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

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

‘‘mpm.comments@epa.gov’’. 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 ................................. • 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 .......................... • 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).

• 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

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

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

1 In the initial stages of EPA CWA regulation, EPA

efforts emphasized the achievement of BPT

limitations for control of the ‘‘classical’’ pollutants

E. 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 nonVerDate 11<MAY>2000 20:21 Jan 02, 2001 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JAP2.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 03JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 427

(e.g., TSS, pH, BOD5). 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.

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.

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 ‘‘costreasonableness’’ test. EPA explained its

methodology for the development of

BCT limitations in July 1986 (51 FR

24974).

Section 304(a)(4) designates the

following as conventional pollutants:

biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5),

total suspended solids (TSS), fecal

coliform, pH, and any additional

pollutants defined by the Administrator

as conventional. The Administrator

designated oil and grease as an

additional conventional pollutant on

July 30, 1979 (44 FR 44501).

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 technologybased 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

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

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:

• Electroplating (40 CFR part 413);

• Iron and Steel Manufacturing (40

CFR part 420);

• Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing

(40 CFR part 421);

• Ferroalloy Manufacturing (40 CFR

part 424);

• Metal Finishing (40 CFR part 433);

• Battery Manufacturing (40 CFR part

461);

• Metal Molding & Casting (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 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

§ 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

§ 438.40) and the Metal Finishing Job

Shops subcategory (see proposed rule

§ 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

§ 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

Subcategory

Proposing to continue to cover

under 40 CFR Part 413

(Electroplating)

Proposing to continue to cover

under 40 CFR Part 433

(Metal Finishing)

Proposing to cover under

40 CFR Part 438

(Metal Products & Machinery)

General Metals .............................. Existing facilities that are currently

covered by 413 AND are indirect dischargers that introduce

less than or equal to 1 million

gallons per year into a POTW.

Existing facilities that are currently

covered (or new facilities that

would be covered) by 433 AND

are indirect dischargers that introduce less than or equal to 1

million gallons per year into a

POTW.

All new and existing direct dischargers in this subcategory regardless of annual wastewater

discharge volume and all new

and existing indirect dischargers in this subcategory

with annual wastewater discharges greater than 1 million

gallons per year.(See § 438.10).

Metal Finishing Job Shops ............ none (see non-chromium anodizing).none (see non-chromium anodizing).All new and existing direct and indirect discharges under this

subcategory. These facilities

would no longer be covered by

413 or 433. (See § 438.20).

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 429

TABLE II.B–1.—CLARIFICATION OF COVERAGE BY MP&M SUBCATEGORY—Continued

Subcategory

Proposing to continue to cover

under 40 CFR Part 413

(Electroplating)

Proposing to continue to cover

under 40 CFR Part 433

(Metal Finishing)

Proposing to cover under

40 CFR Part 438

(Metal Products & Machinery)

Non-Chromium Anodizers ..............

Note: Facilities that perform anodizing with chromium or with the

use of dichromate sealants (or

commingle their non-chromium

anodizing process wastewater

with wastewaster from other

MP&M subcategories) will be

covered by 40 CFR 438.

Existing indirect dischargers that

are currently covered by 413

AND that only perform nonchromium anodizing (or do not

commingle their non-chromium

anodizing wastewater with other

process wastewater for discharge).

New and existing indirect dischargers (not covered by 413)

that only perform non-chromium

anodizing (or do not commingle

their non-chromium anodizing

wastewater with other process

wastewater for discharge).

Existing and new direct dischargers that only perform nonchromium anodizing (or do not

commingle their non-chromium

anodizing wastewater with other

process wastewater for discharge). (See § 438.30).

Printed Wiring Board (Printed Circuit Board).None ............................................. None ............................................. All new and existing direct and indirect dischargers under this

subcategory. These facilities

would no longer be covered by

413 or 433. (See § 438.40).

Steel Forming & Finishing ............. N/A ................................................ N/A ................................................ All new and existing direct and indirect discharges under this

subcategory as described. (See

§ 438.50).

Oily Waste ..................................... N/A ................................................ N/A ................................................ All new and existing direct and indirect dischargers under this

subcategory as described. (See

§ 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

§ 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

§ 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

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

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., NonChromium 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, noctadecane, 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 (BOD5),

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 organicpollutant-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 BOD5 analyses only measure

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

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

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 concentrationbased 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 massbased 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).

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

• 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;

and

• 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 subcategoryspecific 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 § 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 nonprocess 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 waterdischarging 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

§ 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 § 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 § 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

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

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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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

§ 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 mixeduse 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

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

Activity

Estimated

number of

water

discharging

MP&M sites

Total estimated discharge flow

(million gal/yr)

Percentage of

total water

discharging

MP&M sites

Percentage of

total discharge

flow

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:

• Sites contract haul for off-site

disposal all process wastewater

generated on site;

• Sites discharge process wastewater

to either on-site septic systems or deepwell injection systems;

• Sites perform end-of-pipe treatment

and reuse all process wastewater

generated on site;

• Sites perform either in-process or

end-of-pipe evaporation to eliminate

wastewater discharges; or

• 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

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

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

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

• Water-discharging 1989 screener

respondents (860 sites);

• Water-using 1989 screener

respondents that did not discharge

process water (74 sites); and

• Water-discharging sites from wellknown 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-byquestion 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.

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

4. Federal Facilities Survey

In April 1998, EPA distributed the

federal facilities detailed survey to the

following federal agencies:

• Department of Energy;

• Department of Defense;

• National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA);

• Department of Transportation

(including the United States Coast

Guard);

• Department of the Interior;

• Department of Agriculture; and

• 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:

• The site performed MP&M unit

operations EPA was evaluating for

development of the MP&M regulation;

• 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;

• The site performed in-process

source reduction, recycling, or end-ofpipe treatment technologies that EPA

was evaluating for technology option

development; and

• 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:

• Dates and times of sample

collection;

• Flow data corresponding to each

sample;

• Production data corresponding to

each sample of wastewater from MP&M

unit operations;

• Design and operating parameters for

source reduction, recycling, and

treatment technologies characterized

during sampling;

• Information about site operations

that had changed since the site visit or

that were not included in the SVR; and

• Temperature and pH of the sampled

wastestreams.

EPA documented all data collected

during sampling episodes in the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 439

sampling episode report (SER) for each

sampled site which are located in the

MP&M Administrative Record. Nonconfidential 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. Nonconfidential 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 inprocess 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:

• Unit operation;

• Activity;

• Raw materials;

• Products;

• Size of site;

• Location;

• Age;

• Nature of the waste generated;

• Economic impacts;

• Treatment costs;

• Total energy requirements;

• Air pollution control methods;

• Solid waste generation and

disposal; and

• 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

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

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 wastewatergenerating 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 metalbearing 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) metalbearing 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 metalbearing wastewater (with or without oilbearing 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 oilbearing wastewater) MP&M facilities

into the following subcategories: nonchromium anodizing; metal finishing

job shops; printed wiring board

facilities; steel forming and finishing

facilities; and general metals facilities.

