuation and also 
by some uncertainties in the estimates. Nonetheless, EPA presents the 
following summary comparison of costs and benefits for the proposed 
rule. The social cost of the proposed rule is $2.1 billion annually 
(1999$). The total benefits that can be valued in dollar terms in the 
categories traditionally analyzed for effluent guidelines range from 
$0.4 billion to $1.1 billion annually (1999$). EPA believes that the 
benefits of the proposed regulation justify the social costs.

XXI. Regulatory Implementation

A. Compliance Dates

    As discussed in Section XII of this notice, EPA is proposing to 
establish a three-year deadline (from the date of publication of the 
final MP&M rule) for compliance with the MP&M pretreatment standards 
for existing sources (PSES). EPA is proposing a three-year deadline 
because design and construction of systems adequate for compliance with 
PSES will be a substantial undertaking for many MP&M sites. In 
addition, control authorities (e.g., POTWs) will need the time to 
develop the permits or other control mechanisms for their industrial 
users.
    Once EPA finalizes the MP&M rule, these limitations will be 
reflected in NPDES permits issued to direct dischargers.
    New sources must comply with the new source standards and 
limitations (PSNS and NSPS) of the MP&M rule (once it is finalized) at 
the time they commence discharging MP&M process wastewater. Because the 
final rule is not expected within 120 days of the proposed rule, the 
Agency considers a discharger a new source if its construction 
commences following promulgation of the final rule (40 CFR 122.2; 40 
CFR 403.3). In addition, today's notice fully replaces the MP&M Phase I 
proposal, published on May 30, 1995. Therefore, compliance deadlines in 
that proposal would obviously no longer apply.

B. Implementation of Limitations and Standards

1. Concentration-Based Limitations and Standards
    As discussed in Section II.D, EPA is proposing concentration-based 
limits for all subcategories except the Steel Forming & Finishing 
Subcategory for which EPA is proposing production-based limits (see 
Section XXI.B.2, below, for a discussion on the Steel Forming & 
Finishing Subcategory). Unlike the Phase I proposal, EPA is not 
proposing to require permit writers or control authorities (e.g., 
POTWs) to implement the limits on a mass basis for dischargers. Instead 
EPA is proposing to authorize permit writers and control authorities to 
use their best professional judgement to decide when it is most 
appropriate to implement mass-based limits. The NPDES regulations (40 
CFR 122.45(f)) require permit writers to implement mass-based 
limitations for direct dischargers, but allows an exception when the 
limits are expressed in terms of other units of measurement (e.g., 
concentration) and the General Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR 403.6(d)) 
provides that the control authority may impose mass limitations on 
industrial users which are using dilution to meet applicable 
pretreatment requirements or where mass limitations are appropriate. 
EPA believes that this approach will reduce implementation burden on 
POTWs associated with implementing mass-based limits at all of their 
MP&M industrial users, but will still result in increased use of water 
conservation practices at the facilities where POTWs determine it is 
most appropriate. EPA believes that MP&M facilities that have been 
using the best pollution prevention and water conservation practices 
may also request that the permit writer or POTW use

[[Page 507]]

mass-based limits in their permits or control mechanism. The Agency is 
providing detailed information on water use levels for specific unit 
operations in Section 15 of the Technical Development Document for 
today's proposal. EPA believes this information will be useful to 
permit writers and control authorities in those instances where they 
deem it appropriate to set mass-based limits.
2. Mass-Based Limitations and Standards

a. Background

    The effluent limitations guidelines and standards for BPT, BAT, 
NSPS, PSES, and PSNS proposed today for the Steel Forming and Finishing 
Subcategory are expressed as mass limitations in pounds/1,000 pounds of 
product. The mass limitation is derived by multiplying an effluent 
concentration (determined from the analyses of treatment system 
performance) by an appropriate wastewater volume (``production-
normalized flow'') determined for each forming or finishing operation 
expressed in gallons/ton of product. EPA developed the production 
normalized flows used to develop the limits in the proposed rule from 
survey questionnaire responses from steel forming and finishing 
facilities. (The production-normalized flows are provided in the 
Technical Development Document.) However, EPA did not collect 
analytical wastewater samples from Steel Forming & Finishing facilities 
that used the Option 2 treatment technology (see Section VIII for a 
description of the technology options). EPA transferred the effluent 
concentrations used to develop the proposed Steel Forming & Finishing 
subcategory limitations and standards from those used for the General 
Metals subcategory. EPA believes that the wastewater characteristics of 
the General Metals subcategory closely resemble those of the Steel 
Forming & Finishing subcategory. The concentration-based limitations 
and standards for the General Metals subcategory are provided in 
Subpart A of the proposed codified regulation that accompanies this 
preamble. EPA will conduct analytical wastewater sampling of well-
operated chemical precipitation and clarification systems at steel 
forming and finishing facilities post-proposal. EPA intends on 
developing limitations and standards for this subcategory for the final 
rule that would be based on the steel forming and finishing facilities 
in this subcategory.
    A facility subject to today's proposed regulation can use a 
combination of various treatment alternatives and/or water conservation 
practices to achieve a particular effluent limitation or standard. The 
model treatment systems (i.e., Option 2 for BPT, BAT, BCT, and PSES and 
Option 4 for NSPS and PSNS, as described in Section VIII) illustrate at 
least one means available to achieve the proposed effluent limitations 
guidelines and standards.
    As discussed above in Section XXI.B.1, both the NPDES permit 
regulations and the General Pretreatment Regulations discuss the use of 
mass-based limitations and standards. In order to convert the proposed 
effluent limitations and standards expressed as pounds/1,000 pounds of 
product to a monthly average or daily maximum permit limit, the 
permitting or control authority would use a production rate with units 
of tons/day. The NPDES permit regulations (Part 122.45(b)(2)) require 
that NPDES permit limits be based on a ``* * * reasonable measure of 
actual production.'' A similar requirement is found in the General 
Pretreatment regulations (40 CFR 403.6(c)(3)). As discussed in Section 
VI, facilities in the proposed MP&M Steel Forming & Finishing 
subcategory, are currently covered under the Iron & Steel Manufacturing 
Point Source Category regulations (40 CFR part 420). The production 
rates used for NPDES permitting for the iron and steel industry under 
40 CFR part 420 have commonly been the highest annual average 
production from the prior five year period prorated to a daily basis, 
or the highest monthly production over the prior five years prorated to 
a daily basis. Stakeholders involved in EPA's proposed revision of the 
Iron and Steel effluent limitations guidelines and standards (which is 
being proposed under a separate notice) have indicated that (1) EPA 
should include the method used to determine appropriate production 
rates for calculating allowable mass loadings into the regulation for 
consistency, so that the permit writers can all use the same basis; and 
(2) EPA should use a high production basis, such as maximum monthly 
production over the previous five year period or maximum design 
production, in order to ensure that a facility will not be out of 
compliance during periods of high production.
    Both the NPDES and General Pretreatment regulations require that, 
for existing sources, production-based effluent limitations guidelines 
and standards be based not on production capacity, but on a 
``reasonable measure of actual production.'' The current iron and steel 
regulation at 40 CFR 420.04 requires that the mass-based pretreatment 
requirements be based on a reasonable measure of actual production. 
That regulation provides two examples of what may constitute a 
reasonable measure of actual production: (1) the monthly average for 
the highest of the previous five years, or (2) the high month of the 
previous year. Both values are converted to a daily basis (i.e., tons/
day) for purposes of calculating monthly average and daily maximum 
mass-based permit effluent limitations.
    Each of the above regulations requires that effluent limitations 
and pretreatment standards for new sources must be based on projected 
production. That approach is carried forward in this proposed 
regulation.
    EPA believes that production rates used in some permits and control 
mechanisms have been derived in a manner that is not consistent with 
the term ``reasonable measure of actual production'' specified at 40 
CFR 122.45(b)(2)(i), 403.6(c)(3), and 420.04. In some cases, maximum 
production rates for similar process units discharging to one treatment 
system were determined from different years or months, which may 
provide an unrealistically high measure of actual production. In EPA's 
view, this unrealistic estimate of production would occur if the 
different process units could not reasonably produce at these high 
rates simultaneously.
    The ideal situation for the application of production-based 
effluent limitations and standards is where production is relatively 
constant from day-to-day or month-to-month. In this case, the 
production rate used for purposes of calculating the permit limitations 
would then be the average rate. However, in the case of the steel 
forming and finishing industry, production rates are not constant and 
vary significantly based on factors such as fluctuations in market 
demand for domestic products, maintenance, product changes, equipment 
failures, and facility modifications. As such, the typical production 
rate for individual facilities vary significantly over time, especially 
over the customary five-year life of a permit or control mechanism.
    Although permits and control mechanisms can be modified, if 
necessary, during the five-year life of a permit or control mechanism, 
re-opening a permit can be very burdensome on the regulator and the 
facility. Therefore, the objective in determining a production estimate 
for a facility is to develop a reasonable measure of production which 
can reasonably be expected to prevail during

[[Page 508]]

the next term of the permit or control mechanism. The production 
estimate is used in combination with the production-based limitations 
to establish a maximum mass of pollutant that may be discharged each 
day and month. However, if the permit or control mechanism production 
rate is based on the maximum month, then the permit could allow 
excessive discharges of pollutants during significant portions of the 
life of the permit/control mechanism. These excessive allowances may 
discourage facilities from ensuring optimal waste management, water 
conservation, and wastewater treatment practices during lower 
production periods. On the other hand, if the average production rate 
is based on an average derived from the highest year of production over 
the past five years, then facilities may have trouble ensuring that 
their waste management, water conservation, and wastewater treatment 
practices can accommodate shorter periods of higher production. This 
might require facilities to target a more stringent treatment level 
than that on which the limits and standards were based during these 
periods of high production. To accomplish this, facilities would likely 
have to develop more efficient treatment systems, greater hydraulic 
surge capacity, and better water conservation and waste management 
practices, or they may have to contract haul a portion of their 
wastewater to off-site disposal during these periods.

b. Alternatives for Establishing Permit Effluent Limitations and 
Standards

    EPA is soliciting comment on several alternative approaches that 
may result in more stringent mass-based permits/control mechanisms for 
some facilities with better protection of the environment for the 
entire life of a permit/control mechanism and may result in higher 
costs. Each alternative requires that production from unit operations 
that do not generate or discharge process wastewater shall not be 
included in the calculation of operating rates.
    Alternative A: This is the basis for today's proposed limits. It 
retains the essential requirements of the rule that EPA currently 
regulates Steel Forming and Finishing facilities under (40 CFR 420.04). 
However, today's proposal provides additional instructions for avoiding 
approaches that result in unrealistically high estimates of actual 
production by only considering production from all production units 
that could occur simultaneously (see Sec. 438.58(b)). This may result 
in higher costs for those facilities with current permit or control 
mechanism conditions based on production levels that are higher than 
levels that could occur simultaneously at multiple process units.
    In determining the production rate for the Steel Forming and 
Finishing subcategory, EPA is proposing to require permit writers and 
control authorities to use the following protocols:
    (1) For similar, multiple production lines with process waters 
treated in the same wastewater treatment system, the reasonable measure 
of production shall be determined from the combined production of the 
similar production lines during the same time period.
    (2) For process wastewater treatment systems where wastewater from 
two or more different production lines are commingled in the same 
wastewater treatment system, the reasonable measure of production shall 
be determined separately for each production line (or combination of 
similar production lines) during the same time period.
    Alternative B: The Agency is considering including in the rule a 
requirement for the permit writer/control authority to establish multi-
tiered limits and pretreatment standards. Permit writers and control 
authorities currently use their best professional judgment for 
establishing multi-tiered permits. The Agency has issued guidance for 
use in considering multi-tiered permits (see chapter 5 of the ``U.S. 
EPA NPDES Permit Writers'' Manual,'' (EPA-833-8-96-003, December 1996) 
and chapter 7 of the ``Industrial User Permitting Guidance Manual,'' 
(EPA 833/R-89-001, September 29, 1989)).
    In situations where a single set of effluent limitations or 
standards are not appropriate for the permit's (or control mechanism's) 
entire period, a tiered permit/control mechanism may be established. 
One set of limits would apply for periods of average production along 
with other sets which take effect when there are significant changes in 
the average production rate. The guidance notes that a 10 to 15 percent 
deviation above or below the long-term average production rate is 
within the range of normal variability. Predictable changes in the 
long-term production higher than this range would warrant consideration 
of a tiered or multi-tiered permit/control mechanism. Based on EPA's 
limited data, the facilities in the Steel Forming and Finishing 
subcategory may have a variable production rate where the permit/
control mechanism modification process is not fast enough to respond to 
the need for higher or lower equivalent limits.
    Alternative C: To provide a basis for deriving a permit/control 
mechanism production rate that is consistent with the term reasonable 
measure of actual production and that can be applied consistently for 
facilities in the Steel Forming and Finishing subcategory, EPA is also 
considering including a definition of ``production'' specific to this 
subcategory in the rule. The modified definition for use in developing 
the permit/control mechanism production basis would be the average 
daily operating rate for the year with the highest annual production 
over the past five years, taking into account the annual hours of 
operation of the production unit and the typical operating schedule of 
the production unit, as illustrated by the following example:

Highest annual production from previous five years: 3,570,000 tons.
Operating hours: 8,400 hours.
Hourly operating rate: 425 tons/hour.
Average daily operating rate (24 hour day): 10,200 tons/day.

    The above example is for a process unit that is operated typically 
24 hours per day with short-term outages for maintenance on a weekly or 
monthly basis. For facilities in the Steel Forming and Finishing 
subcategory that are operated typically less than 24 hours per day, the 
average daily operating rate must be determined based on the typical 
operating schedule (e.g., 8 hours per day for a facility operated one 
8-hour turn (or shift) per day; 16 hours per day for a facility 
operated for two 8-hour turns per day). For example:

Highest annual production from previous five years: 980,000 tons.
Operating hours: 4,160 hours.
Hourly operating rate: 235.6 tons/hour.
Average daily operating rate (16 hour day): 3,769 tons/day.

    In this example, EPA recognizes that the approach could cause 
problems for a facility that was operated 16 hours/day at the time the 
permit was issued and then wished to change to 24 hours/day based on 
unforseen changes in market conditions. To address this issue, the 
approach could be combined with the tiered permit approach discussed 
above.
    For multiple similar process units discharging to the same 
wastewater treatment system with one compliance point (e.g., two 
electroplating lines operated with one treatment system for process 
waters), the year with the highest annual production over the previous 
five years under Alternative C would be determined on the basis of the

[[Page 509]]

sum of annual production for both electroplating lines. Then, based on 
this year's average daily operating rate, the daily production rates 
would be calculated as above independently for each electroplating line 
using total annual production and annual operating hours for each line. 
The daily production values would be summed to calculate the average 
daily operating rate for the combination of the two lines. For example, 
consider the following production data:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Electroplating  Electroplating
                              Year                                 line A (tons)   line B (tons)   Total  (tons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995............................................................       1,859,000       1,305,000       3,155,000
1996............................................................       1,675,000       1,425,000       3,100,000
1997............................................................       1,760,000       1,406,000       3,166,000
1998............................................................       1,580,000       1,328,000       2,908,000
1999............................................................       1,825,000       1,380,000       3,205,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Annual maximum production rates for each electroplating line and 
the combination of the two lines are italicized. In this example, 1999 
was the maximum production year for the combination of the 
electroplating lines and the data from each line that year would be 
used to calculate the average daily operating rates. Had the 1995 data 
from Electroplating Line A and the 1996 data from Electroplating Line B 
been used in combination (3,275,000 tons), an unrealistic measure of 
actual production might have resulted if the two electroplating lines 
could not produce at these high levels concurrently.
    In contrast to the previous example, for multiple process units 
that are not similar, but have process wastewater commingled prior to 
treatment in one central wastewater treatment system with one 
compliance point, the year with the highest production over the 
previous five years would be determined separately for each production 
unit (or combination of similar and different production units) with 
the highest annual production. For example, consider a situation where 
process wastewater for an electroplating line, a pressure deformation 
operation, and an acid pickling operation are discharged through one 
compliance point. Consider the following example:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Pressure
                              Year                                Electroplating    deformation    Acid pickling
                                                                      (tons)          (tons)          (tons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995............................................................         575,000         650,000         900,000
1996............................................................         650,000         700,000       1,000,000
1997............................................................         675,000         850,000         950,000
1998............................................................         750,000         825,000       1,125,000
1999............................................................         700,000         600,000         900,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this example, 1998 production data for the electroplating line, 
1997 data from the pressure deformation operation, and 1998 data for 
the acid pickling operation would be used to develop the effluent 
limitations or pretreatment standards used in the permit/control 
mechanism.
    Alternative D: The Agency is considering establishing production-
based maximum monthly average effluent limitations and standards in 
combination with daily-maximum concentration-based effluent limitations 
and standards. Under this alternative, the maximum monthly average 
NPDES permit and pretreatment control mechanism mass basis requirements 
would be determined using the part 438 subpart E production-based 
standards in combination with a reasonable measure of actual 
production, such as Alternative C above. However, the daily-maximum 
requirements would be in the form of effluent concentrations that would 
be included in part 438 subpart E in lieu of the daily-maximum 
production-based mass effluent limitations guidelines and standards. 
These daily maximum concentrations set out as effluent limitations 
guidelines and standards would be based on the long-term averages and 
variability factors derived from EPA sampling conducted post-proposal 
at steel forming and finishing facilities representative of BAT.
    The Agency believes this approach would effectively address the 
potential issue cited above regarding short-term peaks in production 
under most circumstances. There would be no additional burden on the 
industry and permitting or control authorities for applying for and 
writing NPDES permits or pretreatment control mechanisms. Permitting 
and control authorities may need to revise their automated compliance 
tracking systems to account for both mass and concentration limitations 
at the same outfall, which is a common feature in many NPDES permits 
and pretreatment control mechanisms issued prior to this proposal.
    EPA solicits comments on these alternatives to the proposed 
production bases for calculating effluent limitations and pretreatment 
standards used in NPDES permits or control mechanisms. In particular, 
the Agency solicits comments on related costs and any technical 
difficulties that steel forming and finishing facilities might have in 
meeting limits during short periods of high production. EPA also 
solicits other options for consideration.

C. Monitoring Flexibility

1. Monitoring Waiver
    EPA's Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel encouraged EPA to 
``explore options for allowing certification in lieu of monitoring 
where an operator can determine, based on knowledge of the facility and 
its processes, that certain pollutants are not likely to be present or 
are adequately controlled.'' (See Section XXII.C for a discussion on 
the recommendations of the SBAR Panel). Other stakeholders expressed 
similar requests during public meetings with the Agency. Therefore, in 
an effort to reduce monitoring burden on facilities, EPA is proposing 
to allow MP&M indirect discharge facilities to

[[Page 510]]

apply for a waiver that would allow them to reduce their monitoring 
burden (EPA discusses existing monitoring waivers available for direct 
dischargers later in this section). In order for a facility to receive 
a monitoring waiver, the facility would need to certify in writing to 
the control authority (e.g., POTW) that the facility does not use, nor 
generate in any way, a pollutant (or pollutants) at its site and that 
the pollutant (or pollutants) is present only at background levels from 
intake water and without any increase in the pollutant due to 
activities of the discharger. The facility would need to base this 
certification on sampling data or other technical factors. The 
certification would not be a waiver from the pollutant numerical limit 
in the control mechanism (i.e., permit). It would only be a waiver from 
the monitoring requirements. In addition, EPA would still require the 
industrial user to monitor for the specified pollutants as part of the 
Baseline Monitoring Report (Sec. 403.12(b)) and the 90-day Compliance 
Report (Sec. 403.12(d)). EPA believes control authorities can use the 
sampling data generated from the Baseline Monitoring Report and the 90-
day Compliance Report in conjunction with technical information on the 
raw materials and chemical processes used at the facility to determine 
whether there is sufficient reason to allow the monitoring waiver for 
any of the MP&M limited pollutants. Although EPA expects this 
monitoring waiver to reduce burden overall, the Agency estimates the 
burden associated with preparing the certification statement and 
related documentation as required by the Paper Reduction Act (see 
Section XXII.A for burden estimates).
    EPA is proposing that the certification statement be submitted at 
the same time indirect discharging MP&M facilities submit ``periodic 
reports on continued compliance'' as directed by the General 
Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR 403.12(e)). Indirect dischargers submit 
such reports twice per year (typically June and December). In addition, 
the certification would need to be signed by the same individual that 
is authorized to sign the periodic reports as described in the General 
Pretreatment Standards 403.12(l). This monitoring waiver would be 
similar to the waiver in the Proposed ``Streamlining the General 
Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Pollution,'' 
64 FR 39564; July 22, 1999 (commonly referred to as ``Pretreatment 
Streamlining''). If EPA promulgates the final Pretreatment Streamlining 
regulations prior to the final MP&M effluent guidelines and those 
regulations contain a similar provision then a waiver specific to MP&M 
facilities would be unnecessary.
    EPA recently promulgated a regulation to streamline the NPDES 
regulations (``Amendments to Streamline the National Pollutant 
Discharge Elimination System Program Regulations: Round Two'' (65 FR 
30886; May 15, 2000)). These revisions include a similar monitoring 
waiver for direct dischargers subject to effluent guidelines. Direct 
discharge facilities may forego sampling of a guideline-limited 
pollutant if that discharger ``has demonstrated through sampling and 
other technical factors that the pollutant is not present in the 
discharge or is present only at background levels from intake water and 
without any increase in the pollutant due to activities of the 
discharger.'' (65 FR 30908. 40 CFR 122.44). EPA noted, in the preamble 
to the final NPDES Streamlining rule, that it is providing a waiver 
from monitoring requirements, but not a waiver from the limit. In 
addition, the revision does not waive monitoring for any pollutants for 
which there are limits based on water quality standards. The waiver for 
direct dischargers lasts for the term of the NPDES permit and is not 
available during the term of the first permit issued to a discharger. 
Any request for this waiver under these revisions to the NPDES 
regulations must be submitted when applying for a reissued permit or 
modification of a reissued permit. Therefore, EPA is not proposing a 
monitoring waiver in the MP&M regulations for direct dischargers. When 
authorized by their permit writer, direct discharge facilities covered 
by any effluent guidelines (including MP&M) will be able to use the 
monitoring waiver contained in the NPDES streamlining final rule.
2. Monitoring Flexibility for Organic Pollutants
    In an effort to reduce burden on MP&M facilities, EPA proposes 
three alternatives to allow for maximum flexibility while ensuring 
reductions in the amount of organic pollutants discharged from MP&M 
facilities. EPA is proposing to require MP&M facilities within the 
scope of this rule to either: (1) Meet a numerical limit for the total 
sum of a list of specific organic pollutants (similar to the Total 
Toxic Organics or TTO parameter used in the Metal Finishing Effluent 
Guidelines); (2) meet a numerical limit for TOC as an indicator 
parameter; or (3) develop and certify the implementation of an organic 
pollutant management plan.
    As discussed in section II.D, EPA proposed using an organic 
pollutant indicator parameter in the 1995 Phase I MP&M proposal. At 
that time, however, the Agency did not provide the alternative of 
monitoring for individual organic pollutants. In an effort to provide 
such an alternative, EPA reviewed the sampling data to identify 
individual organic pollutants for which the Agency could develop 
individual limits. Due to the variety of organic pollutants used across 
MP&M facilities, EPA determined that it would be burdensome to 
facilities and permit writers to have to determine which limits to 
apply to a facility. Instead, EPA is proposing an approach similar to 
the one used in the Metal Finishing Effluent Guidelines (40 CFR part 
433). EPA developed a list of organic pollutants, called the Total 
Organics Parameter (TOP), using the list of organic priority pollutants 
and other nonconventional organic pollutants that met EPA's ``pollutant 
of concern'' criteria for this rule (see Section VII for a discussion 
on the selection of the MP&M pollutants of concern). Of the non-
conventional organic chemicals on the MP&M pollutant of concern list, 
EPA included only those that were removed in appreciable quantities by 
the selected technology option (based on toxic weighted pound-
equivalents) in two or more subcategories. See appendix B to part 438 
of the proposed rule accompanying this notice for a list of organic 
pollutants that comprise the proposed Total Organics Parameter (TOP). 
EPA has derived the numerical limit for TOP based on the contribution 
of each of the organic pollutants on the list in Appendix B using the 
data collected during sampling and determined its limitation using the 
same statistical methodology used for other limits developed for this 
proposal (see Section VIII.B). In any case where the data for these 
pollutants indicated a level below the minimum level (i.e., below 
quantitation), EPA used the minimum level for the specific pollutant in 
the summation of the total organics parameter limit. Facilities will 
only have to monitor for those TOP chemicals that are reasonably 
present (see XXI.C.1 for a discussion on monitoring waivers). Note that 
the TOP limit shall not be adjusted for those pollutants that are not 
reasonably present. EPA solicits comment on this methodology. For 
compliance purposes, pollutants that have been given a waiver (because 
they are not reasonably present) will be counted as zero in the TOP 
limit. For remaining pollutants, the reported value, when above the 
detection limit, shall be used in the TOP calculation. When a pollutant 
is

[[Page 511]]

reported as a ``non-detect'' (i.e., not found above the nominal 
quatitation value listed in appendix B of the proposed rule), the 
nominal quantitation value shall be used in the TOP calculation.
    EPA considered using the same list of organic chemicals as in the 
Metal Finishing effluent guidelines Total Toxic Organics (TTO) list (40 
CFR 433.11(e)), but rejected this approach. EPA did not include all 
parameters from the Metal Finishing TTO list because: (1) EPA did not 
find many of the TTO parameters in the wastewater sampled for the MP&M 
rule; (2) many of the listed organics are pesticides that are no longer 
manufactured (e.g., DDT) and would not be used in MP&M operations; and 
(3) most facilities subject to the Metal Finishing TTO limits switched 
to the use of solvents (or aqueous cleaners) that do not contain the 
organic chemicals on the Metal Finishing TTO list.
    As discussed above, EPA is also proposing to allow the use of an 
indicator parameter to measure the presence of organic pollutants in 
MP&M process wastewater. Facilities can monitor for the organic 
pollutants specified in the total organics parameter list (as discussed 
above) to demonstrate compliance with the TOP limit or they can monitor 
for Total Organic Carbon (TOC) and meet the TOC limit. EPA chose TOC as 
an indicator parameter because of its ability to measure all types of 
organic pollutants. EPA solicits comment on the use of TOC as an 
indicator pollutant for the organic pollutants typically found in 
wastewater discharges from MP&M facilities. EPA also requests comment 
on whether the Agency should allow facilities to choose an indicator 
pollutant from a given set of choices (e.g., COD, Oil & Grease (as 
HEM), TOC, Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (as SGT-HEM)). EPA found TOC to 
be the best general indicator parameter for measuring the sum of 
organic compounds in a wastestream. EPA notes, however, that to 
determine the best indicator parameter for a particular wastestream, a 
facility would need to consider the specific organic components found 
in its wastestreams.
    Finally, EPA is proposing a third alternative to reduce monitoring 
burden--the use of an organic pollutant management plan. The organic 
pollutant management plan would need to specify, to the satisfaction of 
the permitting authority or control authority, the toxic and non-
conventional organic constituents used at the facility; the disposal 
method used; the procedures in place for ensuring that organic 
pollutants do not routinely spill or leak into the wastewater or that 
minimize the amount of organic pollutants used in the process; the 
procedures in place to manage the oxidation reduction potential (ORP) 
during cyanide destruction to control the formation of chlorinated 
organic byproducts; and the procedures to prevent the over dosage of 
dithiocarbamates when treating chelated wastewater. Facilities choosing 
to develop an organic pollutant management plan would need to certify 
that the procedures described in the plan are being implemented at the 
facility. Based on the current data base, EPA is concerned that 
wastewater generated by facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory may 
require end-of-pipe treatment to reduce the concentrations of organic 
pollutants and that an organic management plan alone may not adequately 
control organic-bearing wastewater at facilities containing significant 
quantities of oil-bearing wastewater. Although EPA is proposing the use 
of the organics management plan be offered to Oily Wastes facilities, 
EPA solicits comment on whether sites with significant amounts of oil-
bearing wastewater (for example, a facility in the Oily Waste 
subcategory) should be eligible for the use of an organic pollutant 
management plan in lieu of monitoring for TOP (Total Organics 
Parameter) or TOC (as an indicator).
3. Monitoring for Cyanide
    For the General Metals, Metal Finishing Job Shop, Printed Wiring 
Board, and Steel Forming and Finishing subcategories, EPA is proposing 
to set a total cyanide limit. The point of compliance would be based on 
monitoring for total cyanide directly after cyanide treatment, before 
combining the cyanide treated effluent with other wastestreams. EPA is 
also proposing an alternative where a facility may take samples of 
final effluent, in order to meet the total cyanide limit, if the 
control authority adjusts the permit limits based on the dilution ratio 
of the cyanide wastestream flow to the effluent flow.
    In addition, EPA has selected alkaline chlorination using sodium 
hypochlorite as the best available economically achievable technology 
for treating cyanide bearing wastewater from MP&M facilities. Not all 
cyanide however is amenable to alkaline chlorination due to 
``unavoidable'' complexing with other compounds at the process source 
of the cyanide-bearing wastestreams. EPA believes that for some 
facilities it may be more accurate to monitor for the portion of 
cyanide in their wastewater that is amenable to alkaline chlorination 
than to measure total cyanide which may include cyanide complexes that 
this technology is not likely to treat. Therefore, EPA is also 
proposing an alternative ``amenable cyanide'' limit for each of these 
subcategories which a facility may use directly after cyanide treatment 
(e.g., before combining the cyanide treated effluent with other 
wastestreams). The Agency proposes to allow the use of this limit upon 
the agreement of the facility and its permit writer or control 
authority (e.g., POTW). However, when segregated cyanide treatment is 
in place as a preliminary step prior to commingling wastewater for 
chemical precipitation, EPA would allow the amenable cyanide 
alternative limit to be measured at the end-of-pipe (i.e., final 
effluent) if the control authority adjusts the permit limits based on 
the dilution ratio of the cyanide wastestream flow to the effluent 
flow. If facilities are not using cyanide destruction treatment on 
cyanide-bearing wastestreams prior to commingling with metal-bearing 
streams, additional complexing can occur. This additional complexing 
would render the cyanide ``non-amenable'' when it would otherwise be 
amenable to alkaline chlorination. EPA considers such complexing to be 
``avoidable'' and would not allow the use of end-of-pipe monitoring for 
amenable cyanide when in-process cyanide destruction is not performed. 
(See the final Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers 
Category Effluent Limitations Guidelines for a discussion on non-
amenable versus amenable cyanide; 57 FR 41836; September 11, 1992).

D. Pollution Prevention Alternative for the Metal Finishing Job Shops 
Subcategory

    EPA is soliciting comment on a compliance alternative that the 
Agency is considering for the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory of 
this proposed regulation (See Section VI.C.3. of this preamble for a 
description of this subcategory). The purpose of a pollution prevention 
compliance alternative (``P2 Alternative'') is to reduce economic 
impacts on the facilities in the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory 
and to take into consideration the activities and achievements of this 
Common Sense Initiative (``CSI'') sector to test innovative approaches 
to environmental protection, which has culminated in the National Metal 
Finishing Strategic Goals Program.
    The National Metal Finishing Strategic Goals Program (``SGP'') was

[[Page 512]]

developed out of EPA's sector based Common Sense Initiative. In 1994, 
EPA launched the CSI to promote ``cleaner, cheaper, and smarter'' 
environmental performance, using a non-adversarial, stakeholder 
consensus process to test innovative ideas and approaches. The SGP is a 
cooperative effort that involves all stakeholders (e.g., industry, 
regulators, environmental/citizen groups) to define a fundamentally 
different approach to environmental and public health protection by 
exploring a more flexible, cost-effective and environmentally 
protective solutions tailored to specific industry needs. The Metal 
Finishing SGP is a performance-based, voluntary program which includes 
commitments by the industry to meet multimedia environmental targets 
substantially reducing pollution from their operations beyond what is 
required by law. These goals will conserve water, energy and metals, 
and reduce hazardous emissions. The other stakeholders in this process 
(EPA, State and local regulators, and environmental/community groups) 
have also committed to working with the industry participants to help 
them meet their goals through compliance, technical, and financial 
assistance, removing regulatory and policy barriers, offering 
incentives, and an open dialogue as issues arise. (See http://www.strategicgoals.org for more information about the SGP and the 
Common Sense Initiative).
    The SGP represents a long-term strategic vision for improved 
environmental protection by the entire metal finishing industry. The 
metal finishing industry's tangible commitment to work with the Agency 
lays the foundation for this pollution prevention (P2) compliance 
alternative.
    The Agency is considering allowing indirect discharge facilities in 
the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory, with approval by their 
control authority (e.g., POTW), to demonstrate compliance with 
specified pollution prevention and water conservation practices (in 
addition to maintaining compliance with the existing Metal Finishing 
and Electroplating Effluent Guidelines or approved local water quality-
based limits, whichever is more stringent) in lieu of meeting the 
requirements of the MP&M regulation. Facilities in the Metal Finishing 
Job Shops subcategory that do not wish to use the compliance 
alternative would need to meet the full requirements of the MP&M 
regulation as specified in today's proposed rule.
    EPA solicits comment on whether to allow all facilities in the 
Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory to comply with the P2 Alternative 
or whether the P2 Alternative should only be available to facilities 
below a specified wastewater discharge volume. EPA has proposed low 
flow exclusions for indirect dischargers in the General Metals (1 MGY) 
and Oily Wastes (2 MGY) subcategories due to potential permitting 
burden on POTWs (see Sections II.D, VI.C and XII for a discussion on 
low flow exclusions).
    One way that EPA is considering to specify pollution prevention and 
water conservation practices, without stifling innovation and advances, 
is to require facilities to choose practices from a larger list (or 
menu) of categories of specified practices (see below). EPA is 
considering requiring practices in all ten categories. The following is 
an example of the format and potential pollution prevention practices 
that EPA is considering for incorporation into the final MP&M rule:

Category 1. Must Use Practices That Reduce and/or Recover Drag-Out

    To satisfy this requirement, facilities must implement three or 
more drag-out reduction practices or use at least one drag-out recovery 
(i.e., chemical recovery) technology listed below on all electroplating 
or surface finishing lines.
Drag-out Reduction Practices
    <bullet> Lower process solution viscosity and/or surface tension by 
lowering chemical concentration, increasing bath temperature, or use 
wetting agents.
    <bullet> Reduce drag-out volume by modifying rack/barrel design and 
perform rack maintenance to avoid solution trapping under insulation.
    <bullet> Position parts on racks in a manner that avoids trapping 
solution.
    <bullet> Reduce speed of rack/barrel withdraw from process solution 
and/or increase dwell time over process tank.
    <bullet> Rotate barrels over process tank to improve drainage.
    <bullet> Use spray/fog rinsing over the process tank (limited 
applicability).
    <bullet> Use drip boards and return process solution to the process 
tank.
    <bullet> Use drag-out tanks, where applicable, and return solution 
to the process tank.
    <bullet> Work with customers to ensure that part design maximizes 
drainage
Drag-out Recovery
    Use a chemical recovery technology to recover drag-out from 
wastewater.
    <bullet> Evaporators
    <bullet> Ion exchange
    <bullet> Electrowinning
    <bullet> Electrodialysis
    <bullet> Reverse osmosis

Category 2. Must Use Good Rinse System Design for Water Conservation

    To satisfy this requirement, facilities must implement three or 
more elements of good rinse system design listed below on all 
electroplating or surface finishing lines:
    <bullet> Select the minimum size rinse tank in which the parts can 
be rinsed and use the same size for the entire plating line, where 
practical.
    <bullet> Locate the water inlet and discharge points of the tank at 
opposite positions in the tank to avoid short-circuiting or use a flow 
distributor to feed the rinse water evenly.
    <bullet> Use air agitation, mechanical mixing or other means of 
turbulence.
    <bullet> Use spray/fog rinsing (less effective with hidden 
surfaces).
    <bullet> Use multiple rinse tanks in a counter-flow configuration 
(i.e., counter-current cascade rinsing).
    <bullet> Reuse rinse water multiple times in different rinse tanks 
for succeeding less critical rinsing

Category 3. Must Use Water Flow Control for Water Conservation

    To satisfy this requirement, facilities must implement at least one 
effective method of water use control on all electroplating or surface 
finishing lines. Effective water use controls include, but are not 
limited to:
    <bullet> Flow restrictors (Flow restrictors as a stand alone method 
of rinse water control are only effective with plating lines that have 
constant production rates, such as automatic plating machines. For 
other operations, there must also be a mechanism or procedure for 
stopping water flow during idle periods.)
    <bullet> Conductivity controls
    <bullet> Timer rinse controls
    <bullet> Production activated control (e.g., spray systems 
activated when a rack or barrel enters/exits a rinse station)

Category 4. Must Segregate Non-Process Water From Process Water

    To satisfy this requirement, facilities must not combine non-
process water such as non-contact cooling water with process wastewater 
prior to wastewater treatment.

Category 5. Must Use Water Conservation Practices With Air Pollution 
Control Devices

    To satisfy this requirement, facilities operating air pollution 
control devices with wet scrubbers must recirculate the scrubber water 
as appropriate (periodic blowdown is allowed, as needed). Where 
feasible, reuse scrubber water in process baths.

[[Page 513]]

Category 6. Must Practice Good Housekeeping

    To satisfy this requirement, facilities must demonstrate compliance 
with each of the requirements listed below:
    <bullet> Perform preventative maintenance on all valves and 
fittings (i.e., check for leaks and damage) and repair leaky valves and 
fittings in a timely manner.
    <bullet> Inspect tanks and liners and repair or replace equipment 
as necessary to prevent ruptures and leaks. Use tank and liner 
materials that are appropriate for associated process solutions.
    <bullet> Perform quick cleanup of leaks and spills in chemical 
storage and process areas.
    <bullet> Remove metal buildup from racks and fixtures.

Category 7. Minimize the Entry of Oil Into Rinse Systems

    To satisfy this requirement, facilities must do at least one of the 
practices listed below:
    <bullet> Minimize the entry of oil into cleaning baths or use oil 
skimmers or other oil removal devices in cleaning baths when needed to 
prevent oil from entering rinse tanks.
    <bullet> Work with customers to degrease parts prior to shipment to 
the plating facility to minimize the amount of oils on incoming 
materials.

Category 8. Must Sweep or Vacuum Dry Production Areas Prior to Rinsing 
With Water

    To satisfy this requirement, facilities must sweep or vacuum dry 
production area floors prior to rinsing with water.

Category 9. Must Reuse Drum/Shipping Container Rinsate Directly in 
Process Tanks

    To satisfy this requirement, when performing rinsing of raw 
material drums, storage drums, and/or shipping containers that contain 
pollutants regulated under the MP&M regulation, facilities must reuse 
the rinsate directly into process tanks or save for use in future 
production.

Category 10. Must Implement Environmental Management and Record Keeping 
System

    To satisfy this requirement, facilities must meet the requirements 
listed below:
     <bullet> Implement an environmental management program that 
includes, but is not limited to, the following elements:
     <bullet> Pollution prevention policy statement,
     <bullet> Environmental performance goals,
     <bullet> Pollution prevention assessment,
     <bullet> Pollution prevention plan,
     <bullet> Environmental tracking and record keeping system,
     <bullet> Procedures to optimize control parameter settings (e.g., 
ORP set point in cyanide destruction systems, optimum pH for chemical 
precipitation systems, etc.), and
    <bullet> Statement delineating minimum training levels for 
wastewater treatment operators.
(EPA notes that it has developed a template for a metal finishing 
facility-specific Environmental Management System that is being used in 
conjunction with the SGP in EPA's Region 9 in California--see http://www.strategicgoals.org/tools/home.htm for information on this 
template).
    The first two categories listed above involve practices and 
techniques for reducing drag-out. Drag-out is the film of chemical 
solution covering parts and fixtures as they exit process solutions. 
For many metal finishing operations, drag-out and the subsequent 
contamination of rinse waters is the major pollution control challenge. 
Reducing the formation of drag-out, minimizing the introduction of 
drag-out to rinse systems, and recovering drag-out are important 
pollution prevention measures. EPA believes that drag-out reduction and 
recovery may prevent a substantial pollutant loading of metals from 
being discharged to the POTW. However, EPA did not have sufficient 
information on the pollutant reductions, capital costs, and operating 
and maintenance costs associated with installation and operation of 
drag-out reduction and recovery technologies to include such equipment 
explicitly into the model that EPA uses to develop national estimates 
of compliance costs and pollutant reductions. Some aspects of drag-out 
reduction are captured in the flow rinse reduction modules of the cost 
and loadings model (see the Technical Development Document for a 
detailed discussion of the cost and loadings model). Good rinse design 
can reduce contamination of rinse water as well as reduce the volume of 
fresh water needed to perform the necessary rinsing. It also reduces 
the volume of wastewater requiring treatment, which in turn reduces 
costs and the volume of wastewater treatment sludge requiring disposal. 
EPA specifically solicits data on the pollutant reductions, capital 
costs, and operating and maintenance costs associated with installation 
and operation of drag-out reduction and recovery technologies.
    EPA is considering allowing facilities complying with the P2 
Alternative to substitute another pollution prevention practice for one 
listed above provided that the facility provides adequate justification 
for the modification in a written request submitted to the control 
authority. Facility owners must certify compliance with the pollution 
prevention requirements twice per year and maintain records at the 
facility indicating how each category requirement has been satisfied. 
Facilities choosing the P2 Alternative would also need to agree to make 
the practices enforceable. Reporting would occur in conjunction with 
their twice annual periodic reports on continued compliance under the 
General Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR 403.12(e)).
    EPA solicits comment on all aspects of the Pollution Prevention 
Alternative for the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory including the 
list of practices as well as the possible format for the alternative. 
More specifically, EPA requests comment on whether there are additional 
practices that should be listed, the costs of implementing this 
compliance alternative, the pollutant reduction associated with this 
alternative, and whether EPA should offer this alternative to other 
subcategories (even those not currently regulated by the Metal 
Finishing and Electroplating effluent guidelines). EPA also requests 
comments from local regulators on the implementation burden, the 
required documentation, and on the ability to enforce a P2 Alternative.

E. Upset and Bypass Provisions

    A ``bypass'' is an intentional diversion of the streams from any 
portion of a treatment facility. An ``upset'' is an exceptional 
incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance 
with technology-based permit effluent limitations because of factors 
beyond the reasonable control of the permittee. EPA's regulations 
concerning bypasses and upsets for direct dischargers are set forth at 
40 CFR 122.41(m) and (n) and for indirect dischargers at 40 CFR 403.16 
and Sec. 403.17.

F. Variances and Modifications

    The CWA requires application of effluent limitations established 
pursuant to section 301 or 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 
the national effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards 
for categories of existing sources for toxic, conventional, and 
nonconventional pollutants.

[[Page 514]]

1. Fundamentally Different Factors Variances
    EPA will develop effluent limitations or standards different from 
the otherwise applicable requirements if an individual discharging 
facility is fundamentally different with respect to factors considered 
in establishing the limitation of 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 the FDF modifications 
from the BPT effluent limitations, BAT limitations for toxic and 
nonconventional pollutants and BPT limitations for conventional 
pollutants for direct dischargers. For indirect dischargers, EPA 
provided for modifications from pretreatment standards. FDF variances 
for toxic pollutants were challenged judicially and ultimately 
sustained by the Supreme Court. (Chemical Manufacturers Assn 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 modifications of the 
otherwise applicable BAT effluent limitations or categorical 
pretreatment standards for existing sources if a facility is 
fundamentally different with respect to the factors specified in 
section 304 (other than costs) from those considered by EPA in 
establishing the effluent limitations or pretreatment standard. Section 
301(n) also defined the conditions under which EPA may establish 
alternative requirements. Under Section 301(n), an application for 
approval of FDF variance must be based solely on (1) information 
submitted during 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 must 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 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 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 indirect dischargers at 40 CFR 403.13. The conditions for 
approval of a request to modify applicable pretreatment standards and 
factors considered are the same as those for direct dischargers.
    The legislative history of section 301(n) underscores the necessity 
for the FDF variance applicant to establish eligibility for the 
variance. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 125.32(b)(1) are explicit in 
imposing this burden upon the applicant. The applicant must show that 
the factors relating to the discharge controlled by the applicant's 
permit which are claimed to be fundamentally different are, in fact, 
fundamentally different from those factors considered by the EPA in 
establishing the applicable guidelines. The pretreatment regulations 
incorporate a similar requirement at 40 CFR 403.13(h)(9).
    An FDF variance is not available to a new source subject to NSPS or 
PSNS.
2. Economic Variances
    Section 301(c) of the CWA authorizes a variance from the otherwise 
applicable BAT effluent guidelines for nonconventional 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(1)(2). 
Specific guidance for this type of variance is available from EPA's 
Office of Wastewater Management.
3. Water Quality Variances
    Section 301(g) of the CWA authorizes a variance from BAT effluent 
guidelines for certain nonconventional pollutants due to localized 
environment factors. These pollutants include ammonia, chlorine, color, 
iron, and total phenols.
4. 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 that 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 modification that results in less 
stringent conditions is treated as a major modifications, with 
provisions for public notice and comment. Conditions that would 
necessitate a major modification of a permit are described in 40 CFR 
122.62. Minor modifications are generally non-substantive changes. The 
conditions for minor modification are described in 40 CFR 122.63.

G. Relationship of Effluent Limitations and Pretreatment Standards to 
NPDES Permits and Local Limits

    Effluent limitations and pretreatment standards act as a primary 
mechanism to control the discharges of pollutants to waters of the 
United States. These limitations and standards are applied to 
individual facilities through NPDES permits and local limits developed 
for POTWs issued by EPA or authorized States under section 402 of the 
Act and local pretreatment programs under section 307 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 or control 
authority (e.g., local POTW) may elect to establish technology-based 
permit limits or local limits for pollutants not covered by this 
regulation. In addition, if State water quality standards or other 
provisions of State or Federal law require limits on pollutants not 
covered by this regulation (or require more stringent limits or 
standards on covered pollutants to achieve compliance), the permitting 
or control authority must apply those limitations or standards.

[[Page 515]]

H. Best Management Practices

    Sections 304(e) and 402(a) of the Act authorize the Administrator 
to prescribe ``best management practices'' (BMPs). (See 40 CFR 
122.44(k)). EPA may develop BMPs that apply to all industrial sites or 
to a designated industrial category and may offer guidance to permit 
authorities in establishing management practices required by unique 
circumstances at a given plant. Dikes, curbs, and other control 
measures are being used at some MP&M sites to contain leaks and spills 
as part of good ``housekeeping'' practices. However, on a facility-by-
facility basis a permit writer may choose to incorporate BMPs into the 
permit. See section 8 of the Technical Development Document for this 
proposed rule for a detailed discussion of pollution prevention and 
best management practices used in the MP&M industry.

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

A. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An 
Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA 
(ICR No. 1980.01) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail 
at Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
(2822); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, by email at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#caacabb8a7afb8e4b9aba4aeb38aafbaabe4ada5bc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="90f6f1e2fdf5e2bee3f1fef4e9d0f5e0f1bef7ffe6">[email protected]</span></a>, or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may also be 
downloaded off the internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr.
    There are five areas for which EPA is proposing, or considering to 
collect information from, or requiring reporting or record keeping by 
MP&M facilities. In all cases, EPA believes the collection of 
information, reporting, or record keeping is an alternative (i.e., 
voluntary) that will allow a reduction in overall burden to facilities 
since EPA intends for these activities to reduce or eliminate effluent 
sampling and analysis costs. EPA solicits comment on all estimates 
discussed below.
    First, EPA is proposing to allow indirect discharging MP&M 
facilities (upon agreement with the control authority) to reduce their 
analytical monitoring burden for specified pollutants by filing a 
statement that certifies that those pollutants are not present in the 
discharge or are present only at background levels from intake water 
and without any increase in the pollutants due to activities of the 
discharger (See Sec. 438.4(e) and Section XXI.C.1 for a discussion of 
the monitoring waiver). EPA estimates the burden for reviewing 
analytical sampling data and other technical information required to 
make the certification (e.g., raw material inventory logs, production 
information, product chemistry, and reports on source water) and for 
preparing the certification statement one time per permit cycle (i.e., 
every 5 years) to be 24 hours. In developing the technical basis for 
the waiver, EPA is allowing the use of historical sampling data as well 
as sampling data generated for compliance reports required by the 
General Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR 403.12). Therefore, EPA does not 
anticipate additional monitoring burden associated with this waiver, 
particularly in comparison to the periodic compliance monitoring that 
is being replaced by this waiver. In addition, certification to receive 
a monitoring waiver under this proposed rule is voluntary. MP&M 
facilities may choose not to avail themselves of this optional 
reduction in monitoring. EPA estimates that 5,250 facilities will 
choose the monitoring waiver for some pollutants.
    Second, EPA is proposing to allow facilities to implement an 
organic pollutant management plan as one alternative to meeting organic 
pollutant limits (or organic indicator limits). (See 438.4(b)). The 
organic pollutant management plan must specify, to the satisfaction of 
the permitting authority or control authority, the toxic and non-
conventional organic constituents used at the facility; the disposal 
method used; the procedures in place for ensuring that organic 
pollutants do not routinely spill or leak into the wastewater or that 
minimize the amount of organic constituents used in the process; the 
procedures in place to manage the oxidation reduction potential (ORP) 
during cyanide destruction to control the formation of chlorinated 
organic byproducts; and the procedures to prevent the over dosage of 
dithiocarbamates when treating chelated wastewater. Facilities choosing 
to develop an organic pollutant management plan must certify that the 
procedures described in the plan are being implemented at the facility. 
EPA estimates the burden associated with preparing an organic pollutant 
management plan and an accompanying certification statement to be 50 
hours. After the initial plan is approved, EPA estimates one additional 
hour of burden (once per year for direct dischargers and twice per year 
for indirect dischargers) for facilities to verify that the plan is 
being implemented and to prepare the certification statement. However, 
EPA believes that facilities that are already regulated by the Metal 
Finishing Effluent Guidelines (40 CFR part 433) and that have a solvent 
management plan in place under those regulations will only require 20 
hours to update their plan for the initial submittal. EPA estimates 
7,200 facilties will choose to implement an organics management plan in 
lieu of monitoring.
    Third, EPA is considering an alternate approach to the use of an 
organic indicator parameter (see Section XXI.C.2 for a discussion on 
the proposed organic indicator). EPA notes that this alternate approach 
is not being proposed in today's notice, but is being considered for 
the final rule. In this case, there would be some additional reporting 
and record keeping. MP&M facilities could choose an indicator pollutant 
parameter from a given set of choices. EPA would require facilities to 
demonstrate a correlation between the chosen indicator parameter and 
the regulated organic pollutants (i.e., the TOP organic pollutants) 
found in their wastewater. EPA is soliciting comment on this approach 
and has estimated the burden of performing testing, analyzing 
analytical results, and keeping records that demonstrate a correlation 
between the regulated organic pollutants and the selected indicator 
parameter to be between 70 and 100 hours per facility once per permit 
cycle (i.e., 5 years). If no major changes in processes or raw 
materials occur during that period, the demonstration would not have to 
be repeated for the next permit cycle. The Agency notes that the choice 
of an option would be voluntary. EPA has estimated less burden for 
direct dischargers than for indirect dischargers (i.e, 70 hours versus 
100 hours) because the direct dischargers typically have more advanced 
treatment in place and permit writers typically require them to monitor 
for the types of parameters that EPA is considering as indicators 
(e.g., COD, Oil & Grease, TOC, TPH), and therefore, may have data 
available that demonstrates a correlation to the regulated organic 
pollutants. EPA estimates that given the choice, approximately 515 
facilities would choose to demonstrate and use a site-specific organic 
pollutant indicator.
    Fourth, EPA is considering whether to allow certain facilities in 
the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory to demonstrate compliance 
with specified pollution prevention and water conservation practices 
(in addition to

[[Page 516]]

maintaining compliance with the existing Metal Finishing and 
Electroplating Effluent Guidelines) in lieu of meeting the requirements 
of the MP&M regulation. EPA notes that this alternate approach is not 
being proposed in today's notice, but is being considered for the final 
rule. Facilities in the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory that do 
not wish to use the compliance alternative would need to meet the full 
requirements of the MP&M regulation as specified in today's proposed 
rule (see section XXI.D for a discussion of the Pollution Prevention 
Alternative). EPA has estimated the burden associated with preparing 
the associated certification statements to be 30 minutes each. 
Facilities would submit certification statements one time initially (by 
the compliance deadline) and twice per year thereafter for indirect 
dischargers, or once per year for direct dischargers. In addition, EPA 
estimates the burden associated with record keeping and reporting for 
the other related compliance paperwork to be 40 hours one time for the 
period of the permit or control mechanism (i.e., five years). EPA is 
also soliciting comment on whether facilities in other subcategories 
should have a similar alternative. EPA estimates that if the Pollution 
Prevention Alternative were available to facilities in the Metal 
Finishing Job Shops Subcategory, 1,360 facilities would choose this 
alternative. In addition, EPA estimates that there would be 550 
additional respondents if a limited number of other subcategories were 
able to choose this compliance alternative.
    Finally, EPA is proposing to set numerical limitations on the 
discharge of Total Sulfide from facilities in several subcategories. In 
an effort to reduce monitoring burden on indirect dischargers, EPA is 
considering (but not proposing) to allow a waiver for the monitoring of 
total sulfide (even when present), at the discretion of the POTW, when 
a facility demonstrates that the sulfides will not generate acidic or 
corrosive conditions and will not create conditions that enhance 
opportunities for release of hydrogen sulfide gas in the sewer/
interceptor collection system or at the receiving POTW or otherwise 
interfere with the operation of the POTW EPA estimates the burden 
associated to make such a demonstration is 100 hours. EPA would require 
this only one time per permit cycle and if no major changes in 
processes or raw materials occur during that period, the demonstration 
would not have to be repeated for the next permit cycle. EPA estimates 
that 4,420 facilities would be respondents under the total sulfide 
waiver if it were available.
    The total burden for the two areas which are being proposed today 
is 437,070 hours for approximately 7,200 facilities [Note: 
approximately 5,200 facilities are expected to be respondents in both 
areas]. In addition, for the three areas that EPA is not proposing but 
is considering for the final rule, EPA estimates 565,595 hours for 
6,845 respondents (some facilities may be respondents in more than one 
of the three areas). Labor costs are accounted for within the estimated 
burden hours. EPA estimates that there are no capital costs associated 
with these potential reporting and record keeping requirements. EPA 
estimates a reduction in the capital and operating and maintenance 
costs associated with monitoring to demonstrate compliance with 
numerical limits, particularly for the proposed monitoring waiver for 
indirect dischargers and the organics management plan.
    In the cases discussed above, the data and information required by 
the proposed or considered information collection, reporting, or record 
keeping requirements can be claimed as confidential business 
information according to the regulations found in 40 CFR part 2. 
However, as specified at 40 CFR 2.302, effluent data submitted in 
response to these information and data requests can not be claimed as 
confidential.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
    The Agency requests comments on its need for this information, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods 
for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of 
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the 
Director, Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (2822); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; and 
to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 
Management and Budget, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503, marked 
``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any 
correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the 
ICR between 30 and 60 days after January 3, 2001, a comment to OMB is 
best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by February 
2, 2001. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on 
the information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

1. UMRA Requirements
    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why EPA did 
not adopt that alternative. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially

[[Page 517]]

affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small 
governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of 
EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental 
mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on 
compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    Estimated total annualized before-tax costs of compliance for the 
proposed rule are $2,034 million ($1999). Of this total, $2,020 million 
is incurred by the private sector and $14 million is incurred by State 
and local governments that perform MP&M activities. Permitting 
authorities incur an additional $0.115 to $0.912 million to administer 
the rule, including labor costs to write permits and to conduct 
compliance monitoring and enforcement activities. Thus, EPA has 
determined that this rule contains a Federal mandate that may result in 
expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and Tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. 
Accordingly, EPA has prepared under section 202 of the UMRA a written 
statement which is summarized below.
2. Analysis of Impacts on Government Entities
    Although the costs of implementation (and compliance for 
government-owned facilities) are approximately $15 million annually 
(i.e., below the threshold specified in section 202) MP&M is a large 
industrial category and EPA fully analyzed the impacts on State and 
local governments. The proposed MP&M Rule will affect governments in 
two ways:
    <bullet> Government-owned MP&M facilities may be directly affected 
by the MP&M regulation and therefore incur compliance costs; and
    <bullet> Municipalities that own Publicly Owned Treatment Works 
(POTWs) that receive influent from MP&M facilities subject to the 
regulation may incur additional costs to implement the proposed rule. 
These include costs associated with permitting MP&M facilities that 
have not been previously permitted, and with repermitting some MP&M 
facilities earlier than would otherwise be required. In addition, POTWs 
may elect to issue mass-based permits to some MP&M facilities that 
currently have concentration-based permits, at an additional cost.
a. Compliance Costs for Government-Owned MP&M Facilities
    EPA administered a survey (the ``Municipal Survey'') to government-
owned facilities to assess the cost of the regulation on these 
facilities and the government entities that own them. (See Section V.B 
for a discussion of EPA's data collection efforts.) The survey 
responses provide the basis for EPA's analysis of the budgetary impacts 
of the proposed regulation, including the size and income of the 
populations served by the affected government entities; the 
government's current revenues by source, taxable property, debt, 
pollution control spending, and bond rating; and the costs, funding 
sources, and other characteristics of the MP&M facilities owned by each 
government entity. Table XXII.B-1 provides national estimates of the 
government entities that operate MP&M facilities potentially subject to 
the proposed rule. Table XXII.B-2 summarizes the annualized compliance 
costs incurred by government entities by regulatory option.

          Table XXII.B-1.--Number of Government-Owned Facilities by Type and Size of Government Entity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Regional
  Size of government and Status      Municipal         State          County       governmental        Total
      under proposed option         government      government      government       authority
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Large Governments (population > 50,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of government entities >               60             183              77               0             319
 flow cutoff....................
Number of government entities                512             183             610              36           1,341
 <ls-thn-eq> flow cutoff........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Small Governments (population = 50,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of government entities >              410  ..............  ..............  ..............             410
 flow cutoff....................
Number of government entities              1,781  ..............             481  ..............           2,262
 <ls-thn-eq> flow cutoff........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 All Governments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of government entities >              470             183              77               0             729
 flow cutoff....................
Number of government entities              2,293             183           1,091              36           3,603
 <ls-thn-eq> flow cutoff........
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................           2,763             366           1,167              36           4,332
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


            Table XXII.B-2.--Number of Regulated Government-Owned Facilities and Compliance Costs by Size of Government and Regulatory Option
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Proposed option                  Option 2/6/10                    Option 4/8
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Number of      Compliance       Number of                       Number of
                                                            facilities         costs        facilities      Compliance      facilities      Compliance
                                                            subject to       (million       subject to    costs (million    subject to    costs (million
                                                            regulation        1999$)        regulation        1999$)        regulation        1999$)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facilities Owned by Large Governments...................             319           $11.3           1,660            31.5           1,660          $101.3
Facilities Owned by Small Governments...................             410             2.6           2,672            33.3           2,672           123.4
All Government-Owned Facilities.........................             729            13.9           4,332            64.8           4,332           224.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Costs incurred by government-owned facilities, particularly for 
facilities owned by small governments, are substantially lower under 
the proposed rule than under the other two options considered. The 
lower costs result from

[[Page 518]]

the exclusion of a large number of government-owned facilities under 
the proposed low flow cutoff.
b. Small Government Impacts
    EPA's analysis also considered whether the proposed rule may 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Section XVI.B.3.c 
of today's notice describes the methodology used to assess budgetary 
impacts on governments. Briefly, EPA examined three measures to assess 
the affordability of new requirements. These three criteria incorporate 
measures of compliance costs (impacts on site-level cost of service), 
impacts on taxpayers, and impact on government debt levels.
    EPA estimates that there are 2,672 facilities owned by small 
governments (i.e., governments with a population of less than 50,000). 
The low flow exclusion in today's proposed rule will exclude 2,262 
small government-owned MP&M facilities. Thus, the proposed rule covers 
410 small government-owned facilities. Of these facilities, 140 incur 
no compliance costs under the proposed option, and the remaining 270 
incur annualized costs that average less than $10,000 per facility. The 
total compliance cost for all the small government-owned facilities 
incurring costs under today's proposed rule is $2.6 million. Only 140 
of the 270 facilities have costs greater than 1 percent of baseline 
cost of service (measured as total facility costs and expenditures, 
including operating, overhead and debt service costs and expenses). EPA 
estimated no significant impacts for any of the governments owning 
these facilities, based on the three budgetary criteria mentioned 
above. EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments. None of the affected governments are expected to incur 
significant budgetary impacts as a result of the proposed rule, and 
consequently, that the proposed rule will not significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments. Nonetheless, EPA did consult with small 
governments (see discussions on consultation in sections XXII.B.7 and 
XXII.C).
c. POTW Administrative Costs
    EPA also analyzed the administrative costs incurred by local 
governments to implement the proposed rule. The results of this 
analysis are presented in section XVI.H.3. In summary, EPA estimates 
that POTWs will incur incremental average annualized costs over 15 
years of between $115,000 and $912,000 under the proposed rule. The 
maximum expenditures by all affected POTWs in any one year will be 
between $186,000 and $1,607,000. These costs include issuing new 
permits to facilities that do not currently have permits, issuing mass-
based permits to some facilities that currently have concentration-
based permits, and repermitting some facilities sooner than would 
otherwise be required to meet the three-year compliance schedule. On 
average, a POTW's costs for the incremental permitting are only $23 to 
$184 for the 4,944 MP&M facilities permitted under the proposed rule. 
EPA expects that these increases in costs will be partially offset by 
reductions in government administrative costs for facilities that are 
already permitted under local limits and that will be repermitted under 
this rule.
3. Statutory Authority
    The statutory authority for this rulemaking is as follows: Sections 
301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 402 and 501 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 
1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342 and 1361 and the Pollution 
Prevention Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq., Pub L. 101-508, 
November 5, 1990. A consent decree with the Natural Resources Defense 
Council established a deadline of October 2000 for EPA to propose 
effluent limitations for this industry.
4. Costs and Benefits
    The assessment of costs and benefits for this rule, including the 
assessment of costs to State, local, and Tribal governments and to the 
private sector, is discussed above and in Sections XVI (costs), XX 
(benefits) of this preamble. EPA prepared an extensive analysis of 
costs and benefits for private facilities and for governments, 
including analysis by size and by subcategory. In the most summarized 
form, EPA estimates the social cost of the proposed rule (which 
includes facility compliance costs) at $2.0 to $2.1 billion annually 
($1999). The total value of benefits that can be expressed in dollar 
terms ranges from $0.4 billion to $1.1 billion. As discussed in Section 
XX, EPA solicits comment on several expansions to these benefit 
estimates. In particular, EPA includes in the public record for today's 
proposal, an extensive analysis of additional categories of benefits, 
such as boating and wildlife viewing. EPA also estimated values for 
these new categories, but pending public comment and peer review, did 
not incorporate the results from the new methodologies into the total 
monetized benefits of the proposed rule.
    The Federal resources (i.e., water pollution control grants) which 
are generally available for financial assistance to States are included 
in section 106 of the Clean Water Act. There are no Federal funds 
available to defray the costs of this rule on local governments.
5. Future Costs and Disproportionate Costs
    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act requires that EPA estimate, where 
accurate estimation is reasonably feasible, future compliance costs 
imposed by the rule and any disproportionate budgetary effects. EPA's 
estimates of the future compliance costs of this rule are discussed in 
detail in Section XVI.G of the preamble. Briefly, new sources in all 
but the Metal Finishing Job Shop direct discharger subcategory incur 
costs that are below one percent of post-regulation revenues, and costs 
for the Metal Finishing Job Shop indirect dischargers are less than 
three percent of estimated facility revenues. Cost increases of this 
magnitude are unlikely to place new facilities at a competitive 
disadvantage relative to existing sources. Moreover, costs as a 
percentage of revenues are generally comparable for new sources and 
existing sources with which they will compete.
    EPA does not expect that the rule will have disproportionate 
budgetary effects on any particular areas of the country, particular 
governments or types of communities. The affected population of MP&M 
facilities is distributed throughout the country in settings from urban 
to rural, with more facilities likely to be located in larger urban 
areas. EPA therefore expects that the burden on governments to permit 
facilities under the rule, and the loss of employment due to closures 
caused by the rule, will be dispersed rather than concentrated in any 
specific area. Moreover, the proposed rule is expected to result in a 
net increase in employment over 15 years, when the employment 
associated with compliance activities is considered. A discussion of 
community impacts is included in Section XVI.
6. Effects on National Economy
    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act requires that EPA estimate the 
effect of this rule on the national economy where (1) accurate 
estimates are feasible and (2) the rule will have a ``material'' effect 
on the economy. EPA's estimates of the impact of this proposal on the 
national economy are described in Section XVI of this preamble and in 
the EEBA. The proposed rule is projected to result in closures or 
moderate financial impacts on a very small percentage of all MP&M

[[Page 519]]

facilities, to result in only limited price increases in any MP&M 
sector, and to have a negligible impact on the U.S. balance of trade.
7. Consultation
    In addition to private industry, our stakeholders include State and 
local government regulators. We consulted with all of these stakeholder 
groups on topics such as options development, cost models, pollutants 
to be regulated, cost of the regulation, and compliance alternatives. 
Some of the stakeholders provided helpful comments on the cost models, 
technology options, pollution prevention techniques, and monitoring 
alternatives.
    Because many facilities affected by this proposal are indirect 
dischargers, the Agency involved POTWs as they will have to implement 
the rule. EPA consulted with POTWs individually and through the 
Association of Municipal Sewerage Agencies (AMSA). In addition, EPA 
consulted with pretreatment coordinators and State and local 
regulators.
    The Agency collaborated with POTWs in selecting BAT facilities for 
EPA wastewater sampling and, in several cases, POTWs performed 
wastewater sampling and submitted the data to EPA for use in developing 
the rule. As described above and in Section V.B, EPA conducted the POTW 
survey to obtain estimates of POTW permitting costs and sludge disposal 
practices and costs. EPA assessed whether any impacts of the regulatory 
requirements in the rule might significantly or uniquely affect POTWs, 
especially small POTWs, and determined the degree to which POTWs would 
benefit from the regulation by having more options for sewage sludge 
disposal and decreased costs of disposing of the sludge.
    EPA consulted with State and local regulators during three 
different public meetings. Their main comments focused on: (1) The 
potential burden on them to issue permits/control mechanisms for a 
large number of facilities that have not been permitted under effluent 
guidelines prior to this rule; (2) request for additional monitoring 
flexibilities; and (3) request to allow them to use concentration-based 
standards in the MP&M rule for those subcategories where it is 
difficult to obtain production or flow information at the process-
level. EPA has incorporated many of their suggestions and addressed 
these concerns throughout today's preamble (see Sections II.D, XII.C, 
and XXI ).
8. Alternatives Considered
    EPA believes that the proposed rule is the least burdensome and 
most cost-effective of the regulatory alternatives considered that 
still meets the objectives of the rule. EPA acknowledges that the rule 
will impose some burden, but EPA believes that the additional costs are 
justified due to the additional pollutant removals. The proposed low-
flow cutoffs and subcategory exemptions reduce the number of facilities 
that require permitting by over 90 percent. Section XVI.H presents 
EPA's analysis of the facility impacts of the proposed rule, which 
shows that facility compliance costs would be 36 percent higher under 
Option 2/6/10 than under the proposed rule and 120 percent higher under 
Option 4/8. Section XVII presents EPA's analysis of the cost-
effectiveness of the regulatory options, which shows that the proposed 
option is the most cost-effective of these three options.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice 
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedures 
Act or any other statute, unless the Administrator certifies that the 
rule will not have significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small 
organizations, and small governmental organizations.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as (1) A small business according to 
the Regulations of the Small Business Administration (SBA) at 13 CFR 
121.201, which define small businesses for Standard Industrial 
Classification (SIC) codes; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that 
is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special 
district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) small 
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise that is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    In accordance with Section 603 of the RFA, EPA prepared an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) that examines the impact of the 
proposed rule on small entities, along with regulatory alternatives 
that could reduce that impact. The IRFA is available for review in the 
public record (as Chapter 10 in the Economic, Environmental, and 
Benefits Analysis) and is summarized below.
1. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

a. Rationale, Objectives, and Legal Basis for Proposal

    EPA's ``Preliminary Data Summary for the Machinery Manufacturing 
and Rebuilding Industry'' (EPA 440/1-89/106) identified the Metal 
Products and Machinery (MP&M) industry as one that is discharging 
wastestreams containing toxic pollutants to publicly owned treatment 
works and directly into the nation's surface waters. The volume and 
characteristics of these wastestreams are described more fully in 
Section VII of this notice. Due to the water quality, human health, and 
environmental concerns associated with these discharges, EPA selected 
the MP&M industry for the development of a new effluent guidelines 
regulation in 1990. The Agency develops categorical effluent 
limitations under authority of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et 
seq.). Section I of this notice discusses the legal basis for the 
proposed rule in more detail. Briefly, the Clean Water Act directs the 
Agency to reduce discharges of pollutants into the Nation's water and 
into publicly-owned treatment works. The objective of today's proposed 
rule is to reduce those discharges from the class of point sources in 
the MP&M industry.

b. Number and Type of Small Entities

    A large number of the 63,000 MP&M facilities nationwide are owned 
by small entities. The small entities covered by this proposed rule are 
small businesses and small governmental jurisdictions. Table XXII.C-1 
shows the total number of facilities operating in the baseline and the 
number owned by small entities. Overall, approximately 80 percent of 
all MP&M facilities are owned by small entities. However, it should be 
noted that the low flow exclusions in the proposed rule will exclude 
approximately 85 percent of the facilities owned by small entities.