EPA describes its rationale for

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

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

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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 443

2EPA 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).

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

§ 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.

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 nonchromium 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 NonChromium 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 NonChromium 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

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

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 petroleumbased compounds, emulsions, waterdisplacing 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

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

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

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, byproducts, 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 nonaqueous 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 oilbearing 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 oilbearing 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 chromiumbearing 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 chromiumbearing 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 Nnitrosodimethylamine. 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:

• EPA detected the pollutant

parameter in at least three samples

collected during the MP&M sampling

program.

• The average concentration of the

pollutant parameter in samples of

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

• 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 semiquantitative ‘‘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 oilbearing wastewater from its metalbearing 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 chromiumbearing, 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

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

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-ofpipe 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 welloperated 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 inprocess pollution prevention and water

conservation technologies include:

• Flow reduction using flow

restrictors, conductivity meters, and/or

timed rinses, for all flowing rinses, plus

countercurrent cascade rinsing for all

flowing rinses;

• Centrifugation and recycling of

painting water curtains; and

• 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 longterm 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

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

performs the separation. Wastewater is

sent through membrane modules under

pressure. Water and low-molecularweight 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 metalbearing 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:

• Assessment of the performance of

the entire treatment system;

• Identification of process upsets

during sampling that impacted the

treatment effectiveness of the system;

• Identification of pollutants not

present in the raw wastewater at

sufficient concentrations to evaluate

treatment effectiveness; and

• 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 welloperated 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

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

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 welloperated 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 deltalognormal 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

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

Subcategory 1

(number of facilities)

Selected

option

TSS

(lbs removed/

yr)

O&G

(lbs removed/

yr)

COD

(lbs removed/

yr)

Priority and

nonconventional metals

(lbs removed/

yr)

Priortiy and

nonconventional organics

(lbs removed/

yr)

Cyanide

(lbs 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 (15) 2 .............. Option 2 ......... 13,000 ............ 14,400 ............ 232,000 .......... 34,000 ............ 4,600 .............. 5,700

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

TABLE IX–1.—POUNDS OF POLLUTANTS REMOVED BY THE PROPOSED BPT OPTION FOR DIRECT DISCHARGERS BY

SUBCATEGORY—Continued

Subcategory 1

(number of facilities)

Selected

option

TSS

(lbs removed/

yr)

O&G

(lbs removed/

yr)

COD

(lbs removed/

yr)

Priority and

nonconventional metals

(lbs removed/

yr)

Priortiy and

nonconventional organics

(lbs removed/

yr)

Cyanide

(lbs removed/

yr)

Printed Wiring Boards (11) 2 ..................... Option 2 ......... 51,000 ............ 238,000 .......... 1.3 million ....... 172,000 .......... 22,000 ............ 1,400

Steel Forming and Finishing (43) ............. Option 2 ......... 884,000 .......... 101,000 .......... 4.5 million ....... 387,000 .......... 76,000 ............ 1,100

Oily Waste (911) ....................................... Option 6 ......... 349,000 .......... 885,000 .......... 5.1 million ....... 81,000 ............ 127,000 .......... 10

Railroad Line Maintenance (34) ................ Option 10 ....... 9,000 .............. 47,400 ............ 59,000 ............ 1,000 .............. 78 ................... 0

Shipbuilding Dry Dock (6) ......................... Option 10 ....... 650 ................. 8.5 million ....... 0 ..................... 1,400 .............. 700 ................. 0

1EPA did not identify any direct discharging facilities in the Non-Chromium Anodizing subcategory; therefore, there are no estimated removals. See Section IX.C. 2Although 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., costeffectiveness), 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

Subcategory 1

(number of facilities) Selected option

Annualized compliance costs for

selected option

($1996)

Economic impacts (facility

closures) of

selected

option (Percent of regulated subcategory)

BPT cost per

pound

removed 2

(1996 $/pound

removed)

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

1EPA 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. 2EPA 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 metalbearing 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

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

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

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 § 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 NonChromium 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 nonchromium 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 NonChromium 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 nonchromium 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 NonChromium 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).

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

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

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 § 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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 457

Development Document for a more

detailed discussion). See the proposed

rule § 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

§ 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

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

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 § 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 oilbearing 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

§ 438.82 following this preamble for a

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

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

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 poundequivalents 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 NonChromium 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 NonChromium 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 poundequivalents 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

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

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

of the pollutant removed by welloperated 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 nonconventional, and 126 priority toxic

pollutants.

At the time of the 50–POTW sampling

program, which spanned approximately

21⁄2 years (July 1978 to November 1980),

EPA collected samples at selected

POTWs across the U.S. The samples

were subsequently analyzed by either

EPA or EPA-contract laboratories using

test procedures (analytical methods)

specified by the Agency or in use at the

laboratories. Laboratories typically

reported the analytical method used

along with the test results. However, for

those cases in which the laboratory

specified no analytical method, EPA

was able to identify the method based

on the nature of the results and

knowledge of the methods available at

the time.

Each laboratory reported results for

the pollutants for which it tested. If the

laboratory found a pollutant to be

present, the laboratory reported a result.

If the laboratory found the pollutant not

to be present, the laboratory reported

either that the pollutant was ‘‘not

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

sign (<) indicating that the pollutant

was below that value. The value

reported along with the ‘‘less than’’ sign

was the lowest level to which the

laboratory believed it could reliably

measure. EPA subsequently established

these lower levels as the minimum

levels of quantitation (MLs). In some

instances, different laboratories reported

different (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 passthrough analysis for previous industry

studies, including those performed

when developing effluent guidelines for

Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and

Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF)

Manufacturing, Centralized Waste

Treatment (CWT), and Commercial

Hazardous Waste Combustors. EPA

found that, for 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:

• 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,

• 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×ML), and

• 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×ML) along with the corresponding

average effluent values. (In most cases,

2×ML will be equal to or less than 20

μg/l.)

EPA then calculates each POTW percent

removal for each pollutant based on its

average influent and its average effluent

values. The national POTW percent

removal used for each pollutant in the

pass-through test is the median value of

all the POTW pollutant specific percent

removals.

The rationale for retaining POTW data

using the ‘‘10×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

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

Subcategory

(number of facilities)

Selected option

(flow cutoff)

Priority and nonconventional

metals

(lb-removed/yr)

Priority and nonconventional

organics

(lb-removed/yr)

Cyanide

(lb-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.