[[Page 520]]



                       Table XXII.C-1.--Percent of MP&M facilities Owned by Small Entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of       Number of      Percent of
                                                                    facilities      facilities      facilities
                        Type of Facility                           operating in   owned by small  owned by small
                                                                     baseline        entities         entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private MP&M *..................................................          54,591          44,773             82%
Government-Owned................................................           4,332           2,672             62%
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total *.....................................................          58,923          47,445            81%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Excludes baseline closures.

    The SBA definitions for small business use either employment-based 
or revenue-based standards, depending on the Standard Industrial 
Classification (SIC) code. The manufacturing sectors generally use 
employment-based standards, and most non-manufacturing sectors use 
revenue-based standards. MP&M facilities perform a wide variety of 
activities, represented by over 200 SIC codes. To assess the impacts of 
the rule on small entities, for analytical purposes, these SIC codes 
were organized into 18 industry sectors, with some further distinctions 
by type of activity (i.e., manufacturing or maintenance/repair). To 
select a small business definition for each sector, EPA chose the SBA 
standard that was common to the most SIC Codes (i.e., the mode of the 
distribution of SBA definitions) in a particular sector (or activity). 
Table XXII.C-2 lists the definitions by sector used in the impact 
assessment.

 Table XXII.C-2.--Small Business Definitions for Analyzing MP&M Sectors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Small business definition using the
       Sector and activity          most common SBA standard for the SIC
                                            codes in each sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hardware.........................  500 Employees.
Aircraft--Manufacturing..........  1,000 Employees.
Aircraft-Maintenance/Repair......  $5 Million.
Electronic Equipment.............  750 Employees.
Stationary Industrial Equip.--     500 Employees.
 Manufacturing.
Stationary Industrial Equip.--     $5 Million.
 Maint/Repair.
Ordnance.........................  1,000 Employees.
Aerospace........................  1,000 Employees.
Mobile Industrial Equip..........  500 Employees.
Instruments--Manufacturing.......  500 Employees.
Instruments--Maintenance/Repair..  $5 Million.
Precious Metals/Jewelry--          500 Employees.
 Manufacturing.
Precious Metals/Jewelry--          $5 Million.
 Maintenance/Repair.
Ship--Manufacturing..............  1,000 Employees.
Ship--Maintenance/Repair.........  500 Employees.
Ship--Maintenance/Repair (SIC      $5 Million.
 449) \1\.
Household Equip.--Manufacturing..  500 Employees.
Household Equip.--Maintenance/     $5 Million.
 Repair.
Railroad--Manufacturing..........  1,000 Employees.
Railroad--Maintenance/Repair.....  1,500 Employees.
Motor Vehicle--Manufacturing.....  500 Employees.
Motor Vehicle--Maintenance/Repair  $5 Million.
Motor Vehicle--Maintenance/Repair  100 Employees.
 (SIC 5013) \2\.
Bus & Truck--Manufacturing.......  500 Employees.
Bus & Truck--Maintenance/Repair..  $5 Million.
Office Machines--Manufacturing...  1,000 Employees.
Office Machines--Maintenance/      $18 Million.
 Repair.
Steel Forming & Finishing........  1,000 Employees.
Printed Circuit Boards...........  500 Employees.
Metal Finishing & Electroplating   500 Employees.
 Job Shops.
Other Metal Products--             500 Employees.
 Manufacturing.
Other Metal Products--Maintenance/ $5 Million.
 Repair.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\1\ SIC Code 449--Includes 4491 (Marine Cargo), 4492 (Towing & tugboat
  service), 4493 (Marinas), and 4499 (Water Transportation Services,
  nec).
\2\ SIC Code 5013--Wholesale distribution of motor vehicle supplies,
  tools and equipment; and new motor vehicle parts.

c. Impacts on Small Entities

    For small businesses, EPA drew on the firm and facility impact 
analyses discussed in Section XVI of this notice to assess impacts on 
small entities. The analysis compared compliance costs to revenues for 
the small entities at the firm level. EPA also examined the facility 
impact analysis results for facilities owned by small firms. The 
facility impact analysis estimated facility closures and other adverse

[[Page 521]]

changes to financial conditions (denoted here as ``moderate impacts''). 
See Section XVI.B of this notice for details on how EPA determines 
closures and moderate impacts for private businesses. The results from 
these analyses are discussed in more detail in the following 
paragraphs. Briefly, these analyses indicated that 941 of the small 
entities may incur costs equal to 3 percent or more of annual revenues, 
181 facilities owned by small entities might close as a result of the 
proposed rule, and 492 facilities owned by small entities are likely to 
experience moderate financial impacts. The181 small entity facility 
closures represent less than one-half of one percent of the facilities 
owned by small entities that are operating in the baseline. Although 
the percentage of small facilities projected to incur impacts is quite 
small, the number, in absolute terms, was large enough for the Agency 
to conclude that a small business analysis was appropriate. After EPA 
considers comments and data received in response to this proposed 
rulemaking, especially with regard to the IRFA, the Panel's 
recommendations, and alternatives that would reduce small entity 
impacts, EPA will adjust the rule as appropriate and it is possible 
that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Consequently, there is a 
possibility that the Agency may not prepare a final regulatory 
flexibility analysis and would certify the final rule.
i. Compliance Costs as a Percent of Firm Revenue
    EPA compared compliance costs to revenues at the firm level as a 
measure of the relative burden of compliance costs. Table XXII.C-3 
shows the results of this comparison. The Agency was not able to 
estimate national numbers of firms that own MP&M facilities precisely, 
because the sample weights based on the survey design represent numbers 
of facilities rather than firms. The results in Table XXII.C-3 are 
reasonable approximations, however, in that 95 percent of the 
facilities owned by small firms are single-facility firms, for which 
sample weights could be used.

               Table XXII.C-3.--Firm Level Before-Tax Annual Compliance Costs as a Percent of Annual Revenues for Private Small Businesses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Number and percent with before-tax annual compliance costs annual revenues equal to:
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Number of small firms in the analysis                    Less than 1%                        1-3%                           Over 3%
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Number          Percent         Number          Percent         Number          Percent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
42,509..................................................          40,560           95.4%           1,008            2.4%             941            2.2%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Approximately 85 percent of the small entities are not projected to 
incur any costs to comply with the proposed rule because they are among 
the facilities covered by the low flow exclusions (See Section XII for 
discussion of the low flow exclusions). Even so, the IRFA includes a 
cost analysis for all small facilities. The results reported here 
account for the exclusions. More than 95 percent of small entities 
incur compliance costs less than 1 percent of annual revenues. A small 
percentage (2 percent) of the small businesses in the analysis incur 
costs equal to 3 percent or more of annual revenues. (Results of the 
cost-to-sales ratios are presented in the EEBA.) Of the small firms 
that incur costs greater than 1 percent of revenues, 612 firms are 
projected by the facility impact analysis to close or experience 
moderate impacts.
ii. Facility Closures and Moderate Impacts
    Table XXII.C-4 summarizes the results from the facility closure 
analysis for the proposed option for private facilities owned by small 
entities, by discharge status. Table XXII.C-4 also shows the number of 
facilities owned by small businesses that experience moderate impacts.

          Table XXII.C-4.--Closures and Moderate Impacts for Private Facilities Owned by Small Entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Indirect         Direct
                                                                  All facilities    dischargers     dischargers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of facilities operating in the baseline..................          44,773          41,536           3,237
Number of closures..............................................             181             161              20
Percent closing.................................................           0.40%           0.39%           0.62%
Number of facilities with moderate impacts......................             492             454              38
Percent with moderate impacts...................................            1.1%            1.1%            1.2%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Again, approximately 85 percent of the facilities owned by small 
entities are not projected to incur any costs to comply with the 
proposed rule because they are among the facilities covered by the low 
flow exclusions. (See Section XII for discussion of the low flow 
exclusions.) The projected number of closures is very small compared to 
the large number of facilities owned by small entities. Less than one-
half of one percent of the facilities owned by small entities that are 
operating in the baseline are projected to close. The percentage of 
small entities experiencing moderate impacts is also low, at one 
percent. In regard to the baseline closure analysis, to put this 
information in context, data on facility start-ups and closures from 
the Census Statistics of U.S. Businesses indicate that between 6 and 12 
percent of facilities in the major metal products manufacturing 
industries close in any given year. (See discussion in Chapter 5 of the 
Economic, Environmental, and Benefits Analysis.)
iii. Impacts on Small Governments
    For small governments, EPA relied on the analysis described in 
Section XVI.B.3.c. EPA estimates that there are 2,672 facilities owned 
by small governments. The low flow exclusion in today's proposed rule 
will exclude 2,262 of these small government-owned

[[Page 522]]

MP&M facilities. Thus, the proposed rule covers 410 small government-
owned facilities. Of these facilities, only 270 incur costs, and the 
average cost per facility is less than $10,000. The total compliance 
cost for all the small government-owned facilities incurring costs 
under today's proposed rule is $2.7 million. Only 140 of the 270 
facilities have costs greater than 1 percent of baseline cost of 
service (measured as total facility costs and expenditures, including 
operating, overhead and debt service costs and expenses). EPA estimated 
no significant impacts for any of these facilities, based on three 
budgetary criteria (i.e., impacts on site-level cost of service, 
impacts on taxpayers, and impact on government debt levels) as 
described in Section XVI.B.3.c . Thus, EPA concluded that none of the 
affected governments are expected to incur significant budgetary 
impacts as a result of the proposed rule.

d. Alternatives to the Proposed Rule

    EPA sought from the outset to design a regulation that would not 
unreasonably burden small entities. In particular, EPA considered a 
number of regulatory alternatives for indirect and direct dischargers, 
and conducted extensive analysis of wastewater flow exclusions. As 
detailed in Section XII of this notice, EPA selected a regulatory 
alternative that incorporates low flow exclusions for several 
subcategories. The primary alternatives to the proposal, while 
providing additional pollutant reductions, also increased the number of 
small entities covered. These alternatives would have resulted in 
additional small entity impacts. The results from the closure analysis 
and the cost-to-revenue analysis for these alternatives are included in 
the IRFA, but are not summarized in this section of today's notice. As 
a result of selecting the low flow exclusions, the proposed rule 
imposes substantially lower impacts on small entities than the other 
options. In particular, the low flow exclusion for indirect discharging 
facilities in two subcategories--the General Metals subcategory and the 
Oily Wastes subcategory--played a significant role in minimizing small 
business impacts. EPA estimates that there are over 26,000 facilities 
in the General Metals subcategory and over 28,000 in the Oily Wastes 
subcategory operating in the baseline, and that small entities comprise 
a large portion of these subcategories. The low flow exclusion for both 
of these subcategories will largely reduce the number of small entities 
affected by the MP&M proposed rule. For the General Metals subcategory, 
EPA is proposing a 1 MGY flow cutoff for the reasons explained in 
Section XII.D. This low flow exclusion reduces the number of regulated 
facilities in this subcategory by 75 percent. The facilities that 
comprise the 75 percent are mostly small entities and represent only 6 
percent of the total pollutants discharged by the facilities in this 
subcategory. For the Oily Wastes subcategory, EPA is proposing a 2 MGY 
flow cutoff for the reasons explained in Section XII. This low flow 
exclusion reduces the number of regulated facilities in this 
subcategory by 96 percent. The facilities that comprise the 96 percent 
are mostly small entities and represent 39 percent of the total 
pollutant discharged by the facilities in this subcategory. In Section 
XII, EPA presented its rationale for concluding that national 
pretreatment standards were not warranted for facilities discharging 
less than 2 MGY in this subcategory.
    EPA considered and incorporated other types of alternatives, such 
as monitoring alternatives. These are summarized below and discussed 
more fully in Sections XXI.C and XXI.D of today's notice.

e. Reporting, Record Keeping and Other Compliance Requirements

    There are five areas for which EPA is proposing to require, or 
considering requiring, reporting or record keeping by MP&M facilities: 
(1) Certification to waive monitoring for pollutants that are not 
present; (2) certification and implementation of an organic chemicals 
management plan in lieu of monitoring for organic pollutants; (3) 
demonstration of a correlation to a site-specific organic pollutant 
indicator parameter; (4) certification of a total sulfide monitoring 
waiver for indirect dischargers; and (5) demonstration of specified 
pollution prevention practices and compliance with existing regulations 
in lieu of compliance with the MP&M effluent guidelines for facilities 
in the Metal Finishing Job Shop subcategory and some facilities in 
other subcategories. In all cases, EPA believes the collection of 
information, reporting, or record keeping is an alternative (i.e., 
voluntary) that will allow a reduction in overall burden to facilities 
since EPA intends for these activities to reduce or eliminate effluent 
sampling and analysis costs. Each of these five areas is briefly 
described below and is described in detail in section XXI, and the 
associated burden is discussed in section XXII.A.
    Briefly, for the certification to waive monitoring for pollutants 
that are not present, EPA expects that facilities will need to review 
analytical sampling data and other technical information required to 
make the certification (e.g., raw material inventory logs, production 
information, product chemistry, and reports on source water). There is 
some additional effort required to prepare the certification statement 
one time per permit cycle (i.e., every 5 years). EPA is allowing the 
use of historical sampling data as well as sampling data generated for 
compliance reports required by the General Pretreatment Standards (40 
CFR 403.12) in the development of the certification statement. 
Therefore, EPA does not anticipate additional monitoring burden 
associated with this waiver, particularly in comparison to the periodic 
compliance monitoring that is being replaced by this waiver. A 
wastewater treatment operator or other qualified facility personnel who 
is familiar with the facility's processes, products and analytical 
monitoring reports can make the determination.
    In terms of the certification and implementation of an organic 
chemicals management plan in lieu of monitoring for organic pollutants, 
facilities choosing to develop an organic pollutant management plan 
must certify that the procedures described in the plan are being 
implemented at the facility. EPA notes that development and 
implementation of the plan would likely require the attention of the 
wastewater treatment operator or plant manager. EPA believes that 
facilities covered by the Metal Finishing effluent guidelines (40 CFR 
part 433) with a solvent management plan in place under those 
regulations will only have to update their plan.
    EPA is considering (but is not proposing) allowing the 
demonstration of a correlation to a site-specific organic pollutant 
indicator parameter as an alternate approach to the use of an organic 
indicator parameter (see section XXI.C.2 for a discussion on the 
proposed organic indicator). In this case, there would be some 
additional reporting and record keeping. Facilities would need to 
perform testing, analyze analytical results, and keep records that 
demonstrate a correlation between the regulated organic pollutants and 
the selected indicator parameter. EPA notes that direct dischargers may 
incur less burden than indirect dischargers because they typically have 
more advanced treatment in place and permit writers typically require 
them to monitor for the types of parameters that EPA is considering as 
indicators (e.g., COD, Oil & Grease, TOC, and TPH); therefore, they may 
already have data available that demonstrates a correlation to the 
regulated organic pollutants. A wastewater treatment operator or other 
qualified facility personnel who is

[[Page 523]]

familiar with the facility's processes, products, and analytical 
monitoring reports should be able to make the determination. Some 
facilities may prefer consultation with an analytical chemist.
    EPA is proposing to set numerical limitations on the discharge of 
total sulfide from facilities in several subcategories. In an effort to 
reduce monitoring burden on indirect dischargers, EPA is considering 
(but not proposing) to allow a waiver for the monitoring of total 
sulfide (even when present). EPA would require this demonstration one 
time per permit cycle and if no major changes in processes or raw 
materials change during that period, the demonstration would not have 
to be repeated for the next permit cycle. A wastewater treatment 
operator or other qualified facility personnel who is familiar with the 
facility's processes, products, and analytical monitoring reports can 
make the determination.
    Finally, EPA is considering, but not proposing, whether to allow 
certain facilities in the Metal Finishing Job Shop subcategory to 
demonstrate compliance with specified pollution prevention and water 
conservation practices (in addition to maintaining compliance with the 
existing Metal Finishing and Electroplating effluent guidelines) in 
lieu of meeting the requirements of the MP&M regulation. Facilities 
would submit certification statements one time initially (by the 
compliance deadline) and twice per year thereafter for indirect 
dischargers, or once per year for direct dischargers. The compliance 
paperwork necessary to implement this alternative would likely require 
the attention of the wastewater treatment operator or plant manager.

f. Overlapping Federal Rules

    EPA has established effluent guidelines regulations for thirteen 
industrial categories which may perform operations that are sometimes 
found in MP&M facilities. These effluent guidelines are:
    <bullet> Electroplating (40 CFR part 413);
    <bullet> Iron and Steel Manufacturing (40 CFR part 420);
    <bullet> Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing (40 CFR part 421);
    <bullet> Ferroalloy Manufacturing (40 CFR part 424);
    <bullet> Metal Finishing (40 CFR part 433);
    <bullet> Battery Manufacturing (40 CFR part 461);
    <bullet> Metal Molding and Casting (40 CFR part 464);
    <bullet> Coil Coating (40 CFR part 465);
    <bullet> Porcelain Enameling (40 CFR part 466);
    <bullet> Aluminum Forming (40 CFR part 467);
    <bullet> Copper Forming (40 CFR part 468);
    <bullet> Electrical and Electronic Components (40 CFR part 469); 
and
    <bullet> Nonferrous Metals Forming and Metal Powders (40 CFR part 
471).
    In 1986, the Agency reviewed coverage of these regulations and 
identified a significant number of metals processing facilities 
discharging wastewater that these 13 regulations did not cover. As 
discussed above, EPA's ``Preliminary Data Summary for the Machinery 
Manufacturing and Rebuilding Industry'' (EPA 440/1-89/106) identified 
the MP&M industry as one that is discharging hazardous wastes to 
publicly owned treatment works and directly into the nation's surface 
waters.
    EPA recognizes that in some cases, unit operations performed in 
industries covered by the existing effluent guidelines are the same as 
unit operations performed at MP&M facilities. In general, when unit 
operations and their associated wastewater discharges are already 
covered by an existing effluent guideline, they will remain covered 
under that effluent guideline. However, for the existing Electroplating 
(40 CFR part 413) and Metal Finishing (40 CFR part 433) effluent 
guidelines most facilities will be covered by this proposal. EPA is 
proposing to replace the existing Electroplating (40 CFR part 413) and 
Metal Finishing (40 CFR part 433) effluent guidelines with the MP&M 
regulations for all facilities in the Printed Wiring Board subcategory, 
all facilities in the Metal Finishing Job Shop subcategory, and for 
direct discharging facilities in the Non-Chromium Anodizers 
subcategory. (See Section VI.C for a discussion of subcategory-specific 
applicability).
    When a facility covered by an existing metals effluent guidelines 
(other than Electroplating or Metal Finishing) discharges wastewater 
from unit operations not covered under that existing metals guideline 
but covered under MP&M, the facility will need to comply with both 
regulations. In those cases, the permit writer or control authority 
(e.g., Publicly Owned Treatment Works) will combine the limitations 
using an approach that proportions the limitations based on the 
different in-scope production levels (for production-based standards) 
or wastewater flows. POTWs refer to this approach as the ``combined 
wastestream formula'' (40 CFR 403.6(e)), while NPDES permit writers 
refer to it as the ``building block approach.'' Permit writers and 
local control authorities currently issue permits and control 
mechanisms for many facilities in other effluent guidelines categories 
where overlaps with more than one effluent limitation guidelines 
regulation occur (e.g., Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic 
Fibers; Pesticide Manufacturing; Pesticide Formulating, Packaging and 
Repackaging; and Pharmaceutical Manufacturing). See Section III.D of 
this preamble for additional discussion of applicability.
2. Small Business Advocacy Review Panel
    As required by section 609(b) of the RFA, as amended by SBREFA, EPA 
also conducted outreach to small entities and convened a Small Business 
Advocacy Review Panel to obtain advice and recommendations of 
representatives of the small entities that potentially would be subject 
to the rule's requirements. The Panel consisted of representatives from 
three Federal agencies: EPA, the Small Business Administration, and the 
Office of Management and Budget. The Panel reviewed materials EPA 
prepared in connection with the IRFA, and collected the advice and 
recommendations of small entity representatives. For this proposed 
rule, the small entity representatives included nine small MP&M 
facility owner/operators, one small municipality, and the following six 
trade associations representing different sectors of the industry: 
National Association of Metal Finishers (NAMF)/Association of 
Electroplaters and Surface Finishers (AESF)/MP&M Coalition; the 
Association Connecting Electronics Industries (also known as IPC); 
Porcelain Enamel Institute; American Association of Shortline Railroads 
(ASLRA); Electronics Industry Association (EIA); and the American Wire 
Producers Association (AWPA). Prior to and following the convening of 
the Panel, EPA and the other members of the Panel sought to gather 
advice and recommendations by meeting and consulting with the small 
entity representatives listed above. On September 16, 1999 and October 
5, 1999, EPA held pre-Panel meetings with the potential small entity 
representatives to provide background information on the MP&M 
regulation and EPA's regulatory process and to provide detailed 
information on the elements of the IRFA including possible regulatory 
alternatives. After EPA's Small Business Advocacy Chair convened the 
Panel on December 8, 1999, the Panel provided over 300 pages of 
background information and analysis to the small entity representatives 
and met with the representatives on

[[Page 524]]

December 17, 1999 and January 7, 2000. The Panel asked the small entity 
representatives to submit written comment on the MP&M rulemaking in 
relation to the elements of the IRFA. The Panel carefully considered 
these comments when developing its recommendations.
    Consistent with the RFA/SBREFA requirements, the Panel evaluated 
the assembled materials and small-entity comments on issues related to 
the elements of the IRFA and prepared a report. The report summarizes 
the Panel's outreach efforts to small entities and the comments 
submitted by the small entity representatives. The Panel's report also 
presents their findings on issues related to the elements of an IRFA 
and recommendations regarding the rulemaking. EPA included a copy of 
the Panel report in the docket for this proposed rule.
    In the area of potential reporting, record keeping and compliance 
requirements, the Panel recommended that EPA consider reduced 
monitoring schemes for small entities including incorporating several 
concepts of the proposed EPA NPDES Streamlining regulations 
(``Amendments to Streamline the National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System Program Regulations: Round 2; Proposed Rule'' 61 FR 
65268; December 11, 1996). For example, the Panel ``encourages EPA to 
explore options for allowing certification in lieu of monitoring where 
an operator can determine, based on knowledge of the facility and its 
processes, that certain pollutants are not likely to be present or are 
adequately controlled.'' Based on the Panel's recommendations, EPA is 
proposing to allow MP&M indirect discharge facilities to apply for a 
waiver that will allow them to reduce their monitoring burden. In order 
for a facility to receive a monitoring waiver, the facility must submit 
a certification statement in writing to the control authority (e.g., 
POTW) stating that the facility does not use nor generate in any way a 
pollutant (or pollutants) at their site or that the pollutant (or 
pollutants) is present only at background levels from intake water and 
without any increase in the pollutant due to activities of the 
discharger. EPA notes that the NPDES streamlining for direct 
dischargers, which includes a similar provision, was finalized on May 
15, 2000 (65 FR 30886).
    The Panel also recommended that EPA give serious consideration to 
allowing the use of best management practices (BMPs) instead of 
numerical limitations, at least for some pollutants and/or 
subcategories of facilities. In response to this recommendation, EPA is 
soliciting comment and data on a ``Pollution Prevention Alternative for 
the Metal Finishing Job Shop Subcategory.'' This alternative would 
allow facilities in the Metal Finishing Job Shop subcategory to 
implement a set of pollution prevention measures in lieu of monitoring 
for a set of regulated parameters. The Agency is also soliciting 
comment on allowing facilities in other subcategories to comply with 
this pollution prevention alternative. EPA fully describes this 
potential alternative in Section XXI.D.
    In relation to proposing an indicator for toxic organic 
constituents to reduce the burden of monitoring for specific organic 
pollutants, the Panel recommended that EPA attempt to identify an 
appropriate organic indicator if it turns out that limitations for 
organic pollutants are appropriate for one or more subcategories. 
However, the Panel also recommended that if organic pollutant removals 
by subcategory are not higher than levels in the preliminary analysis 
provided to the Panel, then EPA should give serious consideration to 
not proposing pretreatment standards for those pollutants in those 
subcategories. In response to this recommendation, the Agency is 
proposing several alternatives for organic pollutant monitoring. EPA is 
proposing to allow the use of Total Organic Carbon (TOC) as an 
indicator parameter for organic pollutants found in the wastewater 
discharges at MP&M facilities. The indicator is an alternative limit. 
If facilities do not wish to use TOC as an indicator, EPA is proposing 
two other alternatives. The second alternative allows facilities to 
monitor for a list of organic pollutants (i.e., total organics 
parameter (TOP) list) and to meet a limit which would equate to the 
summation of all quantifiable values of the listed organic pollutants. 
The third alternative allows facilities to develop and certify the 
implementation of an ``organic chemical management plan.'' The Agency 
further discusses these organic monitoring alternatives in Section 
XXI.C.
    The Panel also recommended that EPA not regulate TSS, pH, iron, or 
aluminum for indirect dischargers. The Agency is not proposing 
pretreatment standards for any of these parameters.
    In the area of overlap with other Federal rules, the Panel 
recommended that EPA attempt to minimize the potential for MP&M 
facilities to be covered by more than one effluent guideline and that 
EPA clarify in the preamble how it plans to regulate facilities that 
have operations covered by more than one effluent guideline. In 
response to this recommendation, EPA has made an effort to clearly 
define the applicability of the proposed MP&M rule. In addition, EPA is 
replacing the Metal Finishing (40 CFR part 433) and Electroplating (40 
CFR part 413) effluent guidelines for a large number of facilities. 
Therefore, these facilities will only be covered by the MP&M rule.
    The Panel recommended that EPA consider regulatory alternatives, 
including a ``no regulation'' option, to reduce any significant 
economic impacts that are not justified by environmental improvements 
and to improve the cost-effectiveness of the regulation. In response to 
these recommendations, the Agency is proposing low flow exclusions for 
two subcategories and is proposing not to establish pretreatment 
standards for three other subcategories based on low levels of 
pollutants discharged. EPA discusses these issues throughout this 
notice (see Sections II.D, VI.C, and XII for detailed discussions of 
the proposed flow cutoff (or no regulation) by subcategory).
    Additionally, as recommended by the Panel, EPA has solicited data 
and comment on the following topics discussed in the Panel report: the 
cost savings to Control Authorities and dischargers of BMPs in lieu of 
numerical limitations; in-process versus end-of-pipe monitoring for 
cyanide; inclusion of the steel wire producers in the proposed rule; 
costs for contract hauling; certain methodological issues, including 
costs and adequacy of operational changes or treatment enhancements for 
BAT facilities to consistently and reliably achieve full compliance 
with proposed limitations; the POTW removals methodology; and the 
revision to the Toxic Weighting Factors. EPA invites comments on all 
aspects of the proposal and its impacts on small entities (see Section 
XXIII for a specific request for comment on each of these issues).

D. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the 
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as 
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or

[[Page 525]]

State, local, or Tribal governments or communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been 
determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory action.'' As 
such, this action was submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in 
response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in 
the public record.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will 
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The rule establishes effluent 
limitations imposing requirements that apply to metal product and 
machinery facilities, as defined by this preamble, when they discharge 
wastewater. The rule applies to States and localities when they own and 
operate an in-scope MP&M facility. EPA estimates 4,300 MP&M facilities 
are owned and operated by State and local governments. Only 730 of 
these 4,300 facilities discharge MP&M process wastewater at levels 
above the flow exclusions for the General Metals and Oily Wastes 
subcategories (1 MGY and 2 MGY, respectively).
    In addition, this proposed rule will affect State and local 
governments when they are administering CWA permitting programs. The 
proposed rule, at most, imposes minimal administrative costs on States 
that have an authorized NPDES program. (These States must incorporate 
the new limitations and standards in new and reissued NPDES permits). 
In an effort to minimize this administrative burden, EPA has 
incorporated a low flow cutoff for indirect dischargers in the two 
largest subcategories (i.e., General Metals and Oily Waste) to reduce 
permitting burden on POTWs related to permitting the smallest MP&M 
facilities (see Sections II.D, VI.C, and XII for discussions on the 
proposed low flow exclusion). The total cost of today's proposal to 
governments (including regulated MP&M government-owned facilities and 
regulators) is less than $15 million. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does 
not apply to this rule. See Section XXII.B for a discussion of the 
administrative costs to State and local governments.
    Although Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule, EPA did 
consult with State and local government representatives in developing 
this proposal. EPA developed and administered a survey questionnaire to 
collect information from POTWs on the burden of implementing permits 
for MP&M facilities (see Section V.B.5 for a information on the POTW 
survey questionnaire). In addition, EPA attended several industry and 
professional meetings such as the National Metal Finishing Strategic 
Goals Summit and the annual meetings of the Association of Municipal 
Sewerage Authorities (AMSA) to talk to States and local governments 
(and other stakeholders) about the MP&M proposed rule including several 
possible alternative options for monitoring. States and local 
government representatives were also present at EPA's public meetings 
on the MP&M proposed rule (see Section V.E of this notice for a 
discussion on public outreach efforts). Section II.D summarizes many of 
the major concerns expressed by MP&M stakeholders (including State and 
local governments) during the development of this proposal.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local 
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule 
from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

1. E.O. 12898 Requirements
    Executive Order 12898 requires that, to the greatest extent 
practicable and permitted by law, each Federal agency must make 
achieving environmental justice part of its mission. E.O. 12898 
provides that each Federal agency must conduct its programs, policies, 
and activities that substantially affect human health or the 
environment in a manner that ensures that such programs, policies, and 
activities do not have the effect of excluding persons (including 
populations) from participation in, denying persons (including 
populations) the benefits of, or subjecting persons (including 
populations) to discrimination under such programs, policies, and 
activities because of their race, color, or national origin.
2. Environmental Justice Analysis
    EPA examined whether the proposed regulation will promote 
environmental justice in the areas affected by MP&M discharges. This 
analysis first examines whether the proposed rule specifically reduces 
risks to disadvantaged populations. EPA then examined whether MP&M 
discharges have a disproportionally high environmental impact on 
minority populations based on the demographic characteristics of the 
populations residing in the counties affected by MP&M discharges.
a. Changes in Health Risk for Subsistence Anglers
    Subsistence anglers include low-income and minority populations 
that rely heavily on subsistence fishing in their food supply. 
Subsistence anglers are likely to be at disproportionally high risk 
from consumption of contaminated fish because of heavy reliance on fish 
caught in local waters in their diets. EPA's analysis of changes in 
adverse health effects from the proposed rule show that benefits to 
subsistence anglers substantially exceed benefits to recreational 
anglers.
    EPA used the same methodology for estimating cancer and systemic 
health risk used in the national human health benefits analysis to 
estimate changes in health risk to subsistence anglers. EPA's estimates 
show that subsistence anglers face significantly higher cancer risk 
from fish consumption than recreational anglers at the baseline 
discharge levels. The estimated average lifetime cancer risk in the 
baseline for subsistence and recreational anglers is 20.3 in a million 
and 8.08 in a million, respectively. The estimated reduction in average 
lifetime cancer risk for subsistence anglers is more than double the 
reduction in risk for sport anglers (i.e., 7.70 in a million vs. 3.77 
in a million) (see Table XXII.F-1).