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

TABLE XII.C–1.—ANNUAL POUNDS OF POLLUTANT REMOVED BY THE PROPOSED PSES OPTION FOR INDIRECT

DISCHARGERS BY SUBCATEGORY—Continued

Subcategory

(number of facilities)

Selected option

(flow cutoff)

Priority and nonconventional

metals

(lb-removed/yr)

Priority and nonconventional

organics

(lb-removed/yr)

Cyanide

(lb-removed/

yr)

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

Subcategory

(number of facilities)

Selected option

(flow cutoff)

Annualized compliance costs for selected option

($1996)

Economic impacts (facility

closures) of

selected

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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 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 poundequivalents 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 poundequivalents 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 passthrough 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 § 438.15 (as

provided in the codified regulation that

accompanies this preamble). EPA

determined that all of the pollutants

listed in § 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 threeyear 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.

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

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 poundequivalents 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 poundequivalents (or about 3 percent of the

removals associated with the proposed

option) at an incremental costeffectiveness of about $300 per poundequivalent ($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 poundequivalents 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 poundequivalents 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

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

§ 438.25 (as provided in the codified

regulation that accompanies this

preamble). EPA determined that all of

the pollutants listed in § 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 threeyear 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

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

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 poundequivalents 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 poundequivalents 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 passthrough 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

§ 438.45 (as provided in the codified

regulation that accompanies this

preamble). EPA determined that all of

the pollutants listed in § 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 threeyear 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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 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 poundequivalents 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 poundequivalents 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 passthrough 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 § 438.55 (as provided

in the codified regulation that

accompanies this preamble). EPA

determined that all of the pollutants

listed in § 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 threeyear 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

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

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 poundequivalents 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 poundequivalents 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 poundequivalents 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 passthrough 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 § 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 threeyear 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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 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 poundequivalent per year while Option 10

(DAF plus P2) only removed 26 poundequivalents 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 subcategoryby-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 § 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

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

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 § 438.17.

EPA determined that all of the

pollutants listed in § 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 § 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 § 438.27.

EPA determined that all of the

pollutants listed in § 438.27 (except for

Total Sulfide, TOC, and TOP) pass

through POTWs. EPA is proposing a

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 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 nonchromium 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 nonchromium 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 nonchromium 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 § 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 § 438.46.

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

(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 § 438.47.

EPA determined that all of the

pollutants listed in § 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 § 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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 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 § 438.57.

EPA determined that all of the

pollutants listed in § 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, oilwater 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 § 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 economicallyachievable 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 poundequivalents at these low flow rates. The

Agency assumes that the poundequivalents per facility for new facilities

with flows below or equal to 2 MGY

would be even lower than the 2 poundequivalents 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 § 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 § 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

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

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 § 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 passthrough 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 costeffective for indirect dischargers than it

is.

One partial solution to this

methodological issue would be to

evaluate individual treatment trains in

the 50 POTW Study data base, and

include only those treatment trains that

achieved compliance with 40 CFR part

133 in the analysis of POTW pollutant

removal rates. There were 29 treatment

trains that achieved BOD5 and TSS

effluent concentrations between 15 mg/

l and 45 mg/l during the sampling and

could potentially be considered

reflective of secondary treatment (based

on 40 CFR 133.102 limitations of 30 mg/

l monthly average and 45 mg/l weekly

max for secondary treatment), and an

additional 2 treatment trains were either

trickling filters or waste stabilization

ponds that achieved BOD5 and TSS

effluent concentrations between 40 mg/

l and 65 mg/l and could potentially be

considered equivalent to secondary

treatment pursuant to 40 CFR 133.101(g)

(based on 40 CFR 133.105 limitations of

45 mg/l monthly average and 65 mg/l

weekly maximum). In addition, 15

treatment trains achieved BOD5 and TSS

effluent concentrations below 15 mg/l

each, and could potentially be

considered greater than secondary

treatment.

Using data from these 46 treatment

trains only would omit the worst

performers in the 50 POTW Study that

are probably not reflective of current

performance. It might not fully correct,

however, for additional upgrades and

optimization that may have occurred

over the past two decades.

B. Assessment of Acceptable Data

EPA developed the pass-through

analysis that is the basis for today’s

proposal using POTW data editing

criteria that are generally consistent

with those used for the industry data.

Specifically, EPA included only data

from POTWs for which influent

concentrations were 10 times the

analytical minimum (quantitation) level

(10xML) if available. If none of the

average pollutant influent

concentrations are at least 10 times the

ML, then EPA retained only data from

POTWs for which influent

concentrations were 2 times the

analytical minimum level. Because it is

difficult to achieve the same pollutant

reduction (in terms of percent) in a

dilute wastestream as in a more

concentrated wastestream, EPA believes

that a 10 X ML editing criteria may

overestimate the percent removals that

are calculated for both industry and

POTWs in the pass-through analysis.

As a general rule, more POTW data

than industry data is eliminated through

this editing criteria for the specific

pollutants that are being examined. This

is not surprising since the pass-through

analysis would not even be performed

on pollutants generally found at less

than 10 times the method minimum

level in industry since EPA would, in

many cases, not require pretreatment for

such low levels of a pollutant. As a

result of this imbalance (pollutant

influent levels at POTWs being less than

pollutant influent levels to industrial

pretreatment), EPA believes that it is

possible that this editing criteria may

bias the pass-through results by overestimating POTW removals where

influent concentrations are generally

lower. This would result in

underestimating the pollutant

reductions that are achieved through the

regulation of indirect dischargers

thereby making the rule appear less

cost-effective than it is. On the other

hand, there may be little difference in

percent removals across the range of

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 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 costeffective 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 nondetect assures that at least 90 percent of

the pollutant has been removed. It is

arguably less important that the true

removal may be greater than 90 percent,

rather than exactly 90 percent. Using a

less stringent editing criteria of 2 X ML

as discussed above would exacerbate

this problem. If the influent were only

2 X ML, then removals greater than 50

percent could never be measured.]

One potential alternative would be to

assume a value of one half of the

minimum level for effluent values of

non-detect. This approach would have

to be applied uniformly for the indirect

dischargers as well as the POTWs in

order for the percent removal

calculations to be reasonable.

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

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

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 mgy flow

cutoff for indirect dischargers.

Technology option 2 ..................... Technology option 4.

Metal Finishing Job Shop .............. Technology option 2 ..................... Technology option 2 ..................... Technology option 4.

Non-Chromium Anodizing .............. Technology option 2; no PSES/

PSNS for indirect dischargers.

Technology option 2 ..................... Technology option 4.

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 mgy flow

cutoff for indirect dischargers.

Technology option 6 ..................... Technology option 8.

Railroad Line Maintenance ............ Technology option 10; no PSES/

PSNS for indirect dischargers.

Technology option 10 ................... Technology option 8.

Shipbuilding Dry Dock ................... Technology option 10; no PSES/

PSNS for indirect dischargers.

Technology option 10 ................... Technology option 8.