[[Page 526]]



                           Table XXII.F-1.--Estimated Changes in Lifetime Cancer Risk to Subsistence vs. Recreational Anglers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Average lifetime cancer risk per individual               Estimated changes in individual lifetime cancer
                                ----------------------------------------------------------------------                        risk
  Exposed population category                                                                         --------------------------------------------------
                                     Baseline       Proposed option   Option  2/6/10     Option 4/8    Proposed option   Option  2/6/10     Option 4/8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsistence Anglers............  20.3E-06          12.6E-06          12.4E-06         12.8E-06         7.7E-06          7.9E-06          7.5E-06
Recreational Anglers...........  8.1E-06           4.3E-06           4.3E-06          4.5E-06          3.8E-06          3.8E-06          3.6E-06
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also analyzed changes in systemic health risk from fish 
consumption to subsistence anglers. This analysis is performed at the 
sample level only. The results from this analysis show that 
approximately 7,000 subsistence anglers (two percent) in reaches near 
sample facilities are estimated to ingest MP&M pollutants at rates 
sufficient to pose a significant risk of health effects at the baseline 
discharge levels. The proposed regulation reduces the number of 
subsistence anglers at risk of developing deleterious health effects by 
4,616 (66 percent) (see Table XXII.F-2.).

             Table XXII.F-2.--Changes in Systemic Health Risk to Subsistence Anglers (Sample Basis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Subsistence anglers exposed to        Subsistence anglers
                                                         hazard ratio >1 <SUP>a</SUP>        benefitting from the MP&M rule
                                   Total exposed ---------------------------------------------------------------
        Regulatory status           subsistence                     Percent of
                                      anglers        Number of     total exposed     Number of      Percent of
                                                    individuals     individuals     individuals      baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................         320,366           6,971            2.18  ..............  ..............
Proposed option.................         320,366           2,355            0.74           4,616              66
Option 2/6/10...................         320,366           2,355            0.74           4,616              66
Option 4/8......................         320,366           2,355            0.74           4,616             66
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<SUP>a</SUP> Hazard ratio is a ratio of the estimated ingestion rate of a pollutant to the reference dose (RfD) value for
  the pollutant. The RfD is an estimate of the maximum daily ingestion rate in mg/kg per day that is likely to
  be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. A hazard ratio greater than one
  indicates that individuals would be expected to ingest MP&M pollutants at rates sufficient to pose a
  significant risk of systemic health effects.

b. Demographic Characteristics of the Populations Residing in the 
Counties Affected by MP&M Discharges
    EPA assessed whether adverse environmental, human health, or 
economic effects associated with MP&M facility discharges are more 
likely to be borne by minorities and low-income populations. This 
analysis is based on information on the race, national origin, and 
income level of populations residing in the counties traversed by 
reaches receiving discharges from 885 sample MP&M facilities. The 
analysis was not done at the national level. The 885 sample facilities 
are located in 643 counties in 46 States (excluding Alaska, Hawaii, 
Nevada, and Wyoming). Two sample facilities that are located in Puerto 
Rico were excluded from this analysis due to insufficient data.
    EPA compared demographic data on the counties traversed by sample 
MP&M reaches with the corresponding state-level indicators. The results 
of this analysis show that counties affected by MP&M discharges tend to 
have a larger proportion of African-American population than the State 
average in 41 States. In five States, the proportion of African-
Americans in MP&M counties corresponds to the State averages (District 
of Columbia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Vermont, and West 
Virginia). Other socioeconomic characteristics of the populations 
residing in the counties abutting reaches affected by MP&M discharges 
reflect the corresponding State averages.
3. Findings
    Findings from the EPA's analysis show that this proposed rule is 
expected to promote environmental justice in the areas affected by MP&M 
discharges. EPA's analysis of changes in adverse health effects from 
the proposed rule indicate that health benefits to 3.8 million 
subsistence anglers substantially exceed benefits to recreational 
anglers. The estimated reduction in annual cancer risk is an order of 
magnitude greater for subsistence than for sport anglers (i.e., 0.5 in 
one hundred million vs 0.5 in one billion). The proportion of 
subsistence anglers that face a hazard ratio of greater than one under 
the baseline conditions (2.2 percent) declines by 1.5 percent due to 
the proposed rule (see Table XXII.F-2). [Note: the hazard ratio is a 
ratio of the estimated ingestion rate of a pollutant to the reference 
dose (RfD) value point. A hazard ratio greater than one indicates that 
individuals would be expected to ingest MP&M pollutants at rates 
sufficient to pose a significant risk of systemic health effects.] A 
much smaller proportion of recreational anglers (0.15 percent) is 
expected to suffer from systemic health risk effects under the baseline 
conditions. The percentage of recreational anglers facing a hazard 
ratio of one drops to 0.05 percent under the post-compliance. Higher 
representation of African-American households in the areas where most 
MP&M sample facilities are located and their effluents are released 
indicates that the disadvantaged populations will receive a relatively 
larger share of the benefits from the MP&M rule, though they may also 
bear a disproportionate share of costs if the MP&M facilities that 
close are in their community (e.g., lost jobs).

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

1. E.O. 13045 Requirements
    The Executive Order ``Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies 
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' 
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may 
have a

[[Page 527]]

disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety effects of the planned rule on children; and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This 
proposed rule is subject to the Executive Order because it is an 
economically significant regulatory action as defined by E.O. 12866. It 
is expected to reduce numerous pollutants, including lead, in fish 
tissue and drinking water that exceed human health criteria for 
consumption of water and organisms and organisms only. Therefore, EPA 
has performed an analysis of children's health impacts reduced by this 
proposed rule.
2. Analysis of Children's Health Impacts
    EPA expects that the proposed regulation will benefit children in 
many ways, including reducing health risk from exposure to MP&M 
pollutants from consumption of contaminated fish tissue and drinking 
water and improving recreational opportunities. The Agency was able to 
quantify only one category of benefits to children, however--avoided 
health damages to pre-school age children from reduced exposure to 
lead. This analysis considered several measures of children's health 
benefits associated with lead exposure for children up to age six. 
Avoided neurological and cognitive damages were expressed as changes in 
three metrics: (1) Overall IQ levels, (2) the incidence of low IQ 
scores (70), and (3) the incidence of blood-lead levels above 20 mg/dL. 
The Agency also assessed changes in incidence of neonatal mortality 
from reduced maternal exposure to lead. EPA's methodology for assessing 
benefits to children and adults is presented in Section XX.B.3.c. This 
analysis showed that the proposed rule is expected to yield $14.4 
million (1999$) in annual benefits to children from reduced 
neurological and cognitive damages and reduced incidence of neonatal 
mortality.
    The Agency also examined whether lead discharges from MP&M 
facilities are likely to have a disproportionate impact on children in 
subsistence anglers' families. Children in subsistence fishing families 
face a greater risk of adverse health effects from exposure to lead-
contaminated fish due to high proportion of fish from local waters in 
their diet. EPA's analysis showed that the beneficial outcome of the 
MP&M rule favor children from subsistence fishing families. The average 
estimated health risk reduction per child for each of the four lead-
related health effects was much larger for children from subsistence 
fishing families. This finding is also supported by the monetary 
estimates of benefits per child in each population category. EPA 
estimated that the monetary value of benefits to a child from a 
subsistence fishing family is $781.2 (1999$) per year, as compared to 
$82.6 (1999$) for a child from a recreational fishing family. These 
benefits comprise a much larger portion of subsistence fishing families 
income compared to the benefits received by a recreational fishing 
because subsistence fishing families (e.g., Native American families) 
have on average a lower household income. EPA estimated that the 
monetary value of benefits from reduced cognitive damages to children 
for a subsistence household is about 2.9 percent of their current 
household income, while benefits for a recreational fishing family is 
0.2 percent of their household income. This analysis uses average 
household income in Native American families and average household 
income of all households in the United States. Table XXII.G-1 
summarizes estimated changes in health risk and the monetary value of 
benefits to children from recreational and subsistence fishing 
families.

            Table XXII.G-1.--Estimated Benefits to Pre-School Children From Reduced Exposure to Lead
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Estimated monetary value of
                                                                   Reduction in      avoided health damages to
                                   Population        Number of     the number of      children (1999$)--mean
       Benefit category             category         children     adverse health             estimates
                                                   (ages 0 to 1)   effect cases  -------------------------------
                                                                                       Total         Per child
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Preferred Option
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neo-Natal Mortality...........  Recreation......  ..............            0.92      $5,536,000             $47
                                Subsistence.....  ..............            0.69      $4,002,000            $609
Avoided IQ Loss...............  Recreation......  ..............          390.43      $3,934,410             $30
                                Subsistence.....  ..............           98.65        $994,104            $151
Reduced IQ 70.................  Recreation......  ..............            0.02        $101,311              $1
                                Subsistence.....  ..............            0.09         $25,079              $4
Reduced PbB >20...............  Recreation......  ..............            0.03            $686           (\1\)
                                Subsistence.....  ..............            0.06             $60           (\1\)
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................  Recreation......         131,511  ..............      $9,372,407             $83
                                Subsistence.....           6,576  ..............      $5,021,243            $764
                                All Children....         138,087  ..............     $14,393,650            $120
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Option 2/6/10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neo-Natal Mortality...........  Recreation......  ..............            0.95      $5,510,000             $49
                                Subsistence.....  ..............            0.71      $4,118,000            $626
Avoided IQ Loss...............  Recreation......  ..............          402.75      $4,058,465             $31
                                Subsistence.....  ..............          101.74      $1,025,276            $156
Reduced IQ 70.................  Recreation......  ..............            0.02        $104,529              $1
                                Subsistence.....  ..............            0.09         $25,866              $4
Reduced PbB >20...............  Recreation......  ..............            0.03            $609           (\1\)
                                Subsistence.....  ..............            0.04             $36           (\1\)
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................  Recreation......         131,511  ..............      $9,546,407             $84
                                Subsistence.....           6,576  ..............      $5,013,243            $781

[[Page 528]]

 
                                All Children....         138,087  ..............     $14,683,650            $122
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Option 4/8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neo-Natal Mortality...........  Recreation......  ..............            0.95      $5,510,000             $49
                                Subsistence.....  ..............            0.71      $4,118,000            $626
Avoided IQ Loss...............  Recreation......  ..............          402.75      $4,058,465             $31
                                Subsistence.....  ..............          101.74      $1,025,276            $156
Reduced IQ 70.................  Recreation......  ..............            0.02        $104,529              $1
                                Subsistence.....  ..............            0.09         $25,866              $4
Reduced PbB >20...............  Recreation......  ..............            0.03            $609           (\1\)
                                Subsistence.....  ..............            0.04             $36           (\1\)
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................  Recreation......         131,511  ..............      $9,673,603             $85
                                Subsistence.....           6,576  ..............      $5,169,178            $786
                                All Children....         138,087  ..............     $14,842,781           $124
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Negligible.

    Children over age six are also likely to benefit from reduced 
neurological and cognitive damages due to reduced exposure to lead. 
Recent research on brain development among 10-to 18-year-old children 
shows unanticipated and substantial growth in brain development, mainly 
in the early teenage years (Giedd et al., 1999). This research suggests 
that older children may be hypersensitive to lead exposure, as are 
children aged 0 to 6.
    Additional benefits to children from reduced exposure to lead not 
quantified in this analysis may include prevention of the following 
adverse health effects: slowed or delayed growth, delinquent and anti-
social behavior, metabolic effects, impaired heme synthesis, anemia, 
impaired hearing, and cancer.

H. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian Tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the Tribal governments, or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected Tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of Indian Tribal governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters 
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
    Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian Tribal governments. Based on the information 
collection efforts for this industry category, EPA does not expect any 
Indian Tribal governments to own or operate in-scope MP&M facilities. 
In addition, given the proposed applicability thresholds (i.e., low 
flow exclusions for the General Metals and Oily Wastes subcategories), 
EPA estimates that few, if any, new facilities subject to the rule will 
be owned by Tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of 
section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995, (Pub L. 104-113 Sec. 12(d) 15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory 
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide 
Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 
explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and 
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    Although today's proposed rule does not establish new analytical 
methods, it does require dischargers to monitor for TSS, O&G (as HEM), 
Total Organic Carbon (TOC), Aluminum, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, 
Cyanide (T), Cyanide (A), Lead, Manganese, Molybdenum, Nickel, Silver, 
Sulfide (as S), Tin, and Zinc. (EPA notes that the pollutants listed 
may not be regulated for all subcategories). All of these analytes can 
be measured by EPA methods and many using consensus standards that are 
specified in the tables at 40 CFR part 136.3. EPA is also proposing a 
limit for Total Organics Parameter (TOP), as part of an organic 
monitoring alternative. (See Section XXI.C.2). EPA developed the TOP 
list of organic pollutants using the list of organic priority 
pollutants and other non-conventional organic pollutants that met EPA's 
``pollutant of concern'' criteria for this rule (see section VII for a 
discussion on the selection of the MP&M pollutants of concern). Of the 
nonconventional organic chemicals on the MP&M pollutant of concern 
list, EPA included only those that were removed in appreciable 
quantities (based on toxic weighted pound-equivalents) in two or more 
subcategories. See appendix B to part 438 in the proposed rule 
accompanying

[[Page 529]]

this notice for a list of organic pollutants that comprise the proposed 
Total Organics Parameter (TOP). The following analytes that EPA is 
proposing to comprise the TOP do not have approved EPA methods: Benzoic 
acid, carbon disulfide, 3,6-Dimethylphenanthrene, 2-
Isopropylnaphthalene, 1-Methylfluorene, and 2-Methylnaphthalene. In 
addition, aniline and 1-Methylphenanthrene do not have procedures 
approved in 40 CFR part 136, but have procedures that have been 
validated as attachments to EPA Methods 1625/625. EPA plans to 
promulgate methods or validate the procedures for these analytes prior 
to the promulgation of the MP&M rule. EPA welcomes comments on this 
aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public 
to identify potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards and to 
explain why such standards should be used in this regulation.

J. Plain Language Directive

    Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1, 
1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. We 
invite your comments on how to make this proposed rule easier to 
understand. For example, have we organized the material to suit your 
needs? Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? Does the rule 
contain technical language or jargon that isn't clear? Would a 
different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, 
paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand? Would more (but 
shorter) sections be better? Could we improve clarity by adding tables, 
lists, or diagrams? What else could we do to make the rule easier to 
understand?

K. Executive Order 13158: Marine Protected Areas

1. E.O. 13158 Requirements
    Executive Order 13158 has been established to ``help protect the 
significant natural and cultural resources within the marine 
environment for the benefit of present and future generations by 
strengthening and expanding the Nation's system of marine protected 
areas (MPAs).'' MPAs include areas of coastal and ocean waters, the 
Great Lakes and their connecting waters that have been reserved by laws 
or regulations to provide lasting protection for part or all of their 
natural resources. The list of MPAs defined for the purposes of this 
Executive Order will be published and maintained by the Secretary of 
Commerce and the Secretary of the Interior.
    This order aims at further enhancing and strengthening protection 
of the existing MPAs and establishing new or expanded MPAs. The order 
provides EPA with the ability to propose new science-based regulations, 
as necessary, to ensure better protection for beaches, coasts, and the 
marine environment from pollution.
2. Impacts on Marine Resources
    The proposed regulation is expected to enhance protection of MPAs 
by improving the quality of marine waters receiving discharges from 
MP&M facilities. Although the list of MPAs affected by this order has 
not yet been published, may include waterbodies currently protected 
under the National Estuaries Program (NEP), wildlife refugees, and 
other significant natural and cultural resources in marine 
environments. EPA compared sample MP&M facility discharge locations 
with the list of the 28 waterbodies under the NEP and the Chesapeake 
Bay to assess potential impacts of the regulation on significant marine 
resources. Sample MP&M facilities included in this analysis discharge 
directly or indirectly to 627 receiving waterways, of which, 544 are 
rivers/streams, 55 are bays or estuaries, and 28 are lakes, including 
the Great Lakes. This analysis showed that several of the NEP 
waterbodies currently receive discharges from the sample facilities, 
including Long Island Sound (NY/CT), Buzzards Bay (MA), Narragansett 
Bay (RI), and Puget Sound (WA). Most of the other protected estuaries 
receive effluents from the sample MP&M facilities via connecting 
waters. For example, discharges to the Connecticut River enter Long 
Island Sound (NY/CT), and discharges to the Hudson River enter the New 
York-New Jersey Harbor.
    The absence of the current MPA list makes it difficult to determine 
the extent of benefits to MPAs from the proposed rule. The breadth of 
this regulation, however, ensures that some MPAs are likely to benefit 
from reduced pollutant discharges from MP&M facilities.

L. Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA)

    Congress enacted Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act 
Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA) in 1990 to address the problem of 
nonpoint source pollution in coastal waters. Section 6217 of CZARA 
requires all States/tribes with federally approved coastal zone 
management programs to develop and implement coastal nonpoint pollution 
control programs. The EPA and NOAA administer the Section 6217 program 
and have developed guidance to assist States in implementing the 
coastal nonpoint pollution control programs. States may choose the 
specific practice or combination of practices that will achieve the 
goals of controlling nonpoint source pollution and of protecting 
coastal waters.
    Section 6217 of CZARA differs from the previous Coastal Zone 
Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 in that it is a mandatory program. Under 
CZMA the participation by States in coastal resource management was 
voluntary. CZARA requires coastal States/tribes to submit a coastal 
nonpoint pollution program to the EPA and NOAA within 30 months of the 
technical guidance issuance by EPA and NOAA (by July 1995).
    The technical guidance provided by EPA and NOAA identifies five 
categories of nonpoint sources affecting coastal waters: Agriculture; 
forestry; urban runoff; marinas and recreational boating; and 
hydromodification. For each category, the technical guidance specifies 
management measures and practices to control nonpoint pollution. 
Management measures are defined in CZARA as economically achievable 
measures that reflect the best available technology to control the 
addition of pollutants to coastal waters.
    Although today's proposed rule does not affect nonpoint sources 
directly, it may contribute to nonpoint source pollution control in 
coastal areas by improving the quality of sewage sludge. EPA estimates 
that 1.7 million dry metric tons of sewage sludge would be newly 
qualified for land application as a result of the proposed rule. Sewage 
sludge is a valuable source of fertilizer and can be applied to 
agricultural land, golf courses, sod farms, forests, and residential 
gardens. Compared to nitrogen in most chemical fertilizers, nitrogen in 
sewage sludge is relatively insoluble in water. If sewage sludge is 
used as a substitute for chemical fertilizers on agricultural land 
nonpoint source contamination of surface water can be reduced.

XXIII. Solicitation of Data and Comments

    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 where possible. See Section XXIV for guidelines for 
submittal of data.
    EPA particularly requests comments and information on the following 
issues:

[[Page 530]]

    1. Steel Forming & Finishing Facilities. EPA solicits comments on 
the choice to include the Steel Forming & Finishing facilities in 
today's proposed MP&M regulation. Facilities in this subcategory 
predominantly process steel wire, rod, bar, pipe, or tube. EPA 
previously regulated these sites under the 1982 Iron & Steel 
Manufacturing effluent guidelines (40 CFR part 420). However, based on 
the information gathered during the data collection effort for the 
Agency's proposed revision to the Iron & Steel Manufacturing 
regulations, EPA has determined that these facilities are more 
appropriately regulated by the MP&M proposed rule. (See Section VI.C.5 
for a discussion of the proposed applicability of the Steel Forming & 
Finishing Subcategory). EPA is also interested in analytical sampling 
data to help better identify the raw wastewater characteristics and 
treatment performance of facilities in the proposed Steel Forming & 
Finishing subcategory. Please note the requirements for submitting 
paired influent and effluent data, as described in section XXIV.A.
    In addition, for facilities that perform operations that fall 
within the proposed scope of both the MP&M Steel Forming & Finishing 
subcategory and the proposed Iron & Steel regulations (i.e., a facility 
that performs manufacturing and batch electroplating of steel), EPA is 
soliciting comment on whether both regulations should cover these 
facilities (using the combined waste stream formula for indirect 
dischargers or building block approach for direct dischargers) or 
whether EPA should allow facilities that would fall under the scope of 
both regulations to be regulated only by the Iron & Steel Manufacturing 
rule. EPA notes that both the proposed regulations discussed here set 
mass-based limits for these facilities. If the Agency were to choose 
the later option, it would need to incorporate a wastewater flow 
allowance for the steel forming and finishing operations into the mass-
based limits of the Iron & Steel regulation, where applicable. EPA is 
particularly interested in comments from permit writers and control 
authorities concerning the burden of permitting an Iron & Steel 
facility under two effluent guidelines (using the building block 
approach or combined waste stream formula) versus the expected 
complexity of interpreting the applicability statements when two 
regulations cover the same operations. In addition, EPA is interested 
in better understanding the potential economic advantage (or 
disadvantage) this might create between stand-alone steel forming & 
finishing facilities and steel manufacturing facilities where steel 
forming & finishing operations occur.
    2. P2 Alternative for Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory. EPA 
solicits comment on all aspects of the Pollution Prevention Alternative 
for the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory including the list of 
practices as well as the possible format for the alternative (see 
Section XXI.D for a discussion of the P2 Alternative). More 
specifically, EPA requests comment on whether there are additional or 
different practices that should be listed, the number of practices that 
should be required in each category, the reasons why any of the 
practices may not be applicable to specific facilities or processes, 
the costs of implementing this compliance alternative, the pollutant 
reduction associated with this alternative, and whether EPA should 
offer this alternative to direct discharging facilities in the Metal 
Finishing Job Shops subcategory, only to facilities discharging below a 
specified wastewater discharge flow, other subcategories such as 
General Metals (even those not currently regulated by the Metal 
Finishing and Electroplating effluent guidelines), or at certain 
facilities in other subcategories (e.g., captive metal finishing and 
electroplating shops).
    EPA also requests comment on whether the Agency should (if the P2 
Alternative is incorporated in the final rule) require all facilities 
that choose the P2 Alternative to also meet the pretreatment standards 
for the Metal Finishing effluent guidelines (40 CFR part 433). That is, 
should facilities that are currently covered by the Electroplating 
effluent guidelines (40 CFR part 413) have to meet the pretreatment 
standards for the Metal Finishing effluent guidelines or for the 
Electroplating effluent guidelines when choosing to comply with the P2 
Alternative in lieu of the MP&M pretreatment standards? EPA is 
interested in receiving information on the additional costs that would 
be incurred by facilities currently covered by the Electroplating 
effluent guidelines in order to meet the pretreatment standards of the 
Metal Finishing effluent guidelines.
    3. Monitoring Flexibility--Monitoring Waiver for Pollutants Not 
Present. In an effort to reduce monitoring burden on facilities, EPA is 
proposing to allow MP&M indirect discharge facilities to apply for a 
waiver that will allow them to reduce their monitoring burden. In order 
for a facility to receive a monitoring waiver, the facility must submit 
a certification statement in writing to the control authority (e.g., 
POTW) stating that the facility does not use, nor generate in any way, 
a pollutant (or pollutants) at their site and that the pollutant (or 
pollutants) is present only at background levels from intake water and 
without any increase in the pollutant due to activities of the 
discharger. The facility must base this certification on sampling data 
or other technical factors and is not a waiver from including the 
numerical limit in the control mechanism (i.e., permit) (see Section 
XXI.C.1 for a discussion on this monitoring waiver). EPA solicits 
comment on the language proposed for the monitoring waiver for MP&M 
indirect dischargers. EPA is also interested in receiving comment on 
the Agency's estimate of burden related to preparing and filing such a 
certification and the reduction in monitoring burden and associated 
cost savings that a facility would expect (see section XXII.A. for a 
discussion on the estimated burden).
    4. Monitoring Flexibility--Organic Pollutant Monitoring. As 
discussed in Section XXI.C, EPA is proposing to allow the use of Total 
Organic Carbon (TOC) as an indicator parameter for organic pollutants 
found in the wastewater discharges at MP&M facilities. The indicator is 
an alternative limit. If facilities do not wish to use TOC as an 
indicator, EPA is proposing two other alternatives. The second 
alternative allows facilities to monitor for a list of organic 
pollutants (i.e., total organics parameter (TOP) list) and to meet a 
limit which would equate to the summation of all quantifiable values of 
the listed organic pollutants. In any case where the data for these 
pollutants indicated a level below the minimum level (i.e., below 
quantitation), EPA used the minimum level for the specific pollutant in 
the summation of the total organics parameter limit. Facilities will 
only have to monitor for those TOP chemicals that are reasonably 
present. The third alternative allows facilities to develop and certify 
the implementation of an ``organic chemical management plan.''
    EPA solicits comment on the three alternatives being proposed for 
reducing the burden associated with monitoring for organic pollutants. 
EPA specifically solicits comment on the use of TOC as an indicator 
pollutant for the broad spectrum of organic pollutants found in MP&M 
process wastewater and whether EPA should require facilities that are 
not using the Agency's selected BAT technology to demonstrate a 
correlation between removal of TOC and removal of organic pollutants in 
their MP&M process wastewater.

[[Page 531]]

    EPA also requests comment on whether the Agency should allow 
facilities to choose an indicator pollutant from a given set of choices 
(e.g., COD, Oil & Grease (as HEM), TOC, Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 
(as SGT-HEM), etc.) instead of specifying TOC as the only allowable 
indicator parameter. Facilities would be required to demonstrate that 
the reductions in the chosen indicator parameter are equivalent to the 
reduction in the organic constituents required by the limit that EPA is 
proposing for the ``Total Organics Parameter'' (TOP). EPA is also 
interested in receiving comment on the Agency's estimate of burden 
related to preparing an organic chemicals management plan and the 
reduction in monitoring burden and associated cost savings that a 
facility would expect in each of these suggested alternatives as 
compared to monitoring for the TOP list (see section XXII.A. for a 
discussion on the estimated burden).
    5. Monitoring Flexibility--Total Sulfide Waiver. EPA is proposing 
to set numerical limitations on the discharge of Total Sulfide from 
facilities in the General Metals, Metal Finishing Job Shops, Printed 
Wiring Board, Steel Forming & Finishing, and Oily Waste subcategories. 
In an effort to reduce monitoring burden on indirect dischargers, EPA 
is considering to allow a waiver for the monitoring of total sulfide 
(even when present), at the discretion of the POTW, when a facility 
demonstrates that the sulfides will not generate acidic or corrosive 
conditions and will not create conditions that enhance opportunities 
for release of hydrogen sulfide gas in the sewer/interceptor collection 
system or at the receiving POTW or otherwise interfere with the 
operation of the POTW. EPA solicits comment on this alternative and the 
burden associated with demonstrating that it meets the specified 
conditions.
    6. Oily Operations Wastewater. Facilities in the Oily Wastes 
subcategory must only discharge wastewater from one or more of the 
following MP&M unit operations: alkaline cleaning for oil removal, 
aqueous degreasing, corrosion preventive coating, floor cleaning, 
grinding, heat treating, impact deformation, machining, painting, 
pressure deformation, solvent degreasing, testing (e.g., hydrostatic, 
dye penetrant, ultrasonic, magnetic flux), steam cleaning, and 
laundering. If they discharge wastewater from any of the above listed 
operations but also discharge wastewater from other MP&M operations, 
they do not meet the criteria of the Oily Wastes subcategory. 
Facilities in this subcategory are predominantly machine shops or 
maintenance and repair shops. Similarly, EPA is proposing to define the 
applicability of the Railroad Line Maintenance subcategory using the 
same set of ``oily'' unit operations with the addition of ``washing of 
final product'' at facilities that perform routine cleaning and light 
maintenance on railroad engines, cars, and car-wheel trucks and similar 
structures. EPA solicits comment on the list of ``oily'' unit 
operations and whether commenters prefer the use of a list of unit 
operations to define the applicability or a definition (related to low 
metals content of the wastewater). EPA also requests comment on whether 
there are additional MP&M unit operations that should be included in 
this list.
    7. Possible Addition of Other Regulated Parameters. The list of 
parameters which EPA proposes to regulate under today's proposal are 
listed in the proposed codified rule that accompanies this preamble. 
EPA is soliciting comments and data on additional parameters that 
should be considered for regulation. There are two additional chemicals 
that EPA is considering for regulation under the MP&M rule: 
dithiocarbamates and carbon disulfide. Dithiocarbamates is a chemical 
structural group that refers to a set of chemicals, including sodium 
dimethyldithiocarbamate, that are used by facilities in the MP&M 
industry for treatment of chelated metals wastewater (often referred to 
as ``DTC''). It can also be used as a reducing agent. Carbon disulfide 
can be formed during chelation breaking and other treatment steps. 
Although these chemicals are not used in the MP&M processes, they can 
be used/generated by the treatment of MP&M wastewater and may cause 
environmental impacts. EPA is specifically interested in data on the 
treatment of dithiocarbamates and carbon disulfide (including treatment 
effectiveness, treatment costs, costs of contract hauling of these 
wastewater) and on the environmental impacts that these chemicals may 
pose to aquatic life, human health, and POTWs.
    In addition, EPA solicits comment on proper management practices 
for using dithiocarbamates (DTC) at MP&M facilities. EPA also requests 
information on alternative chemicals (e.g., hydrazine, sodium 
borohydride) or technologies for use in chelation breaking as reducing 
or precipitation agents and the associated costs and environmental 
impacts.
    8. Possible Deletion of Regulated Parameters. The list of 
parameters which EPA proposes to regulate in today's proposal are 
listed in the proposed codified rule that accompanies this preamble. 
EPA is soliciting comments and data on parameters that should be 
deleted from consideration for regulation.
    9. Additional Technology Data. The Agency solicits additional data 
on the use of ultrafiltration systems for the removal of oily wastes 
and organic pollutants and on microfiltration systems for the removal 
of metal pollutants and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) in relation to 
process wastewater in the MP&M category. The Agency is particularly 
interested in receiving data on: (1) Technology performance, including 
pollutant reduction/elimination; (2) economics, including initial 
capital investment, operation and maintenance costs, payback period, 
waste disposal savings, material input savings, and other savings; (3) 
overall energy use; (4) sludge generation, including metals 
recoverability and the ability of sludge to be recycled on or off-site; 
(5) waste oil generation, including oil recovery and the ability of the 
oil to be recycled on or off-site; (6) air quality impacts and 
emissions. In addition, as some technologies eliminate or reduce 
discharges to water, but not to other media, the Agency solicits 
comments on the environmental impacts and regulatory costs associated 
with each technology's impact on other environmental media. The Agency 
particularly welcomes comments on technology performance and cost from 
MP&M facilities currently using these systems and from technology 
vendors and developers.
    10. Costs of Contract Hauling MP&M Wastewater and Sludge. EPA's 
cost model costs facilities to contract haul small volumes of process 
wastewater when the cost is estimated to be less than installing and 
operating a wastewater treatment system. EPA used data from the 
detailed surveys (see Section V for a discussion of the Detailed 
Surveys) to estimate costs associated with contract hauling MP&M 
process wastewater and wastewater treatment sludge. EPA solicits 
comment on the total cost of contract hauling small volumes of 
untreated MP&M process wastewater and how much those costs differ based 
on the type of wastewater (i.e., oily wastewater, hexavalent chromium-
bearing wastewater, concentrated metal-bearing wastewater, chelated 
wastewater). EPA also solicits comment on the cost to haul hazardous 
wastewater treatment sludge.
    11. Ultrasonic Cleaning. EPA solicits comment on non-chemical 
cleaning methods, such as ultrasonic cleaning.

[[Page 532]]

Prior to performing surface finishing operations, facilities must clean 
the metal surface to remove dirt, grit, grease or other surface 
contaminants that may interfere with the finish. Currently, the most 
common method for cleaning metal parts prior to surface finishing 
operations is using an alkaline cleaning bath, which may be followed by 
electrolytic cleaning and rinsing steps, and then an acid bath followed 
by another rinse step. Recently, some facilities have started to use 
ultrasonic cleaning (i.e., the use of sound waves) to clean metal 
surfaces prior to electroplating (or other surface finishing 
operations). Ultrasonic cleaning generates a wastewater that does not 
contain acid or alkaline cleaning agents. EPA solicits data and 
information on ultrasonic cleaning including the capital and operation 
and maintenance costs, feasibility of this method versus more 
traditional methods, characterization of the wastewater generated, size 
of the ultrasonic cleaning unit, and the limitations on its use (e.g., 
is it only available for parts of a certain size or shape?).
    12. Mixed-Use Facility Definition and Determination. As discussed 
in Section III, EPA is proposing to cover MP&M process wastewater at 
mixed-use facilities (i.e., any municipal, private, U.S. military or 
federal facility which contains both industrial and commercial/
administrative buildings at which one or more industrial sites conduct 
operations within the facility's boundaries). However, unlike the 
typical industrial facility, such as an aircraft or electronic 
equipment manufacturing plant with one primary manufacturing activity, 
the majority of military installations are mixed-use facilities and 
more like municipalities with several small industries as well as other 
operations within their boundaries. EPA is proposing to allow 
wastewater generated at different sites within a mixed-use facility to 
be dealt with as separate discharges for the purpose of applying the 
appropriate low flow cutoff (when applicable). EPA is proposing to 
allow the control authority to use its discretion in determining which 
wastewater discharges can be considered separate discharges for the 
purposes of applying the appropriate low flow cutoff (when applicable). 
The determination would likely be based on the degree of proximity 
between industrial operations and a practical application of the 
requirements for applicable MP&M subcategories.
    EPA seeks information from facilities (both military and non-
military) that believe they would fall within this mixed-use facility 
category. In addition, EPA seeks comments on the choice to allow 
control authorities to make this determination and the factors for 
making such a decision as well as alternative ways to divide a mixed-
use facility.
    13. Subcategorization of Metal Finishing Job Shops. EPA is 
proposing to create a subcategory called ``Metal Finishing Job Shops.'' 
This subcategory would only include facilities that are job shops by 
definition (i.e., they own less than 50 percent of the parts that they 
process on-site) and are performing one of the six identifying 
operations in the existing Metal Finishing and Electroplating effluent 
guidelines. As discussed in Section VI.A, EPA chose to subcategorize 
these facilities as separate from facilities in the General Metals 
subcategory (which includes captive metal finishing and electroplating 
shops) based on the variability of their wastewater and on economics. 
Although, the facilities in both subcategories are performing many of 
the same operations and require the same wastewater treatment 
technologies. EPA requests comment on whether to combine the Metal 
Finishing Job Shops subcategory with the General Metals subcategory (or 
a portion of the General Metals subcategory). This would also include 
combining the data sets from which EPA sets the numerical limits for 
the rule.
    In addition, the Agency notes that today's proposal sets a low flow 
exclusion for the indirect dischargers in the General Metals 
subcategory to reduce permitting burden, but does not set a low flow 
exclusion for the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory, as those 
facilities already have permits under existing effluent guidelines (see 
sections II.D, VI.C, and XII for discussions on the low flow 
exclusion). However, EPA notes that the proposed limits and standards 
for the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory are somewhat less 
stringent than those being proposed for the General Metals subcategory. 
EPA solicits comment on whether the use of the low flow exclusion for 
indirect dischargers in the General Metals subcategory versus no 
exclusion for facilities in the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory 
would cause a shift away from the use of job shops or whether the 
difference in numeric limitations would prevent such a shift.
    14. Printed Wiring Board Job Shops. EPA solicits comment on the 
best placement, in terms of subcategorization, for printed wiring board 
``job shops.'' EPA has identified a small number of facilities that 
perform some steps in the printed wiring board manufacturing process. 
For example, a printed wiring board manufacturer may contract out the 
tin/lead soldering operations to a printed wiring board job shop. Such 
a facility never performs all the steps necessary for manufacturing 
printed wiring boards. EPA is proposing to include these facilities in 
the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory due to their similarity in 
economics (due to the ``job shop'' nature of their work). However, EPA 
is soliciting comment on whether it is more appropriate to include 
these printed wiring board job shops in the Printed Wiring Board 
subcategory. More specifically, EPA requests data on the 
characterization of the wastewater from printed wiring board job shops, 
the variability of their raw materials, and the variability of the 
wastewater they generate.
    15. BMPs in Lieu of Numerical Limitations. EPA solicits comment on 
allowing MP&M facilities to demonstrate compliance through installation 
of well-operated and maintained treatment systems. For example, instead 
of meeting a cyanide limit, the facility would demonstrate and keep 
records of the installation and ongoing use of a well-operated and 
maintained cyanide destruction unit that monitors oxidation-reduction 
potential (ORP). EPA is particularly interested in comments on how to 
define ``well-operated and maintained'' and estimates of the burden (in 
labor hours and dollars) required to keep records sufficient for 
demonstrating compliance and prepare a related certification statement.
    EPA also solicits comment from control and permitting authorities 
on whether such an approach would increase or decrease their burden 
related to determining compliance and by how much (in labor hours and 
dollars). Comments should account for maintaining certifications and 
conducting inspections. EPA also requests comment on whether such an 
approach would be protective of the environment.
    16. Applicability to Facilities With Ancillary MP&M Operations. EPA 
solicits comment on the language used to define applicability in 
regards to facilities that are not manufacturing, maintaining or 
rebuilding metal parts, products or machines for use in the 18 
industrial sectors and that only perform MP&M operations (e.g., 
maintenance and repair of metal parts and machines) as ancillary 
activities. For example, as discussed in Section III, EPA does not 
intend for the MP&M proposal to include process wastewater discharges 
from an on-site machine or maintenance shop at a facility engaged in 
the

[[Page 533]]

manufacture of organic chemicals when the facility operates that shop 
to maintain the equipment related to manufacturing their products 
(i.e., organic chemicals). EPA solicits comment on the clarity of this 
statement and specifically requests comment on alternative language. 
For example, EPA could use the following language instead: ``facilities 
that perform on-site maintenance and repair of equipment used to 
produce a product or perform an operation (e.g., manufacturing of 
organic chemicals) where the wastewater generated is already covered by 
effluent guidelines for another point source category (with the 
exception of the Metal Finishing or Electroplating effluent guidelines) 
are excluded from the applicability of the MP&M regulation.''
    17. Non-Chromium Anodizing. EPA is proposing to exclude wastewater 
from indirect discharging non-chromium anodizing facilities (that also 
do not use dichromate sealants) from the MP&M categorical pretreatment 
standards. Such facilities would still need to comply with the 
pretreatment standards of the Metal Finishing (40 CFR part 433) 
effluent guidelines for their non-chromium anodizing wastewater and the 
general pretreatment standards at 40 CFR part 403. EPA is proposing 
limits for direct dischargers in this subcategory. EPA solicits comment 
on whether the applicable standards for indirect discharging non-
chromium anodizers should be transferred from 40 CFR part 433 to the 
MP&M regulation in order to include all non-chromium anodizers under 
one regulation. Because today's proposal includes a monitoring waiver 
for pollutants that are not present (see section XXI.C.1 for a 
discussion on the monitoring waiver), the Agency believes that 
transferring the pretreatment standards for these facilities to the 
MP&M regulation would allow non-chromium anodizing indirect dischargers 
to reduce the number of parameters for which they have to monitor.
    In addition, EPA solicits comment and data on the chromium content 
of sulfuric acid anodizing baths, anodizing dyes/sealants, and other 
wastewater from sulfuric acid anodizing. EPA is especially interested 
in data that provides measurement of hexavalent chromium separate from 
that of trivalent chromium or total chromium.
    18. Cyanide Monitoring. EPA is proposing to allow facilities, in 
subcategories with limits and standards for cyanide, to also monitor 
for amenable cyanide when they have alkaline chlorination treatment in 
place prior to commingling their wastewater (see detailed discussion in 
section XXI.C.3). The point of compliance is based on monitoring for 
total cyanide (or amenable cyanide) directly after cyanide treatment, 
before combining the cyanide treated effluent with other wastestreams. 
EPA is also proposing an alternative where a facility may take samples 
of final effluent, in order to meet the total cyanide limit, if the 
control authority adjusts the permit limits based on the dilution ratio 
of the cyanide wastestream flow to the effluent flow. EPA is proposing 
to allow end-of-pipe alternative sampling point for amenable cyanide as 
well; however, in addition to adjusting the permit limits based on the 
dilution ratio, facilities must have alkaline chlorination treatment in 
place prior to the commingling of their cyanide-bearing wastewater with 
other process wastewater. The Agency notes this is very similar to the 
language used in the Metal Finishing effluent guidelines (40 CFR part 
433). EPA solicits comment on this approach.
    19. Compliance Cost for BAT Facilities. EPA has based the numeric 
limitations for today's proposed rule on wastewater sampling analytical 
data from facilities that the Agency believes to be operating ``best 
available technology.'' This includes pollution prevention and water 
conservation practices as well as wastewater treatment systems. 
However, because EPA uses more than one facility to determine the 
achievable long-term average concentrations and variability factors 
(see Section VIII.B for a discussion on calculation of limits), not all 
model facilities are achieving the long-term average concentrations for 
all pollutants in their wastewater at all times. Therefore, EPA has 
included compliance costs to enhance these model BAT facilities to meet 
the proposed long-term average concentrations for all regulated 
pollutants. For example, model BAT facilities may incur costs for 
additional operational controls or for additional equipment or chemical 
additives that will allow them to target more than one metal type in 
their wastewater treatment system. EPA solicits comment on this 
approach and the adequacy of operational changes and treatment 
enhancements for BAT facilities to consistently and reliably achieve 
full compliance with proposed limitations. EPA also solicits comment 
and data on additional costs that model BAT facilities may incur that 
EPA has not included in the cost model for this proposal.
    20. Space Limitations. EPA solicits comment on the extent to which 
a MP&M facility can install or upgrade its current treatment system to 
meet the proposed limits within the space they currently occupy. More 
specifically, when facilities are located in urban areas with little 
space for expansion, can facilities still install the treatment 
necessary (consider the inclusion of pollution prevention and water 
conservation practices) to meet the proposed limits. If not, can such 
facilities use pollution prevention and water conservation practices 
and install microfiltration systems instead of installing or enlarging 
their existing clarifiers within the space they currently occupy?
    21. Segregation of Waste Streams. EPA solicits comment and 
information on the problems/ issues with segregation of waste streams 
for performing preliminary treatment steps as described in section 
VIII. EPA is especially interested in data on the costs associated with 
retrofitting equipment to segregate waste streams.
    22. Revision to POTW Removals. EPA uses the pollutant by pollutant 
percent removals achieved by POTWs (national average of well-operated 
POTWs with secondary treatment) to give credit to the pretreatment 
system and to conduct the ``Pass Through'' analysis for selecting 
regulated parameters for pretreatment standards.
    In calculating the pollutant removals achieved by the selected 
technology option for today's proposed rule (for wastewater generated 
by indirect dischargers), EPA does not take ``credit'' for removing the 
portion of pollutant loadings that are currently removed by the POTWs. 
In addition, EPA performs a comparison of the percentage of a pollutant 
removed by POTWs with the percentage of the pollutant removed by 
discharging facilities applying EPA's selected technology option (BAT). 
In most cases, (particularly for metals and non-volatile organics) EPA 
has concluded that a pollutant passes through the POTW when the median 
percentage removed nationwide by representative POTWs (those meeting 
secondary treatment requirements) is less than the median percentage 
removed by facilities complying with BAT effluent limitations 
guidelines for that pollutant. EPA notes that the Pass Through Analysis 
uses a different standard for ``pass through'' than that used by POTWs 
to determine compliance with the General Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR 
part 403).
    Recently, EPA has revisited the databases used (see Section XII.A 
for a discussion of the databases and the editing criteria used) to 
determine the

[[Page 534]]

percent removal of pollutants achieved by the national average of well-
operated POTWs. Previously, EPA edited data at or near the minimum 
level for POTW performance based on the editing criteria used to 
calculate BAT limitations. EPA is considering revising the POTW data 
editing criteria. Given the range of analytical minimum levels and 
their influence on calculated percent removals, EPA is considering 
several editing alternatives, detailed in section XIV. The Agency 
solicits comments on potential revisions to the pass-through 
methodology.
    23. Toxic Weighting Factors. EPA has developed Toxic Weighting 
Factors (TWFs) using a combination of toxicity data on human health and 
aquatic life. EPA develops TWFs relative to the toxicity of copper. 
(See section XVII or the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Document for this 
proposed rule for a more detailed discussion of toxic weighting 
factors). TWFs are multipliers that are applied to the mass of 
pollutants discharged (or removed) to generate toxic-weighted pound-
equivalents. EPA uses toxic pound-equivalents to indicate the amount of 
toxicity that a pollutant may exert on human health and aquatic life 
relative to other pollutants. Conventional pollutants such as BOD, TSS, 
Oil & Grease (as HEM) and other bulk parameters do not have toxic 
weighting factors. As scientists and researchers develop and publish 
new human health and aquatic toxicity data for various pollutants, EPA 
must revise the TWFs. EPA has documented the changes to TWFs in the 
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis document for this proposed rule. EPA 
solicits comment on these changes.
    24. Phosphoric Acid Cleaning. In regards to the applicability of 
the Oily Wastes subcategory, EPA is soliciting comment on the 
differences in metals content of wastewater generated from ``light'' 
phosphoric acid operations (such as some phosphoric acid etching 
operations and cleaning operations using phosphoric acid solutions) and 
from phosphate conversion coating. EPA is considering including 
phosphoric acid etching and cleaning using phosphoric acid solutions in 
the definition of ``oily operations'' discussed in section VI.C.6. 
However, the Agency is not considering the inclusion of phosphate 
conversion coating as one of the ``oily operations.'' Based on EPA's 
database for this proposal, EPA believes that wastewater generated from 
phosphate conversion coating operations contains high levels of zinc 
and manganese. EPA is especially interested in analytical data from 
sampling wastewater that is representative of either of these 
operations.
    25. Organics Management Plan for Oily Wastes Subcategory. EPA 
solicits comment on whether sites with significant amounts of oil-
bearing wastewater (for example, a facility in the Oily Wastes 
subcategory) should be eligible for the use of an organic pollutant 
management plan as described Section XXI.C.2. Based on the current data 
base, EPA believes that wastewater generated by facilities in the Oily 
Wastes subcategory require end-of-pipe treatment to reduce the 
concentrations of organic pollutants and that an organic management 
plan alone may not adequately control organic-bearing wastewater at 
facilities containing significant quantities of oil-bearing wastewater.
    26. NSPS and PSNS Technology Option. EPA is proposing NSPS and PSNS 
for the General Metals, Metal Finishing Job Shops, Printed Wiring 
Board, and Steel Forming and Finishing subcategories based on BAT 
Option 4. This proposed option includes in-process flow control and 
pollution prevention, segregation of wastewater streams, preliminary 
treatment steps as necessary (including oils removal by 
ultrafiltration), chemical precipitation using lime or sodium 
hydroxide, and solids separation using a microfilter. The Agency also 
strongly considered proposing NSPS and PSNS for these subcategories 
based on ultrafiltration for oil and grease removal and chemical 
precipitation followed by sedimentation for TSS and metals removal. 
This option is equivalent to BAT Option 2 with the oil/water separator 
replaced by an ultrafilter. The Agency is soliciting comment and data 
on this option for NSPS and PSNS for the final rule.
    27. Total Sulfide. EPA is soliciting comment on the appropriate 
analytical method for analyzing total sulfide in wastewater from MP&M 
facilities, specifically in regard to interferences from reducing 
agents or organic chemicals present in the wastewater. The Agency used 
EPA Method 376.1 for seven wastewater sampling episodes, EPA Method 
376.2 at one episode, and Standard Method 4500-S2 for three sampling 
episodes that were performed for EPA by a local POTW. Stakeholders have 
suggested that presence of reducing agents and organic chemicals can 
interfere with EPA Method 376.1, leading to over estimates of total 
sulfide.
    EPA performed matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate recoveries as 
part of its QA/QC procedures on these samples. If the matrix spike is 
recovered quantitatively (e.g., 75-125%), it is unlikely that an 
interference is present. The data narratives for these samples did not 
cite any QA/QC outliers. However, some interferences could still be 
present. (The data narratives can be found in section 5.2 of the public 
record.) EPA intends to perform additional sampling for total sulfide 
following this proposal using both EPA Method 376.1 and 376.2. EPA 
notes that it collected the data used for estimating total sulfide 
pollutant loadings in raw wastewater (i.e., in wastewater from MP&M 
unit operations) at sampling points located prior to treatment 
technologies which introduce reducing agents (i.e., chelation 
breaking). In addition, the data that EPA used to develop the numerical 
limitation for total sulfide was from a site that did not add reducing 
agents to treat its wastewater.
    EPA solicits comment on the various sulfide methods and whether 
these methods are appropriate for analytical wastewater sampling at 
MP&M facilities. EPA also solicits raw wastewater and treatment 
performance data for total sulfide.
    28. Limits for the Non-Chromium Anodizing Subcategory. EPA is 
soliciting comment on two issues relating to the proposed limitations 
for the Non-Chromium Anodizing subcategory. These two issues are 
discussed below.
    EPA is proposing an effluent limitation for aluminum applicable to 
existing and new direct dischargers in the Non-Chromium Anodizing 
subcategory. Because EPA does not have data from any direct discharging 
non-chromium anodizers, it based the proposed aluminum limitation on 
two indirect discharging non-chromium anodizers. However, the Agency 
does not believe that these indirect discharging facilities were 
achieving effluent levels of aluminum that reflect BAT. Because 
aluminum assists in the flocculation of wastewater at POTWs prior to 
sedimentation, many POTWs do not set stringent pretreatment standards 
for aluminum from non-chromium anodizers. EPA is not proposing 
pretreatment standards for aluminum in today's proposal for that 
reason. In addition, neither the Electroplating (40 CFR part 413) nor 
the Metal Finishing (40 CFR part 433) effluent guidelines contain 
pretreatment standards for aluminum. Therefore, the Agency does not 
believe that these two facilities targeted aluminum in their wastewater 
treatment operations. EPA believes that a non-chromium anodizer 
employing Option 2 technologies can achieve effluent concentrations of 
aluminum much lower than those proposed today. Therefore, EPA is 
soliciting data and

[[Page 535]]

comment on effective removal of aluminum from non-chromium anodizing 
wastestreams. See section XXIV for guidelines for submitting analytical 
data.
    EPA is proposing effluent limitations for new and existing direct 
dischargers for manganese, nickel and zinc for facilities in the Non-
Chromium Anodizing subcategory. The Agency based these effluent 
limitations on facilities in the General Metals subcategory employing 
the Option 2 treatment technology because it did not have adequate 
wastewater treatment information on these metals from non-chromium 
anodizing facilities. EPA solicits data and comment on the treatment of 
manganese, nickel, and zinc from non-chromium anodizing facilities 
employing Option 2 treatment. See section XXIV for guidelines for 
submitting analytical data.
    29. Limits for the Printed Wiring Subcategory. EPA is proposing 
effluent limitations for chromium, copper, lead, and zinc for existing 
facilities in the Printed Wiring Boards subcategory. The Agency based 
these effluent limitations on facilities in the General Metals 
subcategory employing the Option 2 treatment technology because it did 
not have adequate wastewater treatment information on these metals from 
printed wiring board facilities employing Option 2 treatment. EPA 
solicits data and comment on the treatment of chromium, copper, lead, 
and zinc at printed wiring board facilities employing Option 2 
treatment. See section XXIV for guidelines for submitting analytical 
data.
    30. Cyanide Loadings and Removals. EPA solicits comment and data 
(at the point directly following cyanide destruction treatment) on 
achievable effluent concentrations of cyanide (or amenable cyanide) 
from MP&M facilities that are currently regulated under the Metal 
Finishing effluent guidelines (40 CFR part 433). EPA's Design & Cost 
Model for the MP&M rule estimates pollutant loadings for the industry 
before and after compliance with the proposed regulation. For the 
purposes of estimating baseline loadings (i.e., current discharges) for 
model facilities (i.e., survey sites) currently covered by the Metal 
Finishing or Electroplating effluent guidelines that indicated in their 
survey questionnaire that they both generate wastewater from cyanide-
bearing operations and have cyanide treatment in place, EPA assumed 
that these sites were achieving the LTA concentrations achieved by 
EPA's sampled MP&M BAT facilities (sampled at the point directly 
following cyanide destruction treatment).
    For model sites currently covered by the Metal Finishing or 
Electroplating effluent guidelines that indicated in their survey 
questionnaire that they generate wastewater from cyanide-bearing 
operations but did not indicate that they have cyanide treatment in 
place, EPA used information from EPA sampling of cyanide bearing units 
operations (i.e., raw wastewater loads) to estimate baseline loads 
prior to implementing the technology option under consideration (note 
that cyanide loadings were not analyzed separately by subcategory). On 
a national basis, EPA estimates that 65% (2,315) of MP&M facilities 
discharging cyanide-bearing wastewater do not have treatment in place 
for cyanide destruction. EPA based this national estimate on responses 
to survey questionnaires. This methodology implicitly assumes that many 
of these facilities may not be achieving the cyanide removals that were 
projected for the Metal Finishing and Electroplating effluent 
guidelines. In addition to the request for data above, EPA also 
requests comment on its method for determining baseline cyanide 
loadings. (See Section 6.5 of the public record for a memorandum that 
includes a table of the comparison of cyanide using sites versus 
cyanide treating sites.)
    31. Subcategorization. EPA explains its rationale for its proposed 
subcategorization scheme in section VI. EPA is proposing to subdivide 
the MP&M industrial category into the following 8 subcategories: 
General Metals, Metal Finishing Job Shops, Non-Chromium Anodizing, 
Printed Wiring Boards, Steel Forming and Finishing, Oily Wastes, 
Railroad Line Maintenance, and Shipbuilding Dry Dock. The Agency 
believes its proposed subcategories make sense, but requests comment on 
other possible subcategories. Commenters should include data to support 
their suggestions where possible.
    32. Cost Savings Associated with Pollution Prevention and Water 
Conservation. As discussed in section VIII, EPA's proposed technology 
options include the incorporation of water conservation techniques and 
pollution prevention technologies. In all cases, EPA's options that 
incorporated these technologies and practices costed less and removed 
more pollutants than those options that did not. EPA requests comment 
on its determination that pollution prevention, recycle, and water 
conservation result in net cost savings to facilities, and examples of 
any specific situations where this may not be true.
    33. Assessment of Treatment System Performance. As discussed in 
section VIII, EPA excluded data from chemical precipitation and 
clarification systems at which the concentration of most of the metals 
present in the influent stream did not decrease, indicating poor 
treatment. Although EPA believes this is an appropriate practice, in 
order to focus on facilities with well-run treatment systems, it also 
introduces a risk of biasing estimates of treatment effectiveness 
upwards with respect to identifying pollutant removals on a national 
basis. If a particular metal is not able to be effectively removed by a 
particular treatment train, but its concentration fluctuates randomly 
over time in both the influent and the effluent, then retaining only 
data showing positive ``removals'' may give a misleading impression of 
effectiveness of that treatment technology nationally. Some commenters 
have raised this issue in the past particularly with respect to boron, 
which those commenters believe is not effectively removed by certain 
treatment trains where EPA's data (edited to include only decreases) 
appears to show removals. EPA is continuing to assess this concern both 
with regards to metals in general and with regards to boron in 
particular. EPA requests comment on this issue and suggestions for 
addressing it.
    34. Flow Cutoff Level for the General Metals Subcategory. As 
explained in sections XII and XIII, EPA is proposing a 1 MGY flow 
cutoff for existing and new indirect discharging facilities in the 
General Metals subcategory. EPA requests comment on the 1 MGY flow 
cutoff and whether a higher or lower cutoff would be appropriate. EPA 
also requests comment on whether the flow cutoff should be different 
for facilities currently covered under 40 CFR Part 413 or 433 and 
whether or not that would create an unfair economic advantage for those 
facilities (e.g., captive electroplating shops in General Metals 
remaining regulated under 40 CFR Part 433 but Metal Finishing Job Shops 
being regulated under the proposed MP&M rule).
    35. Flow Cutoff Level for the Metal Finishing Job Shops 
Subcategory. As explained in sections XII and XIII, EPA is not 
proposing a flow cutoff for existing or new indirect discharging 
facilities in the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory. The Agency 
concluded that the pollutant reductions associated with the proposed 
option (Option 2) were feasible and achievable and the economic impacts 
were not substantially mitigated under the 1 MGY flow cutoff. EPA 
requests

[[Page 536]]

comment on the use of a flow cutoff for this subcategory.
    36. Flow Cutoff Level for the Printed Wiring Board Subcategory. As 
explained in sections XII and XIII, EPA is not proposing a flow cutoff 
for existing or new indirect discharging facilities in the Printed 
Wiring Board subcategory. The Agency concluded that the pollutant 
reductions associated with the proposed option (Option 2) were feasible 
and achievable and the economic impacts were not mitigated at a 1 MGY 
flow cutoff for this subcategory. The Agency solicits comments on a 1 
MGY flow cutoff. Under this scenario, existing regulation would 
continue to apply. EPA solicits comment on the implementation and 
market consequences of this option.
    37. Flow Cutoff Level for the Steel Forming and Finishing 
Subcategory. As explained in sections XII and XIII, EPA is not 
proposing a flow cutoff for existing or new indirect discharging 
facilities in the Steel Forming and Finishing subcategory. However, EPA 
solicits comment on flow cutoffs at the 1, 2, and 3 MGY levels. Under 
these flow cutoff scenarios, existing regulations would continue to 
apply. EPA solicits comment on implementation and market consequences 
of these options.
    38. Flow Cutoff Level for the Oily Wastes Subcategory. As explained 
in sections XII and XIII, EPA is proposing a 2 MGY flow cutoff for 
existing and new indirect discharging facilities in the Oily Wastes 
subcategory. It is proposing the 2 MGY flow cutoff primarily to reduce 
the burden on POTWs, and solicits comment on a 3 MGY cutoff.
    39. For the General Metals, Metal Finishing Job Shops, Printed 
Wiring Boards, and Steel Forming and Finishing subcategories, EPA is 
proposing new source performance standards and pretreatment standards 
for new sources based on Option 4. EPA noted in section IX in the 
discussion of its consideration of this technology for BPT/BAT for each 
of these subcategories that it is not being proposed for BPT because 
the additional removals, while large when considered across the entire 
population of existing facilities, were not significant on a per 
facility basis, and because of concerns with potential increased 
loadings (relative to Option 2) of COD and organic pollutants. EPA 
requests comment on basing NSPS on Option 2 for the above subcategories 
for the same reasons it is proposing to base BPT/BAT on Option 2.
    40. Monitoring Costs. In estimating annual monitoring costs for 
model facilities in EPA's MP&M Design and Cost Model, the Agency 
assumed that facilities meeting local limitations or national effluent 
limitation guidelines and pretreatment standards will already incur 
monitoring costs. EPA solicits comment on whether the facilities will 
incur additional monitoring costs to comply with today's proposal (and 
how much that monitoring would cost). EPA has incorporated several 
options for adding additional flexibility in regards to monitoring (See 
Section XXI.C for a discussion on monitoring flexibility). EPA expects 
that these proposed flexibilities will decrease the overall burden and 
costs of analytical wastewater monitoring for facilities within the 
scope of this rule.
    41. Cash Flow Assumption. As discussed in Section XVI, baseline 
cash flow is defined as the sum of reported net income and 
depreciation. The measure is widely used within industry in evaluating 
capital investment decisions because both net income and depreciation 
(which is an accounting offset against income, but not an actual cash 
expenditure) are potentially available to finance future investment. 
However, assuming that total baseline cash flow is available over an 
extended time horizon (for example, 15 years) to finance investments 
related to environmental compliance could overstate a site's ability to 
comply. In particular, the cost of existing capital equipment (not 
associated with regulatory compliance) is not netted out of cash flow, 
as it is of income through the subtraction of depreciation. Thus, any 
costs associated with either replacing existing capital equipment, or 
repaying money that was previously borrowed to pay for it, are omitted 
from the facility analysis. EPA requests comment on its use of cash 
flow as a measure of resources available to finance environmental 
compliance and suggestions for alternative methodologies. (See Section 
XXII of today's notice.)
    42. Alternatives for Establishing Permit Effluent Limitations and 
Standards for the Steel Forming and Finishing subcategory. As discussed 
in Section XXI.B, EPA is soliciting comment on several alternative 
approaches for the development of mass-based limitations for the Steel 
Forming and Finishing subcategory. These approaches may result in more 
stringent mass-based permits/control mechanisms for some facilities 
with better protection of the environment for the entire life of a 
permit/control mechanism and may result in higher costs. Each 
alternative requires that production from unit operations that do not 
generate or discharge process wastewater shall not be included in the 
calculation of operating rates. EPA solicits comments on these 
alternatives to the proposed production basis for calculating effluent 
limitations and pretreatment standards used in NPDES permits or control 
mechanisms. In particular, the Agency solicits comments on related 
costs and any technical difficulties that steel forming and finishing 
facilities might have in meeting limits during short periods of high 
production. EPA also solicits other options for consideration including 
whether to allow concentration-based limits for this subcategory and 
any rationale for doing so.
    43. Benefit Analysis. As explained in Section XX, benefits analyses 
for past effluent guidelines have been limited in the range of benefits 
addressed which has hindered EPA's ability to compare the benefits and 
costs of rules comprehensively. The Agency is working to improve its 
benefits analyses, including applying methodologies that have now 
become well established in the natural resources valuation field, but 
have not been used previously in the effluent guidelines program. EPA 
was particularly interested in expanding its benefits analysis for this 
rule to include water-based recreational activities other than fishing. 
EPA has therefore expanded upon its traditional methodologies in the 
benefits analysis for the proposed MP&M rule. Past effluent guidelines 
analyses have included human health benefits, economic productivity 
benefits such as reduced costs for POTW sludge disposal, recreational 
benefits for fishing, and nonuse values. The additional analysis 
contained in this rule expands on the traditional analysis by adding 
benefits to participants in boating, swimming, and viewing (i.e., near-
water recreation). Because EPA has not yet resolved some anomalies in 
the extrapolation of the analysis to the national level, the monetized 
benefits for these new categories are not included in the summary 
statements of benefits for the proposed rule. However, EPA is including 
these analyses in the EEBA to present the new methodologies and their 
results as applied to the MP&M rule for public comment.
    Although EPA is confident in the sample-based results, EPA believes 
that the large number of viewers and boaters projected to benefit from 
the rule at the national level may indicate a need to revise its 
procedures for scaling up from sampled facilities to the national 
level. This simple extrapolation technique used in both the cost and 
benefit analyses may bias both estimates and may have the unintended 
effect of overcounting the number of benefitting

[[Page 537]]

boaters and wildlife viewers. EPA recognizes that extrapolating from 
sample facility to national results introduces uncertainty in the 
analysis and is continuing to explore ways to reduce this uncertainty. 
The Agency is requesting comment on the methods used to extrapolate 
sample results to national benefit estimates. EPA is also specifically 
soliciting comment on several of the other methodological approaches 
used in the new analysis including the benefits transfer of values from 
studies that did not specifically address boating and wildlife viewing 
to these activities, and the extent to which activities such as 
recreational boating and wildlife viewing are applicable to children. 
EPA may include additional categories of monetized benefits estimates 
based on these new methodologies, as revised based on comment and peer 
review, in its economic analysis for the final rule.