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:

• A firm-level analysis, which

assesses the impact on the financial

performance and condition of firms

owning MP&M facilities;

• 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;

• A community impact analysis,

which assesses the job losses caused by

facility closures and job gains associated

with compliance;

• A foreign trade analysis, which

assesses the effect of the proposed rule

on the U.S. balance of trade;

• 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

• 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:

• 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

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

• Railroad line maintenance facilities

maintain and repair railroad track,

equipment and vehicles.

• 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:

• Department of Commerce economic

census and survey data, including the

Censuses of Manufactures, Annual

Surveys of Manufactures, and

international trade data;

• The Benchmark Input-Output

Tables of the United States, published

by the Bureau of Economic Analysis in

the Department of Commerce;

• Price index series from the Bureau

of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor;

• U.S. Industry and Trade Outlook,

published by McGraw-Hill and the U.S.

Department of Commerce;

• Industry trade publications; and

• 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:

• 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.

• 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

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

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 twothirds 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

Closure test Baseline

closures

Facilities remaining open

in the baseline

Status under proposed option

Regulatory

closures

Pre-tax compliance 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:

• Pre-Tax Return on Assets (PTRA):

The ratio of cash operating income to

total assets measures the facility’s

profitability.

• 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 rulerelated 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 passthrough 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:

• An econometric analysis of the

historical relationship between output

prices and changes in input costs; and

• An analysis of indicators of passthrough potential based on market

structure and performance.

Market structure factors include:

• Market power based on the degree

of horizontal and vertical integration;

• Extent of competition from foreign

suppliers (in both domestic and export

markets);

• Barriers to competition as indicated

by above normal, risk-adjusted

profitability; and

• 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.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 481

TABLE XVI–3.—SUMMARY OF FACILITY IMPACT METHODOLOGY FOR PRIVATE MP&M FACILITIES

Impact category Description Criteria Significance of negative finding

Baseline Closure ............................ Identifies facilities that are in jeopardy of financial failure independent of the proposed regulation.1. After-tax cash flow (ATCF) negative? and

2. Liquidation value exceed going

concern value (NPV test)?

Facilities failing both tests are

considered baseline closures

and excluded from subsequent

analyses.

Post-Compliance Closure .............. Identifies facilities that are likely to

close instead of implementing

the pollution prevention and

treatment systems required to

comply with the rule.

1. Post-compliance after-tax cash

flow (ATCF) negative? and

2. Liquidation value exceed postcompliance going concern

value?

Facilities failing both tests are projected to close as the result of

regulation—an incremental severe economic impact.

Moderate Financial Impacts ........... Identifies facilities that may have

difficult financing compliance investments or on-going business

investments as a result of the

rule.

1. Decline in pre-tax return on assets (PTRA) to a level that

jeopardizes access to financing? or

2. Decline in interest coverage

ratio (ICR) to a level that jeopardizes access to financing?

Facilities passing both tests in the

baseline but failing one or both

tests post-compliance are considered to experience incremental moderate economic impacts attributable 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:

• Replace one or more MP&M

municipal facilities with a nonmunicipal provider for services;

• Discontinue these services

altogether; or

• Pay for compliance and continue

operations.

EPA assumed that all governmentowned 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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

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

3EPA notes that pre-tax annualized compliance

costs are estimated to be $1.98 billion (in 1999

dollars).

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 postcompliance 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

Subcategory Total number

of dischargers

Number of

baseline

closures

Percent of

baseline

closures

Operating in

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.

TABLE XVI–5.—TOTAL ANNUALIZED FACILITY * COMPLIANCE COSTS BY SUBCATEGORY, DISCHARGE STATUS AND

REGULATORY OPTION

[After-tax, million $1999]

Subcategory

Proposed rule Option 2/6/10 Option 4/8

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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 483

TABLE XVI–5.—TOTAL ANNUALIZED FACILITY * COMPLIANCE COSTS BY SUBCATEGORY, DISCHARGE STATUS AND

REGULATORY OPTION—Continued

[After-tax, million $1999]

Subcategory

Proposed rule Option 2/6/10 Option 4/8

Direct Indirect Direct Indirect Direct Indirect

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 Continuing to

Operate Post-Regulation ....................................................... 4,633 4,944 4,633 53,008 4,615 51,344

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 postcompliance 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 nonclosing 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

Subcategory Total operating in

baseline

Number of facility closures due to the rule

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

Subcategory Total operating in

baseline

Number of facilities experiencing moderate impacts due to

the rule

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

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

TABLE XVI–7.—INCREMENTAL MODERATE IMPACTS ON INDIRECT DISCHARGERS—Continued

Subcategory Total operating in

baseline

Number of facilities experiencing moderate impacts due to

the rule

Proposed rule Option 2/6/10 Option 4/8

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 nonclosing 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

Subcategory Total in baseline

operating

Number of facility closures due to the rule

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

Subcategory Total operating in

the baseline

Number of facilities experiencing moderate

impacts due to the rule

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.)

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 485

TABLE XVI–10.—SUMMARY OF INCREMENTAL FACILITY IMPACTS FOR ALL FACILITIES

Subcategory

Regulatory option

Proposed rule Option 2/6/10 Option 4/8

Number of Facilities Operating in Baseline ...... 58,922 ..................................... 58,922 ..................................... 58,922.

Number of Closures (severe impacts) .............. 199 .......................................... 1,282 ....................................... 2,963.

Percent Closing ................................................ 0.3 ........................................... 2.2 ........................................... 5.0.

Job losses due to closures (FTE-years) .......... 5,916 (over 3 years) ............... 16,834 (over 3 years) ............. 48,070 (over 3 years).

Job gains due to compliance requirements

(FTE-years).

8,487 (over 15 years) ............. 12,023 (over 15 years) ........... 27,535 (over 15 years).

Number of Additional Facilities with Moderate

Impacts.

616 .......................................... 2,216 ....................................... 2,309.

Percent with Moderate Impacts ........................ 1.0 ........................................... 3.8 ........................................... 3.9.

Annualized Compliance Costs (pre-tax, billion

$1999).

$1.98 ....................................... $2.67 ....................................... $4.18.

Annualized Compliance Costs (after-tax, billion

$1999).

$1.33 ....................................... $1.81 ....................................... $2.92.

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 firmlevel 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 of firms in the analysis*

Number and percent with before-tax annual compliance

costs/annual revenues equal to:

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 multifacility 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:

• Government-owned MP&M

facilities may be directly affected by the

MP&M regulation and therefore incur

compliance costs; and

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

• 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 governmentowned 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 governmentowned 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

Size of government and status under

proposed option

Municipal

government

State

government

County

government

Regional governmental authority Total

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 percent of baseline cost of

service* ................................................................................................................... 215

Number of governments failing the ‘‘impact on taxpayers’’ criterion** ..................... 0

Number of governments failing the ‘‘impacts on government debt’’ criterion*** ....... 0

Number of governments failing all three impacts criteria ∂ ...................................... 0

* 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. ∂ 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 governmentowned 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 41⁄2 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

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

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

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

exports

1999 value of

imports

Balance of

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 financiallysound 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

Subcategory Discharge status Existing source

options proposed

New source options considered a

Annualized compliance costs b

($1999)

Facility Revenue c

($1999)

New Source ACC

as % 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. aEPA 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. b 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. cEqual 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. d Includes existing facilities in all flow categories that continue operating post-compliance.

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

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

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 concentrationand 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 mass-based ............................................................................................... * 223

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 not requiring repermitting under the proposed rule ........................................ 143

Total POTW Administrative Costs (net present value of incremental costs over 15 years) (million $1999) ............................... $1.407–$8.311

Total POTW Administrative Costs (annualized over 15 years @ 7% (million $1999) ................................................................. $0.115–$0.912

* 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 tradeoff 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 nonmonetary 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

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

Year

One-time manufacturing and

installation a

Annual O&M a Closures b Net change in

employment

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

aAssumes that one-third of facilities come into compliance in each of 3 years.

bAssumes 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 postcompliance.

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%]

Social cost category Lower bound

estimate

Upper bound

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

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

TABLE XVI–18.—ANNUAL SOCIAL COSTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE—Continued

[Million $1999, annualized @ 7%]

Social cost category Lower bound

estimate

Upper bound

estimate

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). Costeffectiveness 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:

• 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.

• 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.

• 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 costeffectiveness 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 costeffectiveness 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 toxicweighted 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

Regulatory option

Annual before-tax compliance costs

(excluding regulatory closures)

Weighted pollutant removals

Cost-effectiveness ratio

($1981/lb-eq) Total

cost

(million $1999)

Total

cost

(million $1981)

Incremental

cost

(million $1981)

Total

removals

(000 lbs-eq)

Incremental

removals

(000 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 costeffectiveness ratio of $1,053 per poundequivalent removed. The differences

between the proposed option and

Option 2/6/10 for indirect dischargers

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 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 NonChromium 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 poundequivalents 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 poundequivalents, as compared with Option

2/6/10, at an additional cost of $0.8

billion ($1981), or $4,416 per poundequivalent.

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

Subcategory and regulatory option

Incremental

before-tax

compliance

cost

(million $1981)

Incremental

removals

(lbs-eq)

Cost-effectiveness ratio

($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 NonChromium 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

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

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 costeffectiveness 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

Regulatory option

Annual before-tax compliance costs

(excluding regulatory closures)

Weighted pollutant removals

Cost-effectiveness ratio

($1981/lb-eq) Total

cost

(million $1999)

Total

cost

(million $1981)

Incremental

cost

(million $1981)

Total

removals

(000 lbs-eq)

Incremental

removals

(000 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 poundequivalent.

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

Subcategory and regulatory option

Incremental

before-tax

compliance

cost

(million $1981)

Incremental

removals

(lbs-eq)

Cost-effectiveness ratio

($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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 495

TABLE XVII–4.—COST-EFFECTIVENESS FOR DIRECT DISCHARGERS BY SUBCATEGORY—Continued

Subcategory and regulatory option

Incremental

before-tax

compliance

cost

(million $1981)

Incremental

removals

(lbs-eq)

Cost-effectiveness ratio

($1981/lb-eq)

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 poundequivalent 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 CE analysis for direct dischargers is

presented only for informational

purposes.

Table XVII–4 shows a high costeffectiveness 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 inprocess 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:

• Chromium Emissions from Hard

and Decorative Chromium

Electroplating and Chromium

Anodizing Tanks;

• Halogenated Solvent Cleaning;

• Aerospace Manufacturing;

• Shipbuilding and ship repair

(Surface Coating);

• Large appliances (Surface Coating);

• Metal Furniture (Surface Coating);

• Automobile and light-duty truck

manufacturing (Surface Coating); and

• 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.

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

TABLE XVIII.B–1.—WASTE TREATMENT SLUDGE AND OIL GENERATION BY OPTION

Option

Wastewater

treatment

sludge

generated

(million gallons/year)

Waste oil

generated

(million gallons/year)

Baseline1 .......................................................................................................................................................................... 267 805

Proposed Options without water conservation and P2 ................................................................................................... 207 2,000

Proposed Options with water conservation and P2 ........................................................................................................ 206 1,600

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1EPA 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

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

Option

Energy

required

(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. 1EPA 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

Option

Energy

required

(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. 1EPA 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 nonvolatile (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:

• Water quality changes;

• Reduced aquatic life impacts;

• Reduced POTW inhibitions;

• Reduced costs for sewage sludge

disposal; and

• 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

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

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 publiclyowned 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 inwaterway 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

Category

MP&M discharges with potential

POTW impacts

MP&M discharges

exhibiting toxicity

Aquatic Life

Activated

sludge

inhibition

Biosolids

contaminants HAP 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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 499

TABLE XIX–2.—NATIONAL ESTIMATES OF MP&M POLLUTANTS, EXCEEDENCES & REDUCTIONS

Baseline Proposed

option

Option

2/6/10

Option

4/8

POTW Impacts

Number of POTWs with Inhibition Problems (18 pollutants > inhibition criteria) ............ 515 209 123 123

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 a ............................................................................................. 18 11 11 13

Organisms only b ....................................................................................................... 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

aBoth drinking water and organism consumption are considered in developing these AWQC exceedences.

bOnly 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 waterbased 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 waterbased 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.

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

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

Benefit category Quantified and

monetized

Quantified and

nonmonetized

Nonquantified

and

nonmonetized

Human Health Benefits

Reduced cancer risk due to ingestion of chemically-contaminated fish and unregulated pollutants in drinking water ............................................................................................................... X

Reduced systemic health hazards (e.g., reproductive, immunological, neurological, circulatory, or respiratory toxicity) due to ingestion of chemically-contaminated fish and unregulated pollutants in drinking water ...................................................................................... ........................ X

Reduced systemic health hazards from exposure to lead from consumption of chemicallycontaminated fish ..................................................................................................................... X

Reduced cancer risk and health hazards from exposure to unregulated pollutants in chemically-contaminated sewage sludge .......................................................................................... ........................ ........................ X

Reduced health hazards from exposure to contaminants in waters used recreationally (e.g.,

swimming) ................................................................................................................................ ........................ ........................ X

Ecological Benefits

Reduced risk to aquatic life ......................................................................................................... ........................ X

Enhanced water-based recreation including fishing .................................................................... X

Enhanced water-based recreation including near-water or viewing and boating ....................... X

In expanded

analyses

Other enhanced water-based recreation such as swimming, waterskiing and white water rafting ............................................................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ X

Increased aesthetic benefits such as enhancement of adjoining site amenities (e.g. residing,

working, traveling, and owning property near the water) ........................................................ ........................ ........................ X