XXIV. Guidelines for Submission of Analytical Data

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

A. Types of Data Requested

    1. EPA requests paired influent and effluent treatment data for 
each of the technologies identified in the technology options 
(especially in cases where paired data will be helpful in assessing 
variability), as well as any additional technologies applicable to the 
treatment of MP&M wastewater. This includes end-of-pipe treatment 
technologies and in-process treatment, recycling, water reuse, or metal 
recovery technologies. Submission of effluent data only is not 
sufficient for full analysis; the corresponding influent data must be 
provided.
    For submissions of paired influent and effluent treatment data, a 
minimum of four days of data are required for EPA to assess 
variability. Submissions of paired influent and effluent treatment data 
should include: a process diagram of the treatment system; treatment 
chemical addition rates; sampling point locations; sample collection 
dates; influent and effluent flow rates for each treatment unit during 
the sampling period; sludge or waste oil generation rates; a brief 
discussion of the treatment technology sampled; and a list of unit 
operations contributing to the sampled wastestream. EPA requests data 
for systems that are treating only process wastewater. Systems treating 
non-process wastewater (e.g., sanitary wastewater or non-contact 
cooling water) will not be evaluated by EPA. In addition to data for 
the analytes discussed below, data for total suspended solids (TSS) and 
pH must be included with submissions of treatment data. If available, 
information on capital cost, annual (operation and maintenance) cost, 
and treatment capacity should be included for each treatment unit 
within the system.
    2. EPA also requests flow, production, and analytical data from 
MP&M unit operations, rinses, and wet air pollution control devices. 
Submissions of analytical data for MP&M unit operations and rinses 
should include a process diagram of the unit operation; a description 
of the purpose and performance of the operation; production data 
associated with the sampling period; flow rates associated with the 
sampling period (i.e., continuous discharge flow rates, intermittent 
discharge rates and frequencies, or volume of bath and time of last 
discharge for stagnant baths); sample type (grab or composite); 
temperature and pH of each sample; sample collection dates; known 
process bath constituents; sampling point locations; and, the volume, 
discharge frequency, and destination of all process wastewater, waste 
oil, or sludge generated by the unit operation.
    Associated production data should be provided in the following 
units: mass of metal removed (for abrasive jet machining, electrical 
discharge machining, grinding, machining, and plasma arc machining 
operations), in standard cubic feet of air flow (for wet air pollution 
control operations), or surface area of parts processed (for all other 
unit operations). Flow, production, and analytical data should all 
correspond to the same period of time. When applicable, a description 
of any pollution prevention technologies used at the site for the unit 
operations, including cost savings and pollution reduction estimates 
should be provided.

B. Analytes Requested

    EPA considered metal, organic, conventional, and other 
nonconventional pollutant parameters for regulation under the MP&M 
Category. Based on analytical data collected, the Agency initially 
identified 132 pollutant parameters as MP&M ``pollutants of concern.'' 
Complete lists of pollutant parameters considered for regulation and 
pollutants of concern (as well as the criteria used to identify each of 
these pollutant parameters) are briefly discussed in Section VII and 
fully discussed the Technical Development Document for this proposal. 
The Agency requests analytical data for any of the 132 pollutants of 
concern and for any other pollutant parameters which commentors believe 
are of concern in the MP&M industry. TSS and pH data are requested for 
all samples. Table XXIV-1 presents the EPA analytical methods for these 
pollutants. Commentors should use these methods or equivalent methods 
for analyses, and should document the method used for all data 
submissions.

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

    EPA based today's proposed regulations on analytical data collected 
by EPA using rigorous QA/QC checks. These QA/QC checks include 
procedures specified in each of the analytical methods, as well as 
procedures used for the MP&M sampling program in accordance with EPA 
sampling and analysis protocols. The Agency requests that submissions 
of analytical data include documentation of QA/QC procedures.
    EPA followed the QA/QC procedures specified in the analytical 
methods listed in Table XXIV-1. These QA/QC procedures include sample 
preservation and the use of method blanks, matrix spikes, matrix spike 
duplicates, laboratory duplicate samples, and Q standard checks (e.g., 
continuing calibration blanks). EPA requests that sites provide 
detection limits for all non-detected pollutants. EPA also requests 
that composite samples be collected for all flowing wastewater streams 
(except for analyses requiring grab samples, such as oil and grease), 
sites collect and analyze 10 percent field duplicate samples to assess 
sampling variability, and sites provide data for equipment blanks for 
volatile organic pollutants when automatic compositors are used to 
collect samples.

         Table XXIV-1.--EPA Analytical Methods for Use With MP&M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  EPA
                          Parameter                              method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acidity......................................................      305.1
Alkalinity...................................................      310.1
Ammonia as Nitrogen..........................................      350.1
BOD 5-Day (Carbonaceous).....................................      405.1
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD).................................      410.1
                                                                   410.2
Chloride.....................................................      325.3
Cyanide, Total...............................................      335.2
Cyanide, Amenable............................................      335.1
Fluoride.....................................................      340.2
Metals.......................................................       1620

[[Page 538]]

 
Volatile Organics............................................       1624
Semivolatile Organics........................................       1625
Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl.....................................      351.2
Oil and Grease...............................................      413.2
Oil and Grease (as HEM)......................................       1664
pH...........................................................      150.1
Phenolics, Total Recoverable.................................      420.2
Phosphorus, Total............................................      365.4
Sulfate......................................................      375.4
Sulfide, Total...............................................      376.2
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS).................................      160.1
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)...................................      415.1
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (as SGT-HEM)....................       1664
Total Suspended Solids (TSS).................................      160.2
Weak-Acid Dissociable Cyanide................................       1677
Ziram........................................................      630.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix A to the Preamble--Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Other 
Terms Used in This Document

Act--The Clean Water Act
Agency--U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
AWQC--Ambient Water Quality Criteria
BAT--Best available technology economically achievable, as defined 
by section 304(b)(2)(B) of the Act.
BCT--Best conventional pollutant control technology, as defined by 
section 304(b)(4) of the Act.
BMP--Best management practices, as defined by section 304(e) of the 
Act.
BPT--Best practicable control technology currently available, as 
defined by section 304(b)(1) of the Act.
CAA--Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et. seq., as amended)
CBI--Confidential Business Information
Clean Water Act--(33 U.S.C 1251 et. seq., as amended)
Conventional Pollutants--Constituents of wastewater as determined by 
section 304(a)(4) of the Act and the regulations thereunder 40 CFR 
401.16, including pollutants classified as biochemical oxygen 
demand, suspended solids, oil and grease, fecal coliform, and pH.
CE--Cost Effectiveness
DAF--Dissolved Air Flotation
Direct Discharger--An industrial discharger that introduces 
wastewater to a water of the United States with or without treatment 
by the discharger.
EEA--Economic and Environmental Impact Assessment of the Proposed 
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Metal Products 
& Machinery Industry. This document presents the methodology 
employed to assess economic and environmental impacts of the 
proposed rule and the results of the analysis.
Effluent Limitation--A maximum amount, per unit of time, production, 
volume or other unit, of each specific constituent of the effluent 
from an existing point source that is subject to limitation. 
Effluent limitations may be expressed as a mass loading or as a 
concentration in milligrams of pollutant per liter discharged.
End-of-Pipe Treatment--Refers to those processes that treat a plant 
waste stream for pollutant removal prior to discharge.
FTE--Full Time Equivalents (related to the number of employees)
HAP--Hazardous Air Pollutant
HEM--Hexane Extractable Material refers to an analytical method (EPA 
Method 1664) for determining the level of oil and grease that does 
not use Freon extraction.
Indirect Discharger--An industrial discharger that introduces 
wastewater into a publicly owned treatment works.
MP&M--Metal Products and Machinery point source category
NCEPI--EPA's National Center for Environmental Publications
NESHAP--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NRMRL--EPA's National Risk Management Research Laboratory (formerly 
RREL--EPA's Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory).
MACT--Maximum Achievable Control Technology (applicable to NESHAPs) 
Nonconventional Pollutants--Pollutants that have not been designated 
as either conventional pollutants or priority pollutants.
NPDES--National Pollutant Discharge Elimination system, a Federal 
Program requiring industry dischargers, including municipalities, to 
obtain permits to discharge pollutants to the nation's water, under 
section 402 of the Act.
OCPSF--Organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers 
manufacturing point source category (40 CFR part 414).
ORP--Oxidation-Reduction Potential
POTW--Publicly owned treatment works.
Priority Pollutants--The 126 pollutants listed in 40 CFR part 423, 
appendix A.
PPA--Pollutant Prevention Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq., Pub. 
L. 101-508, November 5, 1990)
PSES--Pretreatment Standards for existing sources of indirect 
discharges, under section 307(b) of the Act.
PSNS--Pretreatment standards for new sources of indirect discharges, 
under sections 307 (b) and (c) of the Act.
SIC--Standards Industrial Classification, a numerical categorization 
scheme used by the U.S. Department of Commerce to denote segments of 
industry.
SGP--EPA's National Metal Finishing Strategic Goals Program.
SGT-HEM--Silica Gel Treated--Hexane Extractable Material refers to 
the freon-free oil and grease method (EPA Method 1664) used to 
measure the portion of oil and grease that is similar to total 
petroleum hydrocarbons.
SIU--Significant Industrial User as defined in the General 
Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR part 403)
Technical Development Document (TDD)--Development Document for 
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Metal Products 
and Machinery Point Source Category.
TOC--Total Organic Carbon (EPA method 415.1)
TOP--Total Organics Parameter
TRI--Toxic Release Inventory
TTO--Total Toxic Organics as defined in the Metal Finishing effluent 
guidelines (40 CFR part 433).
TWF--Toxic Weighting Factor
VOC--Volatile Organic Compound

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 413

    Environmental protection, Electroplating, Metals, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal, Water 
pollution control.

40 CFR Part 433

    Environmental protection, Metals, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control.

40 CFR Part 438

    Environmental protection, Metals, Waste treatment and disposal, 
Water pollution control.

40 CFR Part 463

    Environmental protection, Plastics materials and synthetics, Waste 
treatment and disposal, Water pollution control.

40 CFR Part 464

    Environmental protection, Metals, Waste treatment and disposal, 
Water pollution control.

40 CFR Part 467

    Environmental protection, Aluminum, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control.

40 CFR Part 471

    Environmental protection, Metals, Waste treatment and disposal, 
Water pollution control.

    Dated: October 31, 2000.
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 as follows:

PART 413--ELECTROPLATING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY

    1. The authority citation for Part 413 is revised to read as 
follows:

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

    2. Section 413.01 is amended by revising the first and last 
sentence of paragraph (a) to read as follows:

[[Page 539]]

Sec. 413.01  Applicability and compliance dates.

    (a) As defined more specifically in each subpart, this part applies 
to discharges resulting from electroplating operations in which a metal 
is electroplated on any basis material and to related metal finishing 
operations as set forth in the various subparts, whether such 
operations are conducted in conjunction with electroplating, 
independently, or as part of some other operation. * * * This part does 
not apply to any facility that must achieve the standards or 
limitations in 40 CFR 433.15 (Metal Finishing PSES) or 40 CFR part 438 
(Metal Products & Machinery).
* * * * *

PART 433--METAL FINISHING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY

    3. The authority citation for Part 433 is revised to read as 
follows:

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

    4. Section 433.10 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 433.10  Applicability; description of the metal finishing point 
source category.

* * * * *
    (b) In some cases, effluent limitations and standards for other 
industrial categories may be applicable to wastewater discharges from 
the metal finishing operations listed in paragraph (a) of this section. 
In such cases, the effluent limitations and standards for this part do 
not apply and the metal finishing operations are subject to the 
provisions of one of the following categories:

 Iron and Steel (40 CFR part 420);
 Nonferrous Metals Smelting and Refining (40 CFR part 421);
 Metal Products and Machinery (40 CFR part 438);
Battery Manufacturing (40 CFR part 461);
Plastic Molding and Forming (40 CFR part 463);
Metal Casting Foundries (40 CFR part 464);
Coil Coating (40 CFR part 465);
Porcelain Enameling (40 CFR part 466);
Aluminum Forming (40 CFR part 467);
Copper Forming (40 CFR part 468);
Electrical and Electronic Components (40 CFR part 469); and
Nonferrous Metals Forming (40 CFR part 471).
* * * * *
    5. A new part 438 is proposed to be added to read as follows:

PART 438--METAL PRODUCTS AND MACHINERY POINT SOURCE CATEGORY

Sec.
438.1   General applicability.
438.2   General definitions.
438.3   General pretreatment standards.
438.4   Monitoring requirements.
438.5   Compliance date for pretreatment standards for existing 
sources.
Subpart A--General Metals
438.10   Applicability.
438.12   Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
438.13   Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best 
control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
438.14   Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
438.15   Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
438.16   New source performance standards (NSPS).
438.17   Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart B--Metal Finishing Job Shops
438.20   Applicability.
438.21   Special definitions.
438.22   Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
438.23   Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best 
control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
438.24   Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
438.25   Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
438.26   New source performance standards (NSPS).
438.27   Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart C--Non-Chromium Anodizing
438.30   Applicability.
438.31   Special definitions.
438.32   Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
438.33   Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best 
control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
438.34   Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
438.36   New source performance standards (NSPS).
Subpart D--Printed Wiring Boards
438.40   Applicability.
438.42   Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
438.43   Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best 
control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
438.44   Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
438.45   Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
438.46   New source performance standards (NSPS).
438.47   Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart E--Steel Forming and Finishing
438.50   Applicability.
438.51   Special definitions.
438.52   Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
438.53   Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best 
control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
438.54   Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
438.55   Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
438.56   New source performance standards (NSPS).
438.57   Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
438.58   Calculation of NPDES and pretreatment permit effluent 
limitations.
Subpart F--Oily Wastes
438.60   Applicability.
438.61   Special definitions.
438.62   Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
438.63   Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best 
control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
438.64   Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
438.65   Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
438.66   New source performance standards (NSPS).
438.67   Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart G--Railroad Line Maintenance
438.70   Applicability.
438.72   Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
438.73   Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best 
control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
438.76   New source performance standards (NSPS).
Subpart H--Shipbuilding Dry Docks
438.80   Applicability.
438.81   Special definitions.
438.82   Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable

[[Page 540]]

control technology currently available (BPT).
438.83   Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best 
control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
438.86   New source performance standards (NSPS).

Appendix A to Part 438--Typical Products In Metal Products & Machinery 
Sectors

Appendix B to Part 438--TOP Pollutants List

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


Sec. 438.1  General applicability.

    (a)(1) As defined more specifically in each subpart, except as 
provided in paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) of this 
section, this part applies to process wastewater discharges from 
existing or new industrial sites (including facilities owned and 
operated by federal, state, or local governments) engaged in 
manufacturing, rebuilding, or maintenance of metal parts, products or 
machines for use in the Metal Product & Machinery (MP&M) industrial 
sectors listed in this section. A list of typical products found in 
each of the 18 industrial sectors is provided in Appendix A to this 
part. The MP&M Industrial Sectors consist of the following:

Aerospace;
Aircraft;
Bus and Truck;
Electronic Equipment;
Hardware;
Household Equipment;
Instruments;
Job Shops;
Mobile Industrial Equipment;
Motor Vehicle;
Office Machine;
Ordnance;
Precious Metals and Jewelry;
Printed Wiring Boards;
Railroad;
Ships and Boats;
Stationary Industrial Equipment; or
Miscellaneous Metal Products.

    (2) This part also applies to mixed-use facilities, as described in 
paragraph (h) of this section.
    (b) The regulations in this part do not apply to wastewater 
discharges which are subject to the limitations and standards of one or 
more of the following categories:

(1) Iron and steel manufacturing (40 CFR part 420).
(2) Nonferrous metals manufacturing (40 CFR part 421).
(3) Ferroalloy manufacturing (40 CFR part 424).
(4) Battery manufacturing (40 CFR part 461).
(5) Plastic molding and forming (40 CFR part 463).
(6) Metal molding and casting (40 CFR part 464).
(7) Coil coating (40 CFR part 465).
(8) Porcelain enameling (40 CFR part 466).
(9) Aluminum forming (40 CFR part 467).
(10) Copper forming (40 CFR part 468).
(11) Electrical and electronic components (40 CFR part 469).
(12) Nonferrous metals forming and metal powders (40 CFR part 271).

    (c) When a facility discharges process wastewater that is subject 
to the general applicability of this part and the facility discharges 
other wastewater that is subject to the limitations and standards of 
one or more of the categories listed in paragraph (b) of this section, 
the facility must comply with both the provisions of this part and 
other parts, as applicable.
    (d) Facilities other than those reasonably included in the 18 MP&M 
industrial sectors specified in paragraph (a) of this section are not 
subject to this part when discharges from the maintenance or repair of 
metal parts or machines at the facility are performed only as ancillary 
activities.
    (e) Wastewater discharges generated from electroplating during 
semi-conductor wafer manufacturing in a ``clean room'' environment are 
not subject to this part. Wastewater discharges from electroplating 
during semiconductor final wafer assembly are subject to this part.
    (f) Wastewater discharges resulting from the washing of cars, 
aircraft or other vehicles, when performed as a preparatory step prior 
to one or more successive manufacturing, rebuilding, or maintenance 
operations, are subject to this part.
    (g) Process wastewater generated by maintenance and repair 
activities at gasoline service stations, passenger car rental 
facilities, or utility trailer and recreational vehicle rental 
facilities are not subject to this part.
    (h) When this part is applied to wastewater discharges generated at 
different industrial sites (industrial buildings as well as outdoor 
locations where manufacturing, rebuilding, or maintenance occur as 
specified in Sec. 438.1) within a mixed-use facility (as defined in 
Sec. 438.2(c)), the control authority may consider these discharges to 
be separate for the purpose of applying the applicable low flow 
exemption to a pretreatment standard. The control authority must 
determine which wastewater discharges can be considered separate for 
this purpose.


Sec. 438.2  General definitions.

    As used in this part:
    (a) The general definitions and abbreviations in 40 CFR part 401 
shall apply.
    (b) The regulated parameters are listed with approved methods of 
analysis in Table 1B at 40 CFR 136.3, and are defined as follows:
    (1) BOD<INF>5</INF> means 5-day biochemical oxygen demand.
    (2) Cadmium means total cadmium.
    (3) Chromium means total chromium.
    (4) Copper means total copper.
    (5) Cyanide (T) means total cyanide.
    (6) Cyanide (A) means those cyanides which are amenable to alkaline 
chlorination.
    (7) Lead means total lead.
    (8) Manganese means total manganese.
    (9) Molybdenum means total molybdenum.
    (10) Nickel means total nickel.
    (11) O&G (as HEM) means total recoverable oil and grease as hexane 
extractable material.
    (12) Silver means total silver.
    (13) Sulfide (as S) means total sulfide.
    (14) Tin means total tin.
    (15) TSS means total suspended solids.
    (16) Zinc means total zinc.
    (c) Mixed-Use Facility means any privately-owned or state, local, 
or federal government-owned facility which contains both industrial and 
commercial/administrative buildings (such as military bases and 
airports) at which one or more industrial sites conduct operations 
(including at least one that discharges wastewater subject to this 
part) within the facility's boundaries.
    (d) Non-process wastewater means sanitary wastewater, non-contact 
cooling water, and storm water. In relation to a mixed-use facility, as 
defined in this part, non-process wastewater for this part also 
includes wastewater discharges from non-industrial sources such as 
residential housing, schools, churches, recreational parks, shopping 
centers as well as wastewater discharges from gas stations, utility 
plants, hospitals, and similar sources.
    (e) Process wastewater means wastewater as defined in 40 CFR parts 
122 and 401, and includes wastewater from non-contact, nondestructive 
testing (e.g., photographic wastewater from nondestructive X-ray 
examination of parts) performed at facilities subject to this part and 
includes wastewater from air pollution control devices.
    (f) TOP (total organics parameter) means a parameter which is 
calculated as the sum of all quantifiable concentration values greater 
than the nominal quantitation value of the organic pollutants listed in 
the Appendix B to this part. These organic chemicals are defined as 
parameters at 40 CFR 136.3 in Table 1C, which also cites the approved 
methods of analysis

[[Page 541]]

or have procedures that have been validated as attachments to EPA 
Methods 1624/624 or 1625/625.
    (g) TOC (as indicator) means total organic carbon used as an 
indicator for the organic pollutants listed in the Appendix B to this 
part.


Sec. 438.3  General pretreatment standards.

    Any source subject to this part that introduces process wastewater 
pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) must comply 
with 40 CFR part 403.


Sec. 438.4  Monitoring requirements.

    (a) Monitoring options. All subcategories with limitations or 
standards for the TOP or TOC (as indicator) parameters must choose one 
of three monitoring options:
    (1) Achieve the limitation or standard specified for the TOP 
parameter;
    (2) Achieve a limitation or standard specified for the TOC (as 
indicator) parameter; or
    (3) Develop and certify the implementation of a management plan for 
organic chemicals.
    (b) Management plan for organic chemicals. (1) The management plan 
for organic chemicals must specify to the satisfaction of the 
permitting authority (or the control authority for discharges to a 
POTW) all organic chemicals that are in use at the facility; the 
method(s) used for disposal of these chemicals; the procedures in place 
for ensuring that organic chemicals do not routinely spill or leak into 
the wastewater, or that reduce to a minimum the amount of organic 
chemicals that are used in the process; the procedures in place to 
manage the oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) of process wastewater 
during cyanide destruction to control the formation of chlorinated 
organic by-products; and the procedures employed to prevent an 
excessive dosage of dithiocarbamates when treating wastewater 
containing chelated metals. Facilities choosing to develop a management 
plan for organic chemicals must certify that the procedures described 
in the plan are being implemented at the facility. A mixed-use 
facility, as defined in Sec. 438.2(c), may develop, certify, and 
implement one or more management plans for organic chemicals when 
multiple industrial sites are subject to this part within their 
facility boundaries.
    (2) In lieu of monitoring for individual organic chemicals 
specified collectively as TOP in Appendix B of this part or in lieu of 
monitoring for TOC (as an indicator), the permitting authority (or the 
control authority for dischargers to a POTW) may allow dischargers to 
make the following certification: ``Based on my inquiry of the person 
or persons directly responsible for managing compliance with the 
provisions of the Metal Products and Machinery regulation, I certify 
that, to the best of my knowledge, this facility is implementing the 
management plan for organic chemicals which was submitted to the 
permitting (or control) authority.'' For dischargers to surface waters, 
this statement is to be included as a comment on the Discharge 
Monitoring Report (DMR) required by 40 CFR 122.44(i). For indirect 
dischargers, the statement is to be included as a comment to the 
periodic reports required by 40 CFR 403.12(e).
    (c) TOP monitoring. In monitoring to measure compliance with the 
TOP standard, the industrial discharger need analyze only for those TOP 
organic chemicals which would reasonably be expected to be present. 
Facilities may apply for a monitoring waiver for any individual TOP 
organic chemical(s) as described in paragraph (e) of this section for 
indirect dischargers and 40 CFR 122.44 for direct dischargers. See 
Sec. 438.2(f) for definition of TOP.
    (d) Cyanide monitoring. Self-monitoring for cyanide must be 
conducted after cyanide treatment and before dilution with other 
wastewater streams. Alternatively, samples of the final effluent may be 
taken, if the plant limitations are adjusted based on the following 
dilution ratio: Cyanide-bearing wastewater flow divided by the final 
effluent flow.
    (e) Monitoring waivers for certain pollutants. (1) The control 
authority may authorize a discharger subject to pretreatment standards 
in this part to forego sampling of a pollutant if the discharger has 
demonstrated through sampling and other technical factors, as described 
in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, that the pollutant is not used or 
generated on-site or is present only at background levels from intake 
water and without any increase in the pollutant due to activities of 
the discharger.
    (2) Sampling or other technical information, including, but not 
limited to, information generated during the monitoring for the 
baseline monitoring report (40 CFR 403.12(b)) or the 90-day compliance 
report (40 CFR 403.12(d)), must be used to demonstrate that the 
pollutant is not used or generated on-site or is present only at 
background levels from intake water and without any increase in the 
pollutant due to activities of the discharger.
    (3) Any grant of the monitoring waiver must be included in the 
control mechanism as an express condition and the reasons supporting 
the grant must be documented in the fact sheet or similar supporting 
documentation.


Sec. 438.5  Compliance date for pretreatment standards for existing 
sources.

    Any existing source subject to pretreatment standards in this part 
must be in compliance no later than [DATE 3 years after date of 
PUBLICATION of FINAL RULE].

Subpart A--General Metals


Sec. 438.10  Applicability.

    (a) This subpart applies to process wastewater discharges from 
facilities (as specified in Sec. 438.1(a)) other than those subject to 
subparts B, C, D, E, F, G, or H of this part.
    (b) Facilities introducing process wastewater into a POTW at a rate 
that does not exceed 1 million gallons per year are not subject to 
Sec. 438.15 or Sec. 438.17.


Sec. 438.12  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

    (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any 
existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the 
following effluent limitations representing the application of BPT. 
Discharges must remain within the pH range 6 to 9 and must not exceed 
the following:

                          Effluent Limitations
                                  [BPT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
              Regulated  parameter                  Maximum     monthly
                                                   daily \1\    avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. TSS.........................................       34          18
 2. O&G (as HEM)................................       15          12
 3. TOC (as indicator)..........................       87          50
 4. TOP.........................................        9.0         4.3
 5. Cadmium.....................................        0.14        0.09
 6. Chromium....................................        0.25        0.14
 7. Copper......................................        0.55        0.28
 8. Cyanide (T).................................        0.21        0.13
 9. Cyanide (A).................................        0.14        0.07
10. Lead........................................        0.04        0.03
11. Manganese...................................        0.13        0.09
12. Molybdenum..................................        0.79        0.49
13 Nickel.......................................        0.50        0.31
14. Silver......................................        0.22        0.09
15. Sulfide (as S)..............................       31          13
16. Tin.........................................        1.4         0.67
17. Zinc........................................        0.38        0.22 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\mg/L (ppm).

    (b) Upon agreement with the permitting authority and pursuant to 
Sec. 438.4(d), facilities with cyanide treatment have the option of 
achieving

[[Page 542]]

the limitation for either cyanide (T) or cyanide (A).
    (c) Upon agreement with the permitting authority, facilities must 
choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for 
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).


Sec. 438.13  Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best 
control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitation representing the application of BCT: Limitations 
for TSS, O&G (as HEM) and pH are the same as the corresponding 
limitation specified in Sec. 438.12.


Sec. 438.14  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).

    (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any 
existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the 
following effluent limitation representing the application of BAT: 
Limitations for TOC (as indicator), TOP, cadmium, chromium, copper, 
cyanide (T), cyanide (A), lead, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, silver, 
sulfide (as S), tin, and zinc are the same as the corresponding 
limitation specified in Sec. 438.12.
    (b) Upon agreement with the permitting authority and pursuant to 
Sec. 438.4(d), facilities with cyanide treatment have the option of 
achieving the limitation for either cyanide (T) or cyanide (A).
    (c) Upon agreement with the permitting authority, facilities must 
choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for 
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).


Sec. 438.15  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

    (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, and except at 
facilities where the process wastewater introduced into a POTW does not 
exceed 1 million gallons per year, any existing source subject to this 
subpart must achieve the following:

                         Pretreatment Standards
                                 [PSES]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
              Regulated  parameter                  Maximum     monthly
                                                   daily \1\    avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. TOC (as indicator)..........................       87          50
 2. TOP.........................................        9.0         4.3
 3. Cadmium.....................................        0.14        0.09
 4. Chromium....................................        0.25        0.14
 5. Copper......................................        0.55        0.28
 6. Cyanide (T).................................        0.21        0.13
 7. Cyanide (A).................................        0.14        0.07
 8. Lead........................................        0.04        0.03
 9. Manganese...................................        0.13        0.09
10. Molybdenum..................................        0.79        0.49
11. Nickel......................................        0.50        0.31
12. Silver......................................        0.22        0.09
13. Sulfide (as S)..............................       31          13
14. Tin.........................................        1.4         0.67
15. Zinc........................................        0.38        0.22 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

    (b) Upon agreement with the control authority and pursuant to 
Sec. 438.4(d), facilities with cyanide treatment have the option of 
achieving the limitation for either cyanide (T) or cyanide (A).
    (c) Upon agreement with the control authority, facilities must 
choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for 
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).
    (d) A POTW has the option of imposing mass-based standards in place 
of the concentration-based standards. To convert to mass-based 
standards, multiply each parameter's concentration-based standard times 
the average daily flow of process wastewater discharged by the source 
into the POTW.


Sec. 438.16  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    New point sources subject to this subpart must achieve the 
following new source performance standards (NSPS), as applicable.
    (a) Any new point source subject to the provisions of this section 
and currently subject to the provisions of 433.16 that commenced 
discharging after [date 10 years prior to the date that is 60 days 
after the publication date of the final rule] and before [date that is 
60 days after the publication date of the final rule] must continue to 
achieve the applicable standards specified in 40 CFR 433.16. Those 
standards shall not apply after the expiration of the applicable time 
period specified in 40 CFR 122.29(d)(1); thereafter, the source must 
achieve the applicable standards specified in Sec. 438.12 and 
Sec. 438.14.
    (b) The following performance standards apply with respect to each 
new point source that commences discharge after [date that is 60 days 
after the publication date of the final rule]. Discharges must remain 
within the pH range of 6 to 9 and must not exceed the following:

                          Performance Standards
                                 [NSPS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
              Regulated  parameter                  Maximum     monthly
                                                   daily \1\    avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. TSS.........................................       28          18
 2. O&G (as HEM)................................       15          12
 3. TOC (as indicator)..........................       87          50
 4. TOP.........................................        9.0         4.3
 5. Cadmium.....................................        0.02        0.01
 6. Chromium....................................        0.17        0.07
 7. Copper......................................        0.44        0.16
 8. Cyanide (T).................................        0.21        0.13
 9. Cyanide (A).................................        0.14        0.07
10. Lead........................................        0.04        0.03
11. Manganese...................................        0.29        0.18
12. Molybdenum..................................        0.79        0.49
13. Nickel......................................        1.9         0.75
14. Silver......................................        0.05        0.03
15. Sulfide (as S)..............................       31          13
16. Tin.........................................        0.03        0.03
17. Zinc........................................        0.08        0.06 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

    (c) Upon agreement with the permitting authority and pursuant to 
Sec. 438.4(d), facilities with cyanide treatment have the option of 
achieving the limitation for either cyanide (T) or cyanide (A).
    (d) Upon agreement with the permitting authority, facilities must 
choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for 
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).


Sec. 438.17  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

    New sources subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS), as applicable.
    (a) Any new source subject to the provisions of this section and 
currently subject to the provisions of 40 CFR 433.17 that commenced 
discharging after [date 10 years prior to the date that is 60 days 
after the publication date of the final rule] and before [date that is 
60 days after the publication date of the final rule] must continue to 
achieve the standards specified in 40 CFR 433.17 for ten years 
beginning on the date the source commenced discharge or during the 
period of depreciation or amortization of the facility, whichever comes 
first, after which the source must achieve the standards specified in 
Sec. 438.15.
    (b) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, and except at facilities 
where the process wastewater introduced into a POTW does not exceed 1 
million gallons per year, the following standards apply with respect to 
each new source that commences discharge after [date

[[Page 543]]

that is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule]:

                         Pretreatment Standards
                                 [PSNS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
               Regulated parameter                  Maximum     monthly
                                                   daily \1\    avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. TOC (as indicator)..........................       87          50
 2. TOP.........................................        9.0         4.3
 3. Cadmium.....................................        0.02        0.01
 4. Chromium....................................        0.17        0.07
 5. Copper......................................        0.44        0.16
 6. Cyanide (T).................................        0.21        0.13
 7. Cyanide (A).................................        0.14        0.07
 8. Lead........................................        0.04        0.03
 9. Manganese...................................        0.29        0.18
10. Molybdenum..................................        0.79        0.49
11. Nickel......................................        1.9         0.75
12. Silver......................................        0.05        0.03
13. Sulfide (as S)..............................       31          13
14. Tin 0.03 0.03...............................        0.03        0.03
15. Zinc........................................        0.08        0.06 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

    (c) Upon agreement with the control authority and pursuant to 
Sec. 438.4(d), facilities with cyanide treatment have the option of 
achieving the limitation for either cyanide (T) or cyanide (A).
    (d) Upon agreement with the control authority, facilities must 
choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for 
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).
    (e) The control authority has the option of imposing mass-based 
standards in place of the concentration-based standards. To convert to 
mass-based standards, multiply each parameter's concentration-based 
standard times the average daily flow of process wastewater discharged 
by the source into the POTW.

Subpart B--Metal Finishing Job Shops


Sec. 438.20  Applicability.

    (a) This subpart applies to process wastewater discharges from 
facilities, as specified in Sec. 438.1(a), that operate as a metal 
finishing job shop (as defined in Sec. 438.21) and perform one or more 
of the following six operations: electroplating; electroless plating; 
anodizing; coating (chromating, phosphating, passivating, and 
coloring); chemical etching and milling; or the manufacture of printed 
circuit boards (printed wiring boards).
    (b) Metal finishing job shops that only perform anodizing without 
the use of chromic acid or dichromate sealants are not subject to this 
subpart, but may be subject to subpart C of this part.
    (c) Facilities that manufacture, rebuild, or maintain printed 
wiring boards and do not operate as a job shop (as defined in 
Sec. 438.21) are not subject to this subpart, but are subject to 
subpart D of this part.


Sec. 438.21  Special definitions.

    As used in this subpart, metal finishing job shop means a facility 
that owns 50 percent or less (based on metal surface area processed per 
year) of the materials undergoing metal finishing within the boundaries 
of a facility.


Sec. 438.22  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

    (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any 
existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the 
following effluent limitations representing the application of BPT. 
Discharges must remain within the pH range 6 to 9 and must not exceed 
the following:

                          Effluent Limitations
                                  [BPT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
               Regulated parameter                  Maximum     monthly
                                                   daily \1\    avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. TSS.........................................       60          31
 2. O&G (as HEM)................................       52          26
 3. TOC (as indicator)..........................       78          59
 4. TOP.........................................        9.0         4.3
 5. Cadmium.....................................        0.21        0.09
 6. Chromium....................................        1.3         0.55
 7. Copper......................................        1.3         0.57
 8. Cyanide (T).................................        0.21        0.13
 9. Cyanide (A).................................        0.14        0.07
10. Lead........................................        0.12        0.09
11. Manganese...................................        0.25        0.10
12. Molybdenum..................................        0.79        0.49
13. Nickel......................................        1.5         0.64
14. Silver......................................        0.15        0.06
15. Sulfide (as S)..............................       31          13
16. Tin.........................................        1.8         1.4
17. Zinc........................................        0.35        0.17 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

    (b) Upon agreement with the permitting authority and pursuant to 
Sec. 438.4(d), facilities with cyanide treatment have the option of 
achieving the limitation for either cyanide (T) or cyanide (A).
    (c) Upon agreement with the permitting authority, facilities must 
choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for 
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).