Nonuser value (i.e., existence, option, and bequest value) ........................................................ X

Reduced contamination of sediments ......................................................................................... ........................ ........................ X

Reduced non-point source nitrogen contamination of water if sewage sludge is used as a

substitute for chemical fertilizer on agricultural land ............................................................... ........................ ........................ X

Satisfaction of a public preference for beneficial use of sewage sludge * .................................. ........................ ........................ X

Economic Productivity Benefits

Reduced sewage sludge disposal costs ..................................................................................... X

Reduced management practice and record-keeping costs for users of sewage sludge that

meets exceptional quality criteria ............................................................................................. ........................ ........................ X

Reduced interference with POTW operations ............................................................................. ........................ X

Benefits to tourism industries from increased participation in water-based recreation .............. ........................ ........................ X

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 501

TABLE XX–1.—BENEFIT CATEGORIES ASSOCIATED WITH WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS RESULTING FROM THE METAL

PRODUCTS AND MACHINERY EFFLUENT GUIDELINE—Continued

Benefit category Quantified and

monetized

Quantified and

nonmonetized

Nonquantified

and

nonmonetized

Improved commercial fisheries yields ......................................................................................... ........................ ........................ X

Addition of fertilizer to crops (nitrogen content of sewage sludge is available as a fertilizer

when sludge is land applied) * ................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ X

Improved crop yield (the organic matter in land-applied sewage sludge increases soil’s water

retention) * ................................................................................................................................ ........................ ........................ X

Avoidance of costly siting processes for more controversial sewage sludge disposal methods

(e.g., incinerators) because of greater use of land application ............................................... ........................ ........................ X

Reduced water treatment costs for municipal drinking water, irrigation water, and industrial

process and cooling water ....................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ X

* 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 noncancer 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).

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

TABLE XX–2.—ESTIMATED ANNUAL BENEFITS FROM AVOIDED CANCER CASES FROM FISH AND DRINKING WATER

CONSUMPTION

Regulatory status

Drinking Water Fish Consumption Total

Annual

cancer

cases

Benefit

value

(million

1999$)

Annual

cancer

cases

Benefit

value

(million

1999$)

Annual

cancer

cases

Benefit

value

(million

1999$)

Baseline

Baseline ........................................................................... 5.10 1 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 instream 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 noncancer 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

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

Category

Proposed option Option 2/6/10 Option 4/8

Reduced

cases

Monetary

value

Reduced

cases

Monetary

value

Reduced

Cases

Monetary

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 odorproducing 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,

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

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

Regulatory status

Number of

reaches with

MP&M pollutant concentrations exceeding AWQC

limits

Number of benefitting reaches

All AWQC

exceedences

eliminated

Number of

AWQC

exceedences

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

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

Benefit Type Proposed

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 postcompliance 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

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

drinking water treatment for the

pollutants with drinking water criteria.

TABLE XX–6.—ESTIMATED BENEFITS FROM REDUCED MP&M DISCHARGES

[Annual Benefits—Million 1999$]

Benefit category Proposed

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 productionbased 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

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

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

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

§ 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 multitiered 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

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

Year

Electroplating

line A

(tons)

Electroplating

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:

Year Electroplating

(tons)

Pressure

deformation

(tons)

Acid pickling

(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 productionbased maximum monthly average

effluent limitations and standards in

combination with daily-maximum

concentration-based effluent limitations

and standards. Under this alternative,

the maximum monthly average NPDES

permit and pretreatment 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 dailymaximum 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

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

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 (§ 403.12(b)) and the

90-day Compliance Report (§ 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 guidelinelimited 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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 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 nonconventional 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-ofpipe treatment to reduce the

concentrations of organic pollutants and

that an organic management plan alone

may not adequately control organicbearing wastewater at facilities

containing significant quantities of oilbearing 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 cyanidebearing wastestreams prior to

commingling with metal-bearing

streams, additional complexing can

occur. This additional complexing

would render the cyanide ‘‘nonamenable’’ 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

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

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 performancebased, 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

• Lower process solution viscosity

and/or surface tension by lowering

chemical concentration, increasing bath

temperature, or use wetting agents.

• Reduce drag-out volume by

modifying rack/barrel design and

perform rack maintenance to avoid

solution trapping under insulation.

• Position parts on racks in a manner

that avoids trapping solution.

• Reduce speed of rack/barrel

withdraw from process solution and/or

increase dwell time over process tank.

• Rotate barrels over process tank to

improve drainage.

• Use spray/fog rinsing over the

process tank (limited applicability).

• Use drip boards and return process

solution to the process tank.

• Use drag-out tanks, where

applicable, and return solution to the

process tank.

• Work with customers to ensure that

part design maximizes drainage

Drag-out Recovery

Use a chemical recovery technology to

recover drag-out from wastewater.

• Evaporators

• Ion exchange

• Electrowinning

• Electrodialysis

• 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:

• 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.

• 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.

• Use air agitation, mechanical

mixing or other means of turbulence.

• Use spray/fog rinsing (less effective

with hidden surfaces).

• Use multiple rinse tanks in a

counter-flow configuration (i.e.,

counter-current cascade rinsing).

• 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:

• 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.)

• Conductivity controls

• Timer rinse controls

• 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.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 513

Category 6. Must Practice Good

Housekeeping

To satisfy this requirement, facilities

must demonstrate compliance with each

of the requirements listed below:

• 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.

• 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.

• Perform quick cleanup of leaks and

spills in chemical storage and process

areas.

• 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:

• 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.

• 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:

• Implement an environmental

management program that includes, but

is not limited to, the following elements:

• Pollution prevention policy

statement,

• Environmental performance goals,

• Pollution prevention assessment,

• Pollution prevention plan,

• Environmental tracking and record

keeping system,

• Procedures to optimize control

parameter settings (e.g., ORP set point in

cyanide destruction systems, optimum

pH for chemical precipitation systems,

etc.), and

• Statement delineating minimum

training levels for wastewater treatment

operators.

(EPA notes that it has developed a

template for a metal finishing facilityspecific 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 dragout 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

§ 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.

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

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.

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

farmer.sandy@epa.gov, 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 § 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 nonconventional 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 sitespecific 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

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

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

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

• Government-owned MP&M

facilities may be directly affected by the

MP&M regulation and therefore incur

compliance costs; and

• 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 GovernmentOwned MP&M Facilities

EPA administered a survey (the

‘‘Municipal Survey’’) to governmentowned 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

Size of government and Status under proposed option Municipal

government

State

government

County

government

Regional

governmental

authority

Total

Large Governments (population > 50,000)

Number of government entities > flow cutoff ...................... 60 183 77 0 319

Number of government entities ≤ flow cutoff ....................... 512 183 610 36 1,341

Small Governments (population <= 50,000)

Number of government entities > flow cutoff ...................... 410 ........................ ........................ ........................ 410

Number of government entities ≤ flow cutoff ....................... 1,781 ........................ 481 ........................ 2,262

All Governments

Number of government entities > flow cutoff ...................... 470 183 77 0 729

Number of government entities ≤ flow cutoff ....................... 2,293 183 1,091 36 3,603

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

facilities

subject to

regulation

Compliance

costs

(million 1999$)

Number of

facilities

subject to

regulation

Compliance

costs

(million 1999$)

Number of

facilities

subject to

regulation

Compliance

costs

(million 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

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

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 governmentowned 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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 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 costeffective 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 costeffectiveness 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-forprofit 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.

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

TABLE XXII.C–1.—PERCENT OF MP&M FACILITIES OWNED BY SMALL ENTITIES

Type of Facility

Number of

facilities

operating in

baseline

Number of

facilities

owned by

small entities

Percent of facilities owned

by small

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

Sector and activity

Small business definition

using the 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.—Manufacturing .................................................................................................................. 500 Employees.

Stationary Industrial Equip.—Maint/Repair ..................................................................................................................... $5 Million.

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—Manufacturing ....................................................................................................................... 500 Employees.

Precious Metals/Jewelry—Maintenance/Repair ............................................................................................................. $5 Million.

Ship—Manufacturing ...................................................................................................................................................... 1,000 Employees.

Ship—Maintenance/Repair ............................................................................................................................................. 500 Employees.

Ship—Maintenance/Repair (SIC 449) 1 .......................................................................................................................... $5 Million.

Household Equip.—Manufacturing ................................................................................................................................. 500 Employees.

Household Equip.—Maintenance/Repair ........................................................................................................................ $5 Million.

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 (SIC 5013) 2 ......................................................................................................... 100 Employees.

Bus & Truck—Manufacturing .......................................................................................................................................... 500 Employees.

Bus & Truck—Maintenance/Repair ................................................................................................................................ $5 Million.

Office Machines—Manufacturing .................................................................................................................................... 1,000 Employees.

Office Machines—Maintenance/Repair .......................................................................................................................... $18 Million.

Steel Forming & Finishing .............................................................................................................................................. 1,000 Employees.

Printed Circuit Boards ..................................................................................................................................................... 500 Employees.

Metal Finishing & Electroplating Job Shops ................................................................................................................... 500 Employees.

Other Metal Products—Manufacturing ........................................................................................................................... 500 Employees.

Other Metal Products—Maintenance/Repair .................................................................................................................. $5 Million.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 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 of small firms in the analysis

Number and percent with before-tax annual compliance costs annual revenues equal to:

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-tosales 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

All facilities Indirect

dischargers

Direct

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

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

MP&M facilities. Thus, the proposed

rule covers 410 small governmentowned 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

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

• Electroplating (40 CFR part 413);

• Iron and Steel Manufacturing (40

CFR part 420);

• Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing

(40 CFR part 421);

• Ferroalloy Manufacturing (40 CFR

part 424);

• Metal Finishing (40 CFR part 433);

• Battery Manufacturing (40 CFR part

461);

• Metal Molding and Casting (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 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 NonChromium 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

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

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

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

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

TABLE XXII.F–1.—ESTIMATED CHANGES IN LIFETIME CANCER RISK TO SUBSISTENCE VS. RECREATIONAL ANGLERS

Exposed population category

Average lifetime cancer risk per individual Estimated changes in individual lifetime cancer risk

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)

Regulatory status

Total exposed

subsistence

anglers

Subsistence anglers exposed to

hazard ratio >1 a

Subsistence anglers benefitting

from the MP&M rule

Number of

individuals

Percent of

total exposed

individuals

Number of

individuals

Percent of

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

a 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 statelevel 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

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

Benefit category Population category

Number of

children

(ages 0 to 1)

Reduction in

the number of

adverse health

effect cases

Estimated monetary value of

avoided health damages to

children (1999$)—mean

estimates

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

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

TABLE XXII.G–1.—ESTIMATED BENEFITS TO PRE-SCHOOL CHILDREN FROM REDUCED EXPOSURE TO LEAD—Continued

Benefit category Population category

Number of

children

(ages 0 to 1)

Reduction in

the number of

adverse health

effect cases

Estimated monetary value of

avoided health damages to

children (1999$)—mean

estimates

Total Per child

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-yearold 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 poundequivalents) in two or more

subcategories. See appendix B to part

438 in the proposed rule accompanying

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

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

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 massbased 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.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 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 SGTHEM), 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 offsite; (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.

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

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

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

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

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 poundequivalents. EPA uses toxic poundequivalents 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 inprocess 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 nonchromium 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

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

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

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 waterbased 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

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

Parameter EPA

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

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

TABLE XXIV–1.—EPA ANALYTICAL

METHODS FOR USE WITH MP&M—

Continued

Parameter EPA

method

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:

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 539

§ 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:

§ 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

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

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.

§ 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 semiconductor 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

§ 438.1) within a mixed-use facility (as

defined in § 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.

§ 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) BOD5 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 nonindustrial 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

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

§ 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.

§ 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 byproducts; 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 mixeduse facility, as defined in § 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

§ 438.2(f) for definition of TOP.

(d) Cyanide monitoring. Selfmonitoring 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: Cyanidebearing 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 onsite 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.

§ 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

§ 438.10 Applicability.

(a) This subpart applies to process

wastewater discharges from facilities (as

specified in § 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 § 438.15 or

§ 438.17.

§ 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]

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly

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

1mg/L (ppm).

(b) Upon agreement with the

permitting authority and pursuant to

§ 438.4(d), facilities with cyanide

treatment have the option of achieving

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

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

§ 438.4(a).

§ 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 § 438.12.

§ 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

§ 438.12.

(b) Upon agreement with the

permitting authority and pursuant to

§ 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

§ 438.4(a).

§ 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]

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly

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

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS—

Continued

[PSES]

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly

avg.1

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 § 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 § 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.

§ 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 § 438.12 and § 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]

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly

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

§ 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

§ 438.4(a).

§ 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

§ 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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 543

that is 60 days after the publication date

of the final rule]:

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS

[PSNS]

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly

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 § 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 § 438.4(a).

(e) The control authority has the

option of imposing mass-based

standards in place of the concentrationbased standards. To convert to massbased 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

§ 438.20 Applicability.

(a) This subpart applies to process

wastewater discharges from facilities, as

specified in § 438.1(a), that operate as a

metal finishing job shop (as defined in

§ 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 § 438.21) are not subject

to this subpart, but are subject to

subpart D of this part.

§ 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.

§ 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]

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly

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

§ 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

§ 438.4(a).

§ 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 § 438.22.

§ 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

§ 438.22.