Sec. 438.23  Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best 
control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitation representing the application of BCT: Limitations 
for TSS, O&G (as HEM) and pH are the same as the corresponding 
limitation specified in Sec. 438.22.


Sec. 438.24  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).

    (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any 
existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the 
following effluent limitation representing the application of BAT: 
Limitations for TOC (as indicator), TOP, cadmium, chromium, copper, 
cyanide (T), cyanide (A), lead, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, silver, 
sulfide (as S), tin and zinc are the same as the corresponding 
limitation specified in Sec. 438.22.
    (b) Upon agreement with the permitting authority and pursuant to 
Sec. 438.4(d), facilities with cyanide treatment have the option of 
achieving the limitation for either cyanide (T) or cyanide (A).
    (c) Upon agreement with the permitting authority, facilities must 
choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for 
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).


Sec. 438.25  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

    (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing 
source subject to this subpart must achieve the following:

                         Pretreatment Standards
                                 [PSES]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
              Regulated  Parameter                  Maximum     monthly
                                                   daily \1\    avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. TOC (as indicator)..........................       78          59
 2. TOP.........................................        9.0         4.3
 3. Cadmium.....................................        0.21        0.09
 4. Chromium....................................        1.3         0.55
 5. Copper......................................        1.3         0.57
 6. Cyanide (T).................................        0.21        0.13
 7. Cyanide (A).................................        0.14        0.07
 8. Lead........................................        0.12        0.09
 9. Manganese...................................        0.25        0.10
10. Molybdenum..................................        0.79        0.49
11. Nickel......................................        1.5         0.64
12. Silver......................................        0.15        0.06
13. Sulfide (as S)..............................       31          13
14. Tin.........................................        1.8         1.4
15. Zinc........................................        0.35        0.17 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

    (b) Upon agreement with the control authority and pursuant to 
Sec. 438.4(d), facilities with cyanide treatment have the option of 
achieving the limitation for either cyanide (T) or cyanide (A).
    (c) Upon agreement with the control authority, facilities must 
choose to

[[Page 544]]

monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for organic 
chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).
    (d) The control authority has the option of imposing mass-based 
standards in place of the concentration-based standards. To convert to 
mass-based standards, multiply each parameter's concentration-based 
standard times the average daily flow of process wastewater discharged 
by the source into the POTW.


Sec. 438.26  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    New point sources subject to this subpart must achieve the 
following new source performance standards (NSPS), as applicable.
    (a) Any new point source subject to the provisions of this section 
that commenced discharging after [date 10 years prior to the date that 
is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule] and before 
[date that is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule] 
must continue to achieve the applicable standards specified in 40 CFR 
433.16. Those standards shall not apply after the expiration of the 
applicable time period specified in 40 CFR 122.29(d)(1); thereafter, 
the source must achieve the applicable standards specified in 
Sec. 438.22 and Sec. 438.24.
    (b) The following performance standards apply with respect to each 
new point source that commences discharge after [date that is 60 days 
after the publication date of the final rule]. Discharges must remain 
within the pH range of 6 to 9 and must not exceed the following:

                          Performance Standards
                                 [NSPS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
               Regulated Parameter                  Maximum     monthly
                                                   daily \1\    avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. TSS.........................................       28          18
 2. O&G (as HEM)................................       15          12
 3. TOC (as indicator...........................       78          59
 4. TOP.........................................        9.0         4.3
 5. Cadmium.....................................        0.02        0.01
 6. Chromium....................................        0.17        0.07
 7. Copper......................................        0.44        0.16
 8. Cyanide (T).................................        0.21        0.13
 9. Cyanide (A).................................        0.14        0.07
10. Lead........................................        0.04        0.03
11. Manganese...................................        0.29        0.18
12. Molybdenum..................................        0.79        0.49
13. Nickel......................................        1.9         0.75
14. Silver......................................        0.05        0.03
15. Sulfide (as S)..............................       31          13
16. Tin.........................................        0.03        0.03
17. Zinc........................................        0.08        0.06 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

    (c) Upon agreement with the permitting authority and pursuant to 
Sec. 438.4(d), facilities with cyanide treatment have the option of 
achieving the limitation for either cyanide (T) or cyanide (A).
    (d) Upon agreement with the permitting authority, facilities must 
choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for 
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).


Sec. 438.27  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

    New sources subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS), as applicable.
    (a) Any new source subject to the provisions of this section that 
commenced discharging after [date 10 years prior to the date that is 60 
days after the publication date of the final rule] and before [date 
that is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule] must 
continue to achieve the standards specified in 40 CFR 433.17 for ten 
years beginning on the date the source commenced discharge or during 
the period of depreciation or amortization of the facility, whichever 
comes first, after which the source must achieve the standards 
specified in Sec. 438.25.
    (b) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, the following standards 
apply with respect to each new source that commences discharge after 
[date that is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule]:

                         Pretreatment Standards
                                 [PSNS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
              Regulated  parameter                  Maximum     monthly
                                                   daily \1\    avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. TOC (as indicator)..........................       78          59
 2. TOP.........................................        9.0         4.3
 3. Cadmium.....................................        0.02        0.01
 4. Chromium....................................        0.17        0.07
 5. Copper......................................        0.44        0.16
 6. Cyanide (T).................................        0.21        0.13
 7. Cyanide (A).................................        0.14        0.07
 8. Lead........................................        0.04        0.03
 9. Manganese...................................        0.29        0.18
10. Molybdenum..................................        0.79        0.49
11. Nickel......................................        1.9         0.75
12. Silver......................................        0.05        0.03
13. Sulfide (as S)..............................       31          13
14. Tin.........................................        0.03        0.03
15. Zinc........................................        0.08        0.06 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

    (c) Upon agreement with the control authority and pursuant to 
Sec. 438.4(d), facilities with cyanide treatment have the option of 
achieving the limitation for either cyanide (T) or cyanide (A).
    (d) Upon agreement with the control authority, facilities must 
choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for 
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).
    (e) The control authority has the option of imposing mass-based 
standards in place of the concentration-based standards. To convert to 
mass-based standards, multiply each parameter's concentration-based 
standard times the average daily flow of process wastewater discharged 
by the source into the POTW.

Subpart C--Non-Chromium Anodizing


Sec. 438.30  Applicability.

    (a) Except for facilities that discharge to a POTW, this subpart 
applies to discharges of process wastewater resulting from non-chromium 
anodizing, as defined in Sec. 438.31.
    (b) Facilities which commingle wastewater from non-chromium 
anodizing with wastewater subject to subparts A, B, or D of this part 
are not subject to this subpart but are subject to subparts A, B, or D 
of this part, as applicable.
    (c) Facilities that discharge to a POTW and perform anodizing 
without the use of chromic acid or dichromate sealants are subject to 
40 CFR part 413 or 40 CFR part 433, as applicable.


Sec. 438.31  Special definitions.

    As used in this subpart, non-chromium anodizing means anodizing 
without the use of chromic acid or dichromate sealants.


Sec. 438.32  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the application of BPT. Discharges 
must remain within the pH range 6 to 9 and must not exceed the 
following:

                          Effluent Limitations
                                  [BPT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
               Regulated parameter                  Maximum     monthly
                                                   daily \1\    avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. TSS..........................................       60          31
2. O&G (as HEM).................................       52          26
3. Aluminum.....................................        8.2         4.0
4. Manganese....................................        0.13        0.09
5. Nickel.......................................        0.50        0.31
6. Zinc.........................................        0.38        0.22 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).


[[Page 545]]

Sec. 438.33  Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best 
control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitation representing the application of BCT: Limitations 
for TSS, O&G (as HEM) and pH are the same as the corresponding 
limitation specified in Sec. 438.32.


Sec. 438.34  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitation representing the application of BAT: Limitations 
for aluminum, manganese, nickel and zinc are the same as the 
corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 438.32.


Sec. 438.36  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    New point sources subject to this subpart must achieve the 
following new source performance standards (NSPS), as applicable.
    (a) Any new point source subject to the provisions of this section 
that commenced discharging after [date 10 years prior to the date that 
is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule] and before 
[date that is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule] 
must continue to achieve the applicable standards specified in 40 CFR 
433.16. Those standards shall not apply after the expiration of the 
applicable time period specified in 40 CFR 122.29(d)(1); thereafter, 
the source must achieve the applicable standards specified in 
Sec. 438.32 and Sec. 438.34.
    (b) The following performance standards apply with respect to each 
new point source that commences discharge after [date that is 60 days 
after the publication date of the final rule]. Discharges must remain 
within the pH range of 6 to 9 and must not exceed the following:

                          Performance Standards
                                 [NSPS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
               Regulated parameter                  Maximum     monthly
                                                   daily \1\    avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. TSS..........................................       52          22
2. O&G (as HEM).................................       15          12
3. Aluminum.....................................        8.2         4.0
4. Manganese....................................        0.13        0.09
5. Nickel.......................................        0.50        0.31
6. Zinc.........................................        0.38        0.22 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

Subpart D--Printed Wiring Boards


Sec. 438.40  Applicability.

    (a) This subpart applies to discharges of process wastewater 
resulting from the manufacture, maintenance and repair of printed 
wiring boards (printed circuit boards).
    (b) Printed wiring board operations conducted at a metal finishing 
job shop (as defined in Sec. 438.21) are not subject to this subpart.


Sec. 438.42  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

    (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any 
existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the 
following effluent limitations representing the application of BPT. 
Discharges must remain within the pH range 6 to 9 and must not exceed 
the following:

                          Effluent Limitations
                                  [BPT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
               Regulated parameter                  Maximum     monthly
                                                   daily \1\    avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. TSS.........................................       60          31
 2. O&G (as HEM)................................       52          26
 3. TOC (as indicator)..........................      101          67
 4. TOP.........................................        9.0         4.3
 5. Chromium....................................        0.25        0.14
 6. Copper......................................        0.55        0.28
 7. Cyanide (T).................................        0.21        0.13
 8. Cyanide (A).................................        0.14        0.07
 9. Lead........................................        0.04        0.03
10. Manganese...................................        1.3         0.64
11. Nickel......................................        0.30        0.14
12. Sulfide (as S)..............................       31          13
13. Tin.........................................        0.31        0.14
14. Zinc........................................        0.38        0.22 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

    (b) Upon agreement with the permitting authority and pursuant to 
Sec. 438.4(d), facilities with cyanide treatment have the option of 
achieving the limitation for either cyanide (T) or cyanide (A).
    (c) Upon agreement with the permitting authority, facilities must 
choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for 
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).


Sec. 438.43  Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best 
control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitation representing the application of BCT: Limitations 
for TSS, O&G (as HEM) and pH are the same as the corresponding 
limitation specified in Sec. 438.42.


Sec. 438.44  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).

    (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any 
existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the 
following effluent limitation representing the application of BAT: 
Limitations for TOC (as indicator), TOP, chromium, copper, cyanide (T), 
cyanide (A), lead, manganese, nickel, sulfide (as S), tin and zinc are 
the same as the corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 438.42.
    (b) Upon agreement with the permitting authority and pursuant to 
Sec. 438.4(d), facilities with cyanide treatment have the option of 
achieving the limitation for either cyanide (T) or cyanide (A).
    (c) Upon agreement with the permitting authority, facilities must 
choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for 
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).


Sec. 438.45  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

    (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing 
source subject to this subpart must achieve the following pretreatment 
standards:

                         Pretreatment Standards
                                 [PSES]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
               Regulated parameter                  Maximum     Monthly
                                                   daily \1\    avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. TOC (as indicator)..........................      101          67
 2. TOP.........................................        9.0         4.3
 3. Chromium....................................        0.25        0.14
 4. Copper......................................        0.55        0.28
 5. Cyanide (T).................................        0.21        0.13
 6. Cyanide (A).................................        0.14        0.07
 7. Lead........................................        0.04        0.03
 8. Manganese...................................        1.3         0.64
 9. Nickel......................................        0.30        0.14
10. Sulfide (as S)..............................       31          13
11. Tin.........................................        0.31        0.14
12. Zinc........................................        0.38        0.22 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

    (b) Upon agreement with the control authority and pursuant to 
Sec. 438.4(d), facilities with cyanide treatment have the option of 
achieving the limitation for either cyanide (T) or cyanide (A).
    (c) Upon agreement with the control authority, facilities must 
choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for 
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).
    (d) The control authority has the option of imposing mass-based

[[Page 546]]

standards in place of the concentration-based standards. To convert to 
mass-based standards, multiply each parameter's concentration-based 
standard times the average daily flow of process wastewater discharged 
by the source into the POTW.


Sec. 438.46  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    New point sources subject to this subpart must achieve the 
following new source performance standards (NSPS), as applicable.
    (a) Any new point source subject to the provisions of this section 
that commenced discharging after [date 10 years prior to the date that 
is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule] and before 
[date that is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule] 
must continue to achieve the applicable standards specified in 40 CFR 
433.16. Those standards shall not apply after the expiration of the 
applicable time period specified in 40 CFR 122.29(d)(1); thereafter, 
the source must achieve the applicable standards specified in 
Sec. 438.42 and Sec. 438.44.
    (b) The following performance standards apply with respect to each 
new point source that commences discharge after [date that is 60 days 
after the publication date of the final rule]. Discharges must remain 
within the pH range of 6 to 9 and must not exceed the following:

                          Performance Standards
                                 [NSPS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
               Regulated parameter                  Maximum     monthly
                                                   daily \1\     avg.<SUP>1</SUP>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. TSS.........................................       28          18
 2. O&G (as HEM)................................       15          12
 3. TOC (as indicator)..........................      101          67
 4. TOP.........................................        9.0         4.3
 5. Chromium....................................        0.17        0.07
 6. Copper......................................        0.01        0.01
 7. Cyanide (T).................................        0.21        0.13
 8. Cyanide (A).................................        0.14        0.07
 9. Lead........................................        0.04        0.03
10. Manganese...................................        0.29        0.18
11. Nickel......................................        1.9         0.75
12. Sulfide (as S)..............................       31          13
13. Tin.........................................        0.09        0.07
14. Zinc........................................        0.08        0.06 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

    (c) Upon agreement with the permitting authority and pursuant to 
Sec. 438.4(d), facilities with cyanide treatment have the option of 
achieving the limitation for either cyanide (T) or cyanide (A).
    (d) Upon agreement with the permitting authority, facilities must 
choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for 
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).


Sec. 438.47  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

    New sources subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS), as applicable.
    (a) Any new source subject to the provisions of this section that 
commenced discharging after [date 10 years prior to the date that is 60 
days after the publication date of the final rule] and before [date 
that is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule] must 
continue to achieve the standards specified in 40 CFR 433.17 for ten 
years beginning on the date the source commenced discharge or during 
the period of depreciation or amortization of the facility, whichever 
comes first, after which the source must achieve the standards 
specified in Sec. 438.45.
    (b) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, the following standards 
apply with respect to each new source that commences discharge after 
[date that is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule]:

                         Pretreatment Standards
                                 [PSNS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
              Regulated  parameter                  Maximum     monthly
                                                   daily \1\    avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. TOC (as indicator)..........................      101          67
 2. TOP.........................................        9.0         4.3
 3. Chromium....................................        0.17        0.07
 4. Copper......................................        0.01        0.01
 5. Cyanide (T).................................        0.21        0.13
 6. Cyanide (A).................................        0.14        0.07
 7. Lead........................................        0.04        0.03
 8. Manganese...................................        0.29        0.18
 9. Nickel......................................        1.9         0.75
10. Sulfide (as S)..............................       31          13
11. Tin.........................................        0.09        0.07
12. Zinc........................................        0.08        0.06 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

    (c) Upon agreement with the control authority and pursuant to 
Sec. 438.4(d), facilities with cyanide treatment have the option of 
achieving the limitation for either cyanide (T) or cyanide (A).
    (d) Upon agreement with the control authority, facilities must 
choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for 
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).
    (e) The control authority has the option of imposing mass-based 
standards in place of the concentration-based standards. To convert to 
mass-based standards, multiply each parameter's concentration-based 
standard times the average daily flow of process wastewater discharged 
by the source into the POTW.

Subpart E--Steel Forming and Finishing


Sec. 438.50  Applicability.

    (a) This subpart applies to discharges of process wastewater from 
surface finishing or cold forming operations on steel wire, rod, bar, 
pipe or tubing. This subpart does not apply to process wastewater from 
these same operations when they are performed on base materials other 
than steel.
    (b) Wastewater discharges from the following operations on steel 
are not subject to this subpart: any hot forming operation; and cold 
forming, continuous electroplating, or continuous hot dip coating of 
sheets, strips or plates. Wastewater discharges from performing these 
operations on steel are subject to 40 CFR part 420.


Sec. 438.51  Special definitions.

    As used in this subpart:
    (a) Acid pickling means the removal of scale and/or oxide from 
steel surfaces using acid solutions. The mass-based limitations for 
acid pickling operations include wastewater flow volumes from acid 
treatment with and without chromium, acid pickling neutralization, 
annealing, alkaline cleaning, electrolytic sodium sulfate descaling, 
and salt bath descaling.
    (b) Alkaline cleaning means the application of solutions containing 
caustic soda, soda ash, alkaline silicates, or alkaline phosphates to a 
metal surface primarily for removing mineral deposits, animal fats, and 
oils. The mass-based limitations for alkaline cleaning operations 
include wastewater flow volumes from alkaline cleaning for oil removal, 
alkaline treatment without cyanide, aqueous degreasing, annealing, and 
electrolytic cleaning operations.
    (c) Cold forming means operations conducted on unheated steel for 
purposes of imparting desired mechanical properties and surface 
qualities (density, smoothness) to the steel. The mass-based 
limitations for cold forming operations are based on zero wastewater 
discharge from welding operations.
    (d) Continuous Annealing means a heat treatment process in which 
steel is exposed to an elevated temperature in a controlled atmosphere 
for an extended period of time and then cooled. The mass-based 
limitations for continuous annealing operations include wastewater flow 
volumes from heat treating operations.
    (e) Electroplating means the application of metal coatings 
including,

[[Page 547]]

but not limited to, chromium, copper, nickel, tin, zinc, and 
combinations thereof, on steel products using an electro-chemical 
process. The mass-based limitations for electroplating operations 
includes wastewater flow volumes from acid pickling, annealing, 
alkaline cleaning, electroplating without chromium or cyanide, and 
electroless plating operations.
    (f) Hot Dip Coating means the coating of pre-cleaned steel parts by 
immersion in a molten metal bath. The mass-based limitations for hot 
dip coating operations includes wastewater flow volumes from acid 
pickling, annealing, alkaline cleaning, chemical conversion coating 
without chromium, chromate conversion coating, galvanizing, and hot dip 
coating operations.
    (g) Lubrication means the process of applying a substance to the 
surface of the steel in order to reduce friction or corrosion. The 
mass-based limitations for lubrication operations includes wastewater 
flow volumes from corrosion preventive coating operations as defined in 
Sec. 438.61(b).
    (h) Mechanical Descaling means the process of removing scale by 
mechanical or physical means from the surface of steel. The mass-based 
limitations for mechanical descaling operations includes wastewater 
flow volumes from abrasive blasting, burnishing, grinding, impact 
deformation, machining, and testing operations.
    (i) Painting means applying an organic coating to a steel bar, rod, 
wire, pipe, or tube. The mass-based limitations for painting operations 
includes wastewater flow volumes from spray or brush painting and 
immersion painting.
    (j) Pressure Deformation means applying force (other than impact 
force) to permanently deform or shape a steel bar, rod, wire, pipe, or 
tube. The mass-based limitations for pressure deformation operations 
includes wastewater flow volumes from forging operations and extrusion 
operations.


Sec. 438.52  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

    (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any 
existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the 
following effluent limitations representing the application of BPT. 
Discharges must remain within the pH range 6 to 9 and must not exceed 
the following:

                                           Effluent Limitations [BPT]
                                                     Table 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Pollutant                                   TSS                        O&G (as HEM)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Maximum                         Maximum
           Forming/finishing operation             Maximum daily      monthly      Maximum daily      monthly
                                                        \1\           avg.\1\           \1\           avg.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Acid Pickling...............................      0.0709          0.0369          0.0312          0.0239
(b) Alkaline Cleaning...........................      0.0709          0.0369          0.0312          0.0239
(c) Cold Forming................................      0               0               0               0
(d) Continuous Annealing........................      0.00355         0.00184         0.00156         0.00120
(e) Electroplating..............................      0.142           0.0737          0.0623          0.0478
(f) Hot Dip Coating.............................      0.0206          0.0107          0.00903         0.00693
(g) Lubrication.................................      0.00170         0.000884        0.000748        0.000574
(h) Mechanical Descaling........................      0.000284        0.000148        0.000125        0.0000956
(i) Painting....................................      0.00922         0.00479         0.00405         0.00311
(j) Pressure Deformation........................      0.00355         0.00184         0.00156         0.00120
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.


                                                     Table 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Pollutant                                   TOC                             TOP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Maximum                         Maximum
           Forming/finishing operation             Maximum daily      monthly      Maximum daily      monthly
                                                        \1\           avg.\1\           \1\           avg.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Acid Pickling...............................      0.181           0.103           0.0188          0.00896
(b) Alkaline Cleaning...........................      0.181           0.103           0.0188          0.00896
(c) Cold Forming................................      0               0               0               0
(d) Continuous Annealing........................      0.00901         0.00514         0.000937        0.000448
(e) Electroplating..............................      0.361           0.206           0.0375          0.0180
(f) Hot Dip Coating.............................      0.0523          0.0300          0.00543         0.00260
(g) Lubrication.................................      0.000433        0.00247         0.000450        0.000215
(h) Mechanical Descaling........................      0.000721        0.000411        0.0000750       0.0000359
(i) Painting....................................      0.0235          0.0134          0.00244         0.00117
(j) Pressure Deformation........................      0.00901         0.00514         0.000937        0.000448
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.


                                                     Table 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Pollutant                                 Cadmium                        Chromium
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Maximum                         Maximum
           Forming/finishing operation             Maximum daily      monthly      Maximum daily      monthly
                                                        \1\           avg.\1\           \1\           avg.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Acid Pickling...............................      0.000292        0.000188        0.000509        0.000277
(b) Alkaline Cleaning...........................      0.000292        0.000188        0.000509        0.000277
(c) Cold Forming................................      0               0               0               0

[[Page 548]]

 
(d) Continuous Annealing........................      0.0000146       0.00000938      0.0000255       0.0000139
(e) Electroplating..............................      0.000583        0.000376        0.00102         0.000553
(f) Hot Dip Coating.............................      0.0000845       0.0000545       0.000148        0.0000801
(g) Lubrication.................................      0.00000699      0.00000450      0.0000123       0.00000663
(h) Mechanical Descaling........................      0.00000116      0.00000075      0.00000204      0.00000110
(i) Painting....................................      0.0000379       0.0000244       0.0000662       0.0000359
(j) Pressure Deformation........................      0.0000146       0.00000938      0.0000255       0.0000139
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.


                                                     Table 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Pollutant                                 Copper                           Lead
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Maximum                         Maximum
           Forming/finishing operation             Maximum daily      monthly      Maximum daily      monthly
                                                        \1\           avg.\1\           \1\           avg.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Acid Pickling...............................      0.00114         0.000565        0.0000737       0.0000522
(b) Alkaline Cleaning...........................      0.00114         0.000565        0.0000737       0.0000522
(c) Cold Forming................................      0               0               0               0
(d) Continuous Annealing........................      0.0000570       0.0000283       0.00000368      0.00000261
(e) Electroplating..............................      0.00228         0.00113         0.000148        0.000105
(f) Hot Dip Coating.............................      0.000331        0.000164        0.0000214       0.0000152
(g) Lubrication.................................      0.0000274       0.0000136       0.00000177      0.00000125
(h) Mechanical Descaling........................      0.00000455      0.00000226      0.00000029      0.00000021
(i) Painting....................................      0.000148        0.0000734       0.00000957      0.00000678
(j) Pressure Deformation........................      0.0000570       0.0000283       0.00000368      0.00000261 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.


                                                     Table 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Pollutant                                Manganese                      Molybdenum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Maximum                         Maximum
           Forming/finishing operation             Maximum daily      monthly      Maximum daily      monthly
                                                        \1\           avg.\1\           \1\           avg.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Acid Pickling...............................      0.000269        0.000183        0.00164         0.00103
(b) Alkaline Cleaning...........................      0.000269        0.000183        0.00164         0.00103
(c) Cold Forming................................      0               0               0               0
(d) Continuous Annealing........................      0.0000135       0.00000914      0.0000820       0.0000511
(e) Electroplating..............................      0.000537        0.000366        0.00328         0.00205
(f) Hot Dip Coating.............................      0.0000779       0.0000531       0.000476        0.000297
(g) Lubrication.................................      0.00000644      0.00000439      0.0000394       0.0000246
(h) Mechanical Descaling........................      0.00000107      0.00000073      0.00000656      0.00000409
(i) Painting....................................      0.0000350       0.0000238       0.000214        0.000133
(j) Pressure Deformation........................      0.0000135       0.00000914      0.0000820       0.0000511
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.


                                                     Table 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Pollutant                                 Nickel                          Silver
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Maximum                         Maximum
           Forming/finishing operation             Maximum daily      monthly      Maximum daily      monthly
                                                        \1\           avg.\1\           \1\           avg.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Acid Pickling...............................      0.00104         0.000642        0.000456        0.000187
(b) Alkaline Cleaning...........................      0.00104         0.000642        0.000456        0.000187
(c) Cold Forming................................      0               0               0               0
(d) Continuous Annealing........................      0.0000520       0.0000321       0.0000228       0.00000934
(e) Electroplating..............................      0.00208         0.00129         0.000912        0.000374
(f) Hot Dip Coating.............................      0.000302        0.000186        0.000133        0.0000542
(g) Lubrication.................................      0.0000250       0.0000154       0.0000110       0.00000448
(h) Mechanical Descaling........................      0.00000415      0.00000257      0.00000182      0.00000075
(i) Painting....................................      0.000135        0.0000834       0.0000593       0.0000243
(j) Pressure Deformation........................      0.0000520       0.0000321       0.0000228       0.00000934 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.


[[Page 549]]


                                                     Table 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Pollutant                             Sulfide (as S)                        Tin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Maximum                         Maximum
           Forming/finishing operation             Maximum daily      monthly      Maximum daily      monthly
                                                        \1\           avg.\1\           \1\           avg.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Acid Pickling...............................      0.0630          0.0267          0.00274         0.00139
(b) Alkaline Cleaning...........................      0.0630          0.0267          0.00274         0.00139
(c) Cold Forming................................      0               0               0               0
(d) Continuous Annealing........................      0.00315         0.00134         0.000137        0.0000694
(e) Electroplating..............................      0.126           0.0534          0.00547         0.00278
(f) Hot Dip Coating.............................      0.0183          0.00774         0.000793        0.000403
(g) Lubrication.................................      0.00151         0.000641        0.0000656       0.0000333
(h) Mechanical Descaling........................      0.000252        0.000107        0.0000110       0.00000555
(i) Painting....................................      0.00818         0.00347         0.000356        0.000181
(j) Pressure Deformation........................      0.00315         0.00134         0.000137        0.0000694
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.


                                 Table 8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Pollutant                              Zinc
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
       Forming/finishing operation         Maximum daily      monthly
                                                \1\           avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Acid Pickling.......................      0.000793        0.000456
(b) Alkaline Cleaning...................      0.000793        0.000456
(c) Cold Forming........................      0               0
(d) Continuous Annealing................      0.0000397       0.0000228
(e) Electroplating......................      0.00159         0.000912
(f) Hot Dip Coating.....................      0.000230        0.000133
(g) Lubrication.........................      0.0000191       0.0000110
(h) Mechanical Descaling................      0.00000317      0.00000182
(i) Painting............................      0.000103        0.0000593
(j) Pressure Deformation................      0.0000397       0.0000228
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.


                                                     Table 9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Pollutant                               Cyanide (T)                     Cyanide (A)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Maximum                         Maximum
           Forming/finishing operation             Maximum daily      monthly      Maximum daily      monthly
                                                        \1\           avg.\1\           \1\           avg.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) Electroplating..............................      0.000865        0.000513        0.000580        0.000282
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.

    (b) Upon agreement with the permitting authority and pursuant to 
Sec. 438.4(d), facilities with cyanide treatment have the option of 
achieving the limitation for either cyanide (T) or cyanide (A).
    (c) Upon agreement with the permitting authority, facilities must 
choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for 
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a). (d) Permit limitations 
must be established in accordance with Sec. 438.58.


Sec. 438.53  Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best 
control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitation representing the application of BCT: Limitations 
for TSS, O&G (as HEM), and pH are the same as the corresponding 
limitation specified in Sec. 438.52.


Sec. 438.54  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).

    (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any 
existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the 
following effluent limitation representing the application of BAT: 
Limitations for TOC (as indicator), TOP, cadmium, chromium, copper, 
cyanide (T), cyanide (A), lead, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, silver, 
sulfide (as S), tin, and zinc are the same as the corresponding 
limitation specified in Sec. 438.52.
    (b) Upon agreement with the permitting authority and pursuant to 
Sec. 438.4(d), facilities with cyanide treatment have the option of 
achieving the limitation for either cyanide (T) or cyanide (A).
    (c) Upon agreement with the permitting authority, facilities must 
choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for 
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).


Sec. 438.55  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

    (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing 
source subject to this subpart must achieve the following pretreatment 
standards: Limitations for TOC (as indicator), TOP, cadmium, chromium, 
copper, cyanide (T), cyanide (A), lead, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, 
silver, sulfide (as S), tin, and zinc are the same as the corresponding 
limitation specified in Sec. 438.52.

[[Page 550]]

    (b) Upon agreement with the control authority and pursuant to 
Sec. 438.4(d), facilities with cyanide treatment have the option of 
achieving the limitation for either cyanide (T) or cyanide (A).
    (c) Upon agreement with the control authority, facilities must 
choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for 
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).
    (d) Pretreatment standards must be established in accordance with 
Sec. 438.58.


Sec. 438.56  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    New point sources subject to this subpart must achieve the 
following new source performance standards (NSPS), as applicable.
    (a) Any new point source subject to the provisions of this section 
that commenced discharging after [date 10 years prior to the date that 
is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule] and before 
[date that is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule] 
must continue to achieve the applicable new source standards specified 
in 40 CFR part 420. Those standards shall not apply after the 
expiration of the applicable time period specified in 40 CFR 
122.29(d)(1); thereafter, the source must achieve the applicable 
standards specified in Secs. 438.52 and 438.54.
    (b) The following performance standards apply with respect to each 
new point source that commences discharge after [date that is 60 days 
after the publication date of the final rule]. Discharges must remain 
within the pH range of 6 to 9 and must not exceed the following:

                                          Performance Standards [NSPS]
                                                     Table 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Pollutant                                   TSS                        O&G (as HEM)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Maximum                         Maximum
           Forming/finishing operation             Maximum daily      monthly      Maximum daily      monthly
                                                        \1\           avg.\1\           \1\           avg.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Acid Pickling...............................      0.0571          0.0358          0.0312          0.0239
(b) Alkaline Cleaning...........................      0.0571          0.0358          0.0312          0.0239
(c) Cold Forming................................      0               0               0               0
(d) Continuous Annealing........................      0.00286         0.00179         0.00156         0.00120
(e) Electroplating..............................      0.115           0.0716          0.0623          0.00478
(f) Hot Dip Coating.............................      0.0166          0.0104          0.00903         0.00693
(g) Lubrication.................................      0.00137         0.000859        0.000748        0.000574
(h) Mechanical Descaling........................      0.000229        0.000144        0.000125        0.0000956
(i) Painting....................................      0.00743         0.00466         0.00405         0.00311
(j) Pressure Deformation........................      0.00286         0.00179         0.00156         0.00120
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.


                                                     Table 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Pollutant                                   TOC                             TOP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Maximum                         Maximum
           Forming/finishing operation             Maximum daily   monthly avg.    Maximum daily      monthly
                                                        \1\             \1\             \1\           avg.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Acid Pickling...............................      0.181           0.103           0.0188          0.00896
(b) Alkaline Cleaning...........................      0.181           0.103           0.0188          0.00896
(c) Cold Forming................................      0               0               0               0
(d) Continuous Annealing........................      0.00901         0.00514         0.000937        0.000448
(e) Electroplating..............................      0.361           0.206           0.0375          0.0180
(f) Hot Dip Coating.............................      0.0523          0.0298          0.00543         0.00260
(g) Lubrication.................................      0.00433         0.00247         0.000450        0.000215
(h) Mechanical Descaling........................      0.000721        0.000411        0.0000750       0.0000359
(i) Painting....................................      0.0235          0.0134          0.00244         0.00117
(j) Pressure Deformation........................      0.00901         0.00514         0.000937        0.000448
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.


                                                     Table 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Pollutant                                 Cadmium                        Chromium
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Maximum                         Maximum
           Forming/finishing operation             Maximum daily      monthly      Maximum daily      monthly
                                                        \1\           avg.\1\           \1\           avg.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Acid Pickling...............................      0.0000267       0.0000184       0.000355        0.000143
(b) Alkaline Cleaning...........................      0.0000267       0.0000184       0.000355        0.000143
(c) Cold Forming................................      0               0               0               0
(d) Continuous Annealing........................      0.00000133      0.00000092      0.0000178       0.00000714
(e) Electroplating..............................      0.0000534       0.0000368       0.000710        0.000286
(f) Hot Dip Coating.............................      0.00000773      0.00000533      0.000103        0.0000415
(g) Lubrication.................................      0.00000064      0.00000044      0.00000851      0.00000343
(h) Mechanical Descaling........................      0.00000011      0.00000007      0.00000142      0.00000057
(i) Painting....................................      0.00000347      0.00000239      0.0000461       0.0000186
(j) Pressure Deformation........................      0.00000133      0.00000092      0.0000178       0.00000714 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.


[[Page 551]]


                                                     Table 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Pollutant                                 Copper                           Lead
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Maximum                         Maximum
           Forming/finishing operation             Maximum daily      monthly      Maximum daily      monthly
                                                        \1\           avg.\1\           \1\           avg.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Acid Pickling...............................      0.000898        0.000327        0.0000692       0.0000517
(b) Alkaline Cleaning...........................      0.000898        0.000327        0.0000692       0.0000517
(c) Cold Forming................................      0               0               0               0
(d) Continuous Annealing........................      0.0000449       0.0000164       0.00000346      0.00000258
(e) Electroplating..............................      0.00180         0.000654        0.000139        0.000104
(f) Hot Dip Coating.............................      0.000261        0.0000949       0.0000201       0.0000150
(g) Lubrication.................................      0.0000216       0.00000785      0.00000166      0.00000124
(h) Mechanical Descaling........................      0.00000359      0.00000131      0.00000028      0.00000021
(i) Painting....................................      0.000117        0.0000425       0.00000899      0.00000671
(j) Pressure Deformation........................      0.0000449       0.0000164       0.00000346      0.00000258 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.


                                                     Table 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Pollutant                                Manganese                      Molybdenum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Maximum                         Maximum
           Forming/finishing operation             Maximum daily      monthly      Maximum daily      monthly
                                                        \1\           avg.\1\           \1\           avg.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Acid Pickling...............................      0.000600        0.000364        0.00164         0.00103
(b) Alkaline Cleaning...........................      0.000600        0.000364        0.00164         0.00103
(c) Cold Forming................................      0               0               0               0
(d) Continuous Annealing........................      0.0000300       0.0000182       0.0000820       0.0000511
(e) Electroplating..............................      0.00120         0.000728        0.00328         0.00205
(f) Hot Dip Coating.............................      0.000174        0.000106        0.000476        0.000297
(g) Lubrication.................................      0.0000144       0.00000873      0.0000394       0.0000246
(h) Mechanical Descaling........................      0.00000240      0.00000146      0.00000656      0.00000409
(i) Painting....................................      0.0000780       0.0000473       0.000214        0.000133
(j) Pressure Deformation........................      0.0000300       0.0000182       0.0000820       0.0000511
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.


                                                     Table 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Pollutant                                 Nickel                          Silver
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Maximum                         Maximum
           Forming/finishing operation             Maximum daily      monthly      Maximum daily      monthly
                                                        \1\           avg.\1\           \1\           avg.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Acid Pickling...............................      0.00391         0.00156         0.0000955       0.0000582
(b) Alkaline Cleaning...........................      0.00391         0.00156         0.0000955       0.0000582
(c) Cold Forming................................      0               0               0               0
(d) Continuous Annealing........................      0.000196        0.0000779       0.00000477      0.00000291
(e) Electroplating..............................      0.00782         0.00312         0.000191        0.000117
(f) Hot Dip Coating.............................      0.00114         0.000452        0.0000277       0.0000169
(g) Lubrication.................................      0.0000939       0.0000374       0.00000229      0.00000140
(h) Mechanical Descaling........................      0.0000157       0.00000623      0.00000038      0.00000023
(i) Painting....................................      0.000509        0.000203        0.0000125       0.00000756
(j) Pressure Deformation........................      0.000196        0.0000779       0.00000477      0.00000291 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.


                                                     Table 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Pollutant                             Sulfide (as S)                        Tin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Maximum                         Maximum
           Forming/finishing operation             Maximum daily      monthly      Maximum daily      monthly
                                                        \1\           avg.\1\           \1\           avg.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Acid Pickling...............................      0.0630          0.0267          0.0000606       0.0000453
(b) Alkaline Cleaning...........................      0.0630          0.0267          0.0000606       0.0000453
(c) Cold Forming................................      0               0               0               0
(d) Continuous Annealing........................      0.00315         0.00134         0.00000303      0.00000226
(e) Electroplating..............................      0.126           0.0534          0.000122        0.0000905
(f) Hot Dip Coating.............................      0.0183          0.00774         0.0000176       0.0000132
(g) Lubrication.................................      0.00151         0.000641        0.00000145      0.00000109
(h) Mechanical Descaling........................      0.000252        0.000107        0.00000024      0.00000018
(i) Painting....................................      0.00818         0.00347         0.00000788      0.00000588

[[Page 552]]

 
(j) Pressure Deformation........................      0.00315         0.00134         0.00000303      0.00000226 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.


                                 Table 8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Pollutant                              Zinc
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
       Forming/finishing operation         Maximum daily      monthly
                                                \1\           avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Acid Pickling.......................      0.000163        0.000111
(b) Alkaline Cleaning...................      0.000163        0.000111
(c) Cold Forming........................      0               0
(d) Continuous Annealing................      0.00000811      0.00000553
(e) Electroplating......................      0.000325        0.000222
(f) Hot Dip Coating.....................      0.0000471       0.0000321
(g) Lubrication.........................      0.00000389      0.00000265
(h) Mechanical Descaling................      0.00000065      0.00000044
(i) Painting............................      0.0000211       0.0000144
(j) Pressure Deformation................      0.00000811      0.00000553 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.


                                                     Table 9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Pollutant                               Cyanide (T)                     Cyanide (A)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Maximum                         Maximum
           Forming/finishing operation             Maximum daily      monthly      Maximum daily      monthly
                                                        \1\           avg.\1\           \1\           avg.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Electroplating..............................      0.000865        0.000513        0.000580        0.000282
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.

    (c) Upon agreement with the permitting authority and pursuant to 
Sec. 438.4(d), facilities with cyanide treatment have the option of 
achieving the limitation for either cyanide (T) or cyanide (A).
    (d) Upon agreement with the permitting authority, facilities must 
choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for 
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).
    (e) Performance standards must be established in accordance with 
Sec. 438.58.


Sec. 438.57  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

    New sources subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS), as applicable.
    (a) Any new source subject to the provisions of this section that 
commenced discharging after [date 10 years prior to the date that is 60 
days after the publication date of the final rule] and before [date 
that is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule] must 
continue to achieve the applicable new source standards specified in 40 
CFR part 420 for ten years beginning on the date the source commenced 
discharge or during the period of depreciation or amortization of the 
facility, whichever comes first, after which the source must achieve 
the standards specified in Sec. 438.55.
    (b) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, the following standards 
apply with respect to each new source that commences discharge after 
[date that is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule]: 
Limitations for TOC (as indicator), TOP, cadmium, chromium, copper, 
cyanide (T), cyanide (A), lead, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, silver, 
sulfide (as S), tin, and zinc are the same as the corresponding 
limitation specified in Sec. 438.56.
    (c) Upon agreement with the control authority and pursuant to 
Sec. 438.4(d), facilities with cyanide treatment have the option of 
achieving the limitation for either cyanide (T) or cyanide (A).
    (d) Upon agreement with the control authority, facilities must 
choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for 
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).
    (e) Pretreatment standards must be established in accordance with 
Sec. 438.58.


Sec. 438.58  Calculation of NPDES and pretreatment permit effluent 
limitations.

    (a) Production-based limitations in NPDES permits must comply with 
40 CFR 122.45(b)(2)(i). The average rate of production reported by the 
owner or operator in accordance with 40 CFR 403.12(b)(3) shall be based 
not upon the design production capacity but rather upon a reasonable 
measure of actual production of the facility, such as the production 
during the high month of the previous year, or the monthly average for 
the highest of the previous five years. For new sources or new 
dischargers, actual production shall be estimated using projected 
production.
    (b) The following protocols shall be used when calculating the 
operating rate for Subpart E:
    (1) For similar, multiple production lines with process waters 
treated in the same wastewater treatment system, the reasonable measure 
of production (the daily operating rate) shall be determined from the 
combined production of the similar production lines during the same 
time period.
    (2) For process wastewater treatment systems where wastewater from 
two or more different production lines are

[[Page 553]]

commingled in the same wastewater treatment system, the reasonable 
measure of production (the daily operating rate) shall be determined 
separately for each production line (or combination of similar 
production lines) during the same time period.
    (c) Mass effluent limitations and pretreatment requirements for 
each forming/finishing operation shall be computed by multiplying the 
average daily operating rate (or other reasonable measure of 
production), as determined in accordance with Sec. 438.58(b), by the 
respective effluent limitations guidelines or standards. The mass 
effluent limitations or pretreatment requirements applicable at a given 
NPDES or pretreatment compliance monitoring point shall be the sum of 
the mass effluent limitations or pretreatment requirements for each 
regulated pollutant parameter within each applicable forming/finishing 
operation with process wastewater discharging to that compliance 
monitoring point.
    (d) Mass NPDES permit effluent limitations or pretreatment 
requirements derived from this part shall remain in effect for the term 
of the NPDES permit or pretreatment control mechanism, except:
    (1) When the permit is modified in accordance with Sec. 122.62 of 
this chapter or local POTW permit modification provisions; or
    (2) Where the NPDES permit authorizes alternate effluent 
limitations for increased or decreased production levels in accordance 
with Sec. 122.45(b)(2)(ii)(A)(1) of this chapter.
    (e) Production from unit operations that do not generate or 
discharge process wastewater shall not be included in the calculation 
of the operating rate.

Subpart F--Oily Wastes


Sec. 438.60  Applicability.

    (a) This subpart applies to process wastewater from facilities 
specified in Sec. 438.1(a) that discharge wastewater exclusively from 
oily operations (as defined in Sec. 438.61) and are not otherwise 
subject to subparts G or H of this part.
    (b) Facilities introducing process wastewater into a POTW at a rate 
that does not exceed 2 million gallons per year are not subject to the 
pretreatment standards (Secs. 438.65 and 438.67) of this subpart.


Sec. 438.61  Special definitions.

    (a) As used in this subpart, oily operations means one or more of 
the following: Alkaline cleaning for oil removal; aqueous or solvent 
degreasing; corrosion preventive coating (as specified in 
Sec. 438.61(b)); floor cleaning; grinding; heat treating; deformation 
by impact or pressure; machining; painting; steam cleaning; laundering; 
and testing (such as, hydrostatic, dye penetrant, ultrasonic, magnetic 
flux).
    (b) Corrosion preventive coating means the application of removable 
oily or organic solutions to protect metal surfaces against corrosive 
environments. Corrosion preventive coatings include, but are not 
limited to: petrolatum compounds, oils, hard dry-film compounds, 
solvent-cutback petroleum-based compounds, emulsions, water-displacing 
polar compounds, and fingerprint removers and neutralizers. Corrosion 
preventive coating does not include electroplating, or chemical 
conversion coating (including phosphate conversion coating) operations.


Sec. 438.62  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

    (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any 
existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the 
following effluent limitations representing the application of BPT. 
Discharges must remain within the pH range 6 to 9 and must not exceed 
the following:

                          Effluent Limitations
                                  [BPT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
              Regulated  parameter                  Maximum     monthly
                                                   daily \1\   avg. \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. TSS..........................................        63          31
2. O&G (as HEM).................................        27          20
3. TOC (as indicator)...........................       633         378
4. TOP..........................................         9.0         4.3
5. Sulfide (as S)...............................        31         13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

    (b) Upon agreement with the permitting authority, facilities must 
choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for 
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).


Sec. 438.63  Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best 
control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitation representing the application of BCT: Limitations 
for TSS, O&G (as HEM) and pH are the same as the corresponding 
limitation specified in Sec. 438.62.


Sec. 438.64  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).

    (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any 
existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the 
following effluent limitation representing the application of BAT: 
Limitations for TOC (as indicator), TOP and sulfide (as S) are the same 
as the corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 438.62.
    (b) Upon agreement with the permitting authority, facilities must 
choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for 
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).


Sec. 438.65  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

    (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, and except at 
facilities where the process wastewater introduced into a POTW does not 
exceed 2 million gallons per year, any existing source subject to this 
subpart must achieve the following pretreatment standards:

                         Pretreatment Standards
                                 [PSES]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
              Regulated  parameter                  Maximum     monthly
                                                   daily \1\   avg. \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. TOC (as indicator)...........................       633         378
2. TOP..........................................         9.0         4.3
3. Sulfide (as S)...............................        31         13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

    (b) Upon agreement with the permitting authority, facilities must 
choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for 
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).
    (c) The control authority has the option of imposing mass-based 
standards in place of the concentration-based standards. To convert to 
mass-based standards, multiply each parameter's concentration-based 
standard times the average daily flow of process wastewater discharged 
by the source into the POTW.


Sec. 438.66  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    (a) Any new point source subject to this subpart must achieve 
performance standards for TSS, O&G (as HEM), TOC (as indicator), TOP, 
sulfide (as S) and pH, which are the same as the corresponding 
limitation specified in Sec. 438.62.
    (b) Upon agreement with the permitting authority, facilities must

[[Page 554]]

choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for 
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).


Sec. 438.67  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

    (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, or except at facilities 
where the process wastewater introduced into a POTW does not exceed 2 
million gallons per year, any existing source subject to this subpart 
must achieve pretreatment standards for TOC (as indicator), TOP and 
sulfide (as S), which are the same as the corresponding standard 
specified in Sec. 438.65.
    (b) Upon agreement with the permitting authority, facilities must 
choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for 
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).
    (c) The control authority has the option of imposing mass-based 
standards in place of the concentration-based standards. To convert to 
mass-based standards, multiply each parameter's concentration-based 
standard times the average daily flow of process wastewater discharged 
by the source into the POTW.

Subpart G--Railroad Line Maintenance


Sec. 438.70  Applicability.

    (a) This subpart applies to discharges of process wastewater from 
facilities that perform routine cleaning and light maintenance on 
railroad engines, cars, car-wheel trucks, or similar parts or machines, 
and discharge wastewater exclusively from oily operations (as defined 
in Sec. 438.61(a)) or from washing of the final product.
    (b) Facilities engaged in the manufacture, overhaul or heavy 
maintenance of railroad engines, cars, car-wheel trucks, or similar 
parts or machines are not subject to this subpart. These facilities may 
be subject to Subpart A or F of this part.


Sec. 438.72  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the application of BPT. Discharges 
must remain within the pH range 6 to 9 and must not exceed the 
following:

                          Effluent Limitations
                                  [BPT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
               Regulated  parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. BOD<INF>5</INF>...........................................         34         12
2. TSS............................................         30         16
3. O&G (as HEM)...................................         11         8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

Sec. 438.73  Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best 
control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitation representing the application of BCT: Limitations 
for BOD<INF>5</INF>, TSS, O&G (as HEM) and pH are the same as the 
corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 438.72.


Sec. 438.76  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    Any new point source subject to this subpart must achieve 
performance standards for BOD<INF>5</INF>, TSS, O&G (as HEM) and pH, 
which are the same as the corresponding limitation specified in 
Sec. 438.72.

Subpart H--Shipbuilding Dry Docks


Sec. 438.80  Applicability.

    (a) This subpart applies to discharges of process wastewater 
generated in or on dry docks and similar structures, such as graving 
docks, building ways, marine railways and lift barges at shipbuilding 
facilities (or shipyards). This subpart applies to the following when 
generated by operations from within a dry dock or similar structure: 
process wastewater generated inside and outside the vessel (including 
bilge water) and wastewater generated from barnacle removal conducted 
as preparation for ship maintenance, rebuilding or repair.
    (b) The following wastewater discharges are not subject to this 
subpart:
    (1) Wastewater from ``on-shore'' operations (that is, other than 
dry docks and similar structures) at a shipyard.
    (2) Wastewater generated on board ships and boats when they are 
afloat (that is, not in dry docks or similar structures). Wastewater 
generated on U.S. military ships and boats afloat in U.S. waters are 
subject to the Uniform Discharge Standards (UNDS) at 40 CFR part 1700.
    (3) Flooding water (as defined in Sec. 438.81(a)), dry dock ballast 
water (as defined in Sec. 438.81(b)), and storm water.


Sec. 438.81  Special definitions.

    As used in this subpart:
    (a) Flooding water means water that is used to float ships or boats 
into the dry dock or similar structure and is discharged prior to 
performing any MP&M operations, or water that is used to float ships or 
boats out of the dry dock or similar structure after all MP&M 
operations have ceased.
    (b) Dry dock ballast water means water that enters and exits the 
dry dock or similar structure for the purpose of sinking or raising the 
dry dock.


Sec. 438.82  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the application of BPT. Discharges 
must remain within the pH range 6 to 9 and must not exceed the 
following:

                          Effluent Limitations
                                  [BPT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
               Regulated  parameter                  Maximum    monthly
                                                    daily \1\   avg. \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. TSS............................................         81         44
2. O&G (as HEM)...................................         16        11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

Sec. 438.83  Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best 
control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitation representing the application of BCT: Limitations 
for TSS, O&G (as HEM) and pH are the same as the corresponding 
limitation specified in Sec. 438.82.


Sec. 438.86  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    Any new point source subject to this subpart must achieve 
performance standards for TSS, O&G (as HEM) and pH, which are the same 
as the corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 438.82.

[[Page 555]]



                 Appendix A to Part 483--Typical Products in Metal Products & Machinery Sectors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              AEROSPACE                             AIRCRAFT                             BUS & TRUCK
 
Guided Missiles & Space Vehicle       Aircraft Engines & Engine Parts       Bus Terminal & Service Facilities
Guided Missile & Space Vehicle Prop.  Aircraft Frames Manufacturing         Courier Services, Except by Air
Other Space Vehicle & Missile Parts   Aircraft Parts & Equipment             Freight Truck Terminals, W/ or W/O
                                      Airports, Flying Fields, & Services    Maintenance
                                                                            Intercity & Rural Highways
                                                                             (Buslines)
                                      ....................................  Local & Suburban Transit (Bus &
                                                                             subway)
                                      ....................................  Local Passenger. Trans. (Lim., Amb.,
                                                                             Sight See)
                                      ....................................  Local Trucking With Storage
                                      ....................................  Local Trucking Without Storage
                                      ....................................  Motor Vehicle Parts & Accessories
                                      ....................................  School Buses
                                      ....................................  Trucking
                                      ....................................  Truck & Bus Bodies
                                      ....................................  Truck Trailers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT                        HARDWARE                         HOUSEHOLD EQUIPMENT
 
Communications Equipment              Architectural & Ornamental Metal      Commercial, Ind. & Inst. Elec.
Connectors for Electronic              Work                                  Lighting Fixtures
 Applications                         Bolts, Nuts, Screws, Rivets &         Current-Carrying Wiring Devices
Electric Lamps                         Washers                              Electric Housewares & Fans
Electron Tubes                        Crowns & Closures                     Electric Lamps
Electronic Capacitors                 Cutlery                               Farm Freezers
Electronic Coils & Transformers       Fabricated Metal Products             Household Appliances
Electronic Components                 Fabricated Pipe & Fabricated Pipe     Household Cooking Equipment
Radio & TV Communications Equipment    Fittings                             Household Refrig. & Home & Farm
Telephone & Telegraph Apparatus       Fabricated Plate Work (Boiler Shops)   Freezers
                                      Fabricated Structural Metal           Household Laundry Equipment
                                      Fasteners, Buttons, Needles & Pins
                                      Fluid Power Valves & Hose Fittings
                                      Hand & Edge Tools
                                      Hand Saws & Saw Blades                Household Vacuum Cleaners
                                      Hardware                              Lighting Equipment
                                      Heating Equipment, Except Electric    Noncurrent-Carrying Wiring Devices
                                      Industrial Furnaces & Ovens           Radio & Television Repair Shops
                                      Iron & Steel Forgings                 Radio & Television Sets Except
                                      Machine Tool Accessories & Measuring   Commn. Types
                                       Devices                              Refrig. & Air Cond. Serv. & Repair
                                      Machine Tools, Metal Cutting Types     Shops
                                      Machine Tools, Metal Forming Types    Residential Electrical Lighting
                                      Metal Shipping Barrels, Drums Kegs,    Fixtures
                                       Pails
                                      Metal Stampings
                                      Power Driven Hand Tools
                                      Prefabricated Metal Buildings &
                                       Components
                                      Screw Machine Products
                                      Sheet Metal Work
                                      Special Dies & Tools, Die Sets,
                                       Jigs, Etc
                                      Steel Springs
                                      Valves & Pipe Fittings
                                      Wire Springs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             INSTRUMENTS                            JOB SHOP                     MOBILE INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
 
Analytical Instruments                Perform Work on Products for Use In   Construction Machinery & Equipment
Automatic Environmental Controls       Any MP&M Sector But Owns Less Than   Farm Machinery & Equipment
Coating, Engraving, & Allied           50% of the Products On-Site (e.g.,   Garden Tractors & Lawn & Garden
 Services                              Electroplating, Plating, Polishing,   Equipment
Dental Equipment & Supplies            Anodizing, and Coloring)             Hoist, Industrial Cranes & Monorails
Ophthalmic Goods                                                            Industrial Trucks, Tractors,
Fluid Meters & Counting Devices                                              Trailers, Tanks & Tank Components
Instruments to Measure Electricity                                          Mining Machinery & Equipment, Except
Laboratory Apparatus & Furniture                                             Oil Field
 Manufacturing Industries
Measuring & Controlling Devices
Optical Instruments & Lenses
Orthopedic, Prosthetic, & Surgical
 Supplies
Pens, Mechanical Pencils, & Parts
Process Control Instruments
Search & Navigation Equipment
Surgical & Medical Instruments &
 Apparatus
Watches, Clocks, Associated Devices
 & Parts
            MOTOR VEHICLE                        OFFICE MACHINE                           ORDNANCE
 
Auto Exhaust System Repair Shops      Calculating & Accounting Equipment    Ammunition
Automobile Dealers (new & used)       Computer Maintenance & Repair         Ordinance & Accessories
Auto. Dealers (Dunebuggy, Go-Cart,    Computer Peripheral Equipment         Small Arms
 Snowmobile)                          Computer Related Services             Small Arms Ammunition
Automovile Service (includes Diag. &  Computer Rental & Leasing
 Insp. Cntrs.)                        Computer Storage Devices
Automotive Equipment                  Computer Terminals
Automotive Glass Replacement Shops    Electrical & Electronic Repair
Automotive Repairs Shops              Electronic Computers
Automotive Stampings                  Office Machines
Automotive Transmission Repair Shops  Photographic Equipment & Supplies
Carburetors, Pistons Rings, Valves
Electrical Equipment for Motor
General Automotive Repair Shops
Mobile Homes
Motor Vehicle & Automotive Bodies
Motor Vehicle Parts & Accessories
Motorcycle Dealers
Motorcycles

[[Page 556]]

 
Passenger Car Leasing
Recreational & Utility Trailer
 Dealers
Taxicabs
Top & Body Repair & Paint Shops
Travel Trailers & Campers
Vehicles
Vehicular Lighting Equipment
Welding Shops (includes Automotive)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      PRECIOUS METALS & JEWELRY               PRINTED WIRING BOARD                        RAILROAD
 
Costume Jewelry                       Printed Circuit Boards                Line-Haul Railroads
Jewelers' Materials & Lapidary Work   Printed Circuit Boards for            Railcars, Railway Systems
Jewelry, Precious Metal                Television and Radio                 Switching & Terminal Stations
Musical Instruments                   Wiring Boards
Silverware, Plated Ware, & Stainless
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           SHIPS AND BOATS               STATIONARY INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT          STEEL FORMING & FINISHING
 
Boat Building & Repairing             Air & Gas Compressors                 Cold-Finished Steel Bars
Deep Sea Domestic Transportation of   Automatic Vending Machines            Steel Pipe and Tubes
 Freight                              Ball & Roller Bearings                Steel Wiredrawing and Steel Nails
Deep Sea Passenger Transportation,    Blowers & Exhaust & Ventilation Fans   and Spikes
 Except by Ferry                      Commercial Laundry Equipment          Miscellaneous Fabricated Wire
Freight Transportation on the Great   Conveyors & Conveying Equipment        Products (e.g., steel wire rope,
 Lakes                                Electric Industrial Apparatus          cable, netting)
Marinas                               Elevators & Moving Stairways
Ship Building & Repairing             Equipment Rental & Leasing
Towing & Tugboat Service              Food Product Machinery
Water Passenger Transportation        Fluid Power Cylinders & Actuators
 Ferries                              Fluid Power Pumps & Motors
Water Transportation of Freight       General Industrial Machinery
Water Transportation Services         Heavy Construction Equipment Rental
                                      Industrial Machinery
                                      Industrial Patterns
                                      Industrial Process Furnaces & Ovens
                                      Internal Combustion Engines
                                      Measuring & Dispensing Pumps
                                      Mechanical Power Transmission
                                       Equipment
                                      Metal Working Machinery
                                      Motors & Generators
                                      Oil Field Machinery & Equipment
                                      Packaging Machinery
                                      Paper Industries Machinery
                                      Printing Trades Machinery &
                                       Equipment
                                      Pumps & Pumping Equipment
                                      Refrigeration & Air & Heating
                                       Equipment
                                      Relays & Industrial Controls
                                      Rolling Mill Machinery & Equipment
                                      Scales & Balances, Except Laboratory
                                      Service Industry Machines
                                      Special Industry Machinery
                                      Spped Changers, High Speed Drivers &
                                       Gears
                                      Steam, Gas, Hydraulic Turbines,
                                       Generator Units
                                      Switchgear & Switchboard Apparatus
                                      Textile Machinery
                                      Transformers
                                      Welding Apparatus
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    MISCELLANEOUS METAL PRODUCTS
Miscellaneous Fabricated Wire
 Products
Miscellaneous Metal Work
Miscellaneous Repair Shops & Related
 Services
Miscellaneous Transportation
 Equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


               Appendix B to Part 438--TOP Pollutants List
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Nominal
   Total organics parameter pollutants      CAS number     quantitation
                                                           value (mg/L)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Acrolein............................        107-02-8            0.05
 2. Benzoic acid........................         62-85-0            0.05
 3. Carbon disulfide....................         75-15-0            0.01
 4. Dibenzofuran........................        132-64-9            0.01
 5. Dibenzothiophene....................        132-65-0            0.01
 6. Isophorone..........................         78-59-1            0.01
 7. n-Hexadecane........................        544-76-3            0.01
 8. n-Tetradecane.......................        929-59-4            0.01
 9. Aniline.............................         62-53-3            0.01
10. Chloroform (trichloromethane).......         67-66-3            0.01
11. Methylene chloride (dichloromethane)         75-09-2            0.01
12. Chloroethane (ethyl chloride).......         75-00-3            0.05
13. 1,1-Dichloroethane..................         75-34-3            0.01

[[Page 557]]

 
14. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane                        71-55-6            0.01
 (methylchloroform).....................
15. Tetrachloroethene...................        127-18-4            0.01
16. 1,1-Dichloroethylene (vinylidene             75-35-4            0.01
 chloride)..............................
17. Trichloroethylene...................         79-01-6            0.01
18. Biphenyl............................         92-52-4            0.01
19. p-Cymene............................         99-87-6            0.01
20. Ethylbenzene........................        100-41-4            0.01
21. Toluene.............................        108-88-3            0.01
22. N-Nitrosodimethylamine..............         62-75-9            0.05
23. N-Nitrosodiphenylamine..............         86-30-6            0.02
24. Chlorobenzene.......................        108-90-7            0.01
25. 2,6-Dinitrotoluene..................        606-20-2            0.01
26. Phenol..............................        108-95-2            0.01
27. 4-Chloro-m-cresol                            59-50-7            0.01
 (parachlorometacresol or 4-chloro-3-
 methylphenol)..........................
28. 2,4-Dinitrophenol...................         51-28-5            0.05
29. 2,4-Dimethylphenol..................        105-67-9            0.01
30. 2-Nitrophenol (o-nitrophenol).......         88-75-5            0.02
31. 4-Nitrophenol (p-nitrophenol).......        100-02-7            0.05
32. Acenaphthene........................         83-32-9            0.01
33. Anthracene..........................        120-12-7            0.01
34. 3,6-Dimethylphenanthrene............       1576-67-6            0.01
35. Fluorene............................         86-73-7            0.01
36. Fluoranthene........................        206-44-0            0.01
37. 2-Isopropylnaphthalene..............       2027-17-0            0.01
38. 1-Methylfluorene....................       1730-37-6            0.01
39. 2-Methylnaphthalene.................         91-57-6            0.01
40. 1-Methylphenanthrene................        832-69-9            0.01
41. Naphthalene.........................         91-20-3            0.01
42. Phenanthrene........................         85-01-8            0.01
43. Pyrene..............................        129-00-0            0.01
44. Benzyl butyl phthalate..............         85-68-7            0.01
45. Dimethyl phthalate..................        131-11-3            0.01
46. Di-n-butyl phthalate................         84-74-2            0.01
47. Di-n-octyl phthalate................        117-84-0            0.01
48. Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate.........        117-81-7            0.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 463--PLASTICS MOLDING AND FORMING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY

    6. The authority citation for part 463 is revised to read as 
follows:

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

    7. Section 463.1 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 463.1  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (c) Processes that coat a plastic material onto a substrate may 
fall within the Electroplating, Metal Finishing, or Metal Products and 
Machinery provisions of 40 CFR parts 413, 433, and 438, as applicable. 
These coating processes are excluded from the effluent limitations 
guidelines and standards for the electroplating, metal finishing, and 
metal products and machinery point source categories and are subject to 
the plastics molding and forming regulation in this part.
* * * * *

PART 464--METAL MOLDING AND CASTING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY

    8. The authority citation for part 464 is revised to read as 
follows:

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

    9. Section 464.02 is amended by revising the last sentence of 
paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) to read as follows:


Sec. 464.02  General definitions.

    (a) * * * Processing operations following the cooling of castings 
not covered under aluminum forming, except for grinding scrubber 
operations which are covered here, are covered under the 
electroplating, metal finishing, and metal products and machinery point 
source categories (40 CFR parts 413, 433, and 438), as applicable.
    (b) * * * Except for grinding scrubber operations which are covered 
here, processing operations following the cooling of castings are 
covered under the electroplating, metal finishing, and metal products 
and machinery point source categories (40 CFR parts 413, 433, and 438), 
as applicable.
    (c) * * * Except for grinding scrubber operations which are covered 
here, processing operations following the cooling of castings are 
covered under the electroplating, metal finishing, and metal products 
and machinery point source categories (40 CFR parts 413, 433, and 438), 
as applicable.
    (d) * * * Processing operations following the cooling of castings 
not covered under nonferrous metals forming are covered under the 
electroplating, metal finishing, and metal products and machinery point 
source categories (40 CFR parts 413, 433, and 438), as applicable.
* * * * *

PART 467--ALUMINUM FORMING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY

    10. The authority citation for Part 467 is revised to read as 
follows:

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

    11. Section 467.01 is amended by revising the fourth sentence of 
paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec. 467.01  Applicability.

    (a) * * * For the purposes of this part, surface treatment of 
aluminum is considered to be an integral part of aluminum forming 
whenever it is performed at the same plant site at which aluminum is 
formed and such operations are not considered for regulation under the 
Electroplating, Metal Finishing, or Metal Products and

[[Page 558]]

Machinery provisions of 40 CFR parts 413, 433, and 438, as applicable. 
* * *
* * * * *

PART 471--NONFERROUS METAL FORMING AND METAL POWDERS POINT SOURCE 
CATEGORY

    12. The authority citation for Part 471 is revised to read as 
follows:

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

    13. Section 471.01 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 471.01  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (c) Surface treatment includes any chemical or electrochemical 
treatment applied to the surface of the metal. For the purposes of this 
regulation, surface treatment of metals is considered to be an integral 
part of the forming of metals whenever it is performed at the same 
plant site at which the metals are formed. Such surface treatment 
operations are not regulated under Electroplating, Metal Finishing, or 
Metal Products and Machinery Point Source Category regulations, 40 CFR 
parts 413, 433, and 438, respectively.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 01-33 Filed 1-2-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


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