(b) Upon agreement with the

permitting authority and pursuant to

§ 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

§ 438.4(a).

§ 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]

Regulated

Parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly

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 § 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

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

monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement

a management plan for organic

chemicals as specified in § 438.4(a).

(d) The control authority has the

option of imposing mass-based

standards in place of the concentrationbased standards. To convert to massbased standards, multiply each

parameter’s concentration-based

standard times the average daily flow of

process wastewater discharged by the

source into the POTW.

§ 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 § 438.22 and § 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]

Regulated

Parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly

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

§ 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

§ 438.4(a).

§ 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

§ 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]

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly

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 § 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 § 438.4(a).

(e) The control authority has the

option of imposing mass-based

standards in place of the concentrationbased standards. To convert to massbased 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

§ 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 § 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.

§ 438.31 Special definitions.

As used in this subpart, nonchromium anodizing means anodizing

without the use of chromic acid or

dichromate sealants.

§ 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]

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly

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).

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 545

§ 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 § 438.32.

§ 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

§ 438.32.

§ 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 § 438.32 and § 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]

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly

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

§ 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 § 438.21) are not subject

to this subpart.

§ 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]

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly

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

§ 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

§ 438.4(a).

§ 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 § 438.42.

§ 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

§ 438.42.

(b) Upon agreement with the

permitting authority and pursuant to

§ 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

§ 438.4(a).

§ 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]

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

Monthly

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 § 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 § 438.4(a).

(d) The control authority has the

option of imposing mass-based

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

standards in place of the concentrationbased standards. To convert to massbased standards, multiply each

parameter’s concentration-based

standard times the average daily flow of

process wastewater discharged by the

source into the POTW.

§ 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 § 438.42 and § 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]

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly

avg.1

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

§ 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

§ 438.4(a).

§ 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

§ 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]

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly

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 § 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 § 438.4(a).

(e) The control authority has the

option of imposing mass-based

standards in place of the concentrationbased standards. To convert to massbased 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

§ 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.

§ 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,

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 547

but not limited to, chromium, copper,

nickel, tin, zinc, and combinations

thereof, on steel products using an

electro-chemical process. The massbased 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 § 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 massbased limitations for pressure

deformation operations includes

wastewater flow volumes from forging

operations and extrusion operations.

§ 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)

Forming/finishing operation Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg.1

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly 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

1Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.

TABLE 2

Pollutant TOC TOP

Forming/finishing operation Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg.1

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly 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

1Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.

TABLE 3

Pollutant Cadmium Chromium

Forming/finishing operation Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg.1

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly 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

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

TABLE 3—Continued

Pollutant Cadmium Chromium

Forming/finishing operation Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg.1

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg.1

(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

1Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.

TABLE 4

Pollutant Copper Lead

Forming/finishing operation Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg.1

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly 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

1Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.

TABLE 5

Pollutant Manganese Molybdenum

Forming/finishing operation Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg.1

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly 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

1Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.

TABLE 6

Pollutant Nickel Silver

Forming/finishing operation Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg.1

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly 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

1Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 549

TABLE 7

Pollutant Sulfide (as S) Tin

Forming/finishing operation Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg.1

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly 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

1Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.

TABLE 8

Pollutant Zinc

Forming/finishing operation Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly 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

1Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.

TABLE 9

Pollutant Cyanide (T) Cyanide (A)

Forming/finishing operation Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg.1

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg.1

(e) Electroplating ...................................................................................... 0.000865 0.000513 0.000580 0.000282

1Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.

(b) Upon agreement with the

permitting authority and pursuant to

§ 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

§ 438.4(a). (d) Permit limitations must

be established in accordance with

§ 438.58.

§ 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 § 438.52.

§ 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

§ 438.52.

(b) Upon agreement with the

permitting authority and pursuant to

§ 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

§ 438.4(a).

§ 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

§ 438.52.

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

(b) Upon agreement with the control

authority and pursuant to § 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 § 438.4(a).

(d) Pretreatment standards must be

established in accordance with § 438.58.

§ 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

§§ 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)

Forming/finishing operation Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg.1

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly 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

1Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.

TABLE 2

Pollutant TOC TOP

Forming/finishing operation Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg. 1

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly 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

1Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.

TABLE 3

Pollutant Cadmium Chromium

Forming/finishing operation Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg.1

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly 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

1Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 551

TABLE 4

Pollutant Copper Lead

Forming/finishing operation Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg.1

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly 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

1Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.

TABLE 5

Pollutant Manganese Molybdenum

Forming/finishing operation Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg.1

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly 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

1Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.

TABLE 6

Pollutant Nickel Silver

Forming/finishing operation Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg.1

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly 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

1Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.

TABLE 7

Pollutant Sulfide (as S) Tin

Forming/finishing operation Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg.1

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly 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

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

TABLE 7—Continued

Pollutant Sulfide (as S) Tin

Forming/finishing operation Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg.1

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg.1

(j) Pressure Deformation ......................................................................... 0.00315 0.00134 0.00000303 0.00000226

1Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.

TABLE 8

Pollutant Zinc

Forming/finishing operation Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly 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

1Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.

TABLE 9

Pollutant Cyanide (T) Cyanide (A)

Forming/finishing operation Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg.1

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg.1

(a) Electroplating ...................................................................................... 0.000865 0.000513 0.000580 0.000282

1Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.

(c) Upon agreement with the

permitting authority and pursuant to

§ 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

§ 438.4(a).

(e) Performance standards must be

established in accordance with § 438.58.

§ 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 § 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 § 438.56.

(c) Upon agreement with the control

authority and pursuant to § 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 § 438.4(a).

(e) Pretreatment standards must be

established in accordance with § 438.58.

§ 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

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

§ 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

§ 438.60 Applicability.

(a) This subpart applies to process

wastewater from facilities specified in

§ 438.1(a) that discharge wastewater

exclusively from oily operations (as

defined in § 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 (§§ 438.65 and 438.67) of this

subpart.

§ 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 § 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 petroleumbased compounds, emulsions, waterdisplacing polar compounds, and

fingerprint removers and neutralizers.

Corrosion preventive coating does not

include electroplating, or chemical

conversion coating (including

phosphate conversion coating)

operations.

§ 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]

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly

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

§ 438.4(a).

§ 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 § 438.62.

§ 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

§ 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

§ 438.4(a).

§ 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]

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly

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

§ 438.4(a).

(c) The control authority has the

option of imposing mass-based

standards in place of the concentrationbased standards. To convert to massbased standards, multiply each

parameter’s concentration-based

standard times the average daily flow of

process wastewater discharged by the

source into the POTW.

§ 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

§ 438.62.

(b) Upon agreement with the

permitting authority, facilities must

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

choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or

implement a management plan for

organic chemicals as specified in

§ 438.4(a).

§ 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

§ 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

§ 438.4(a).

(c) The control authority has the

option of imposing mass-based

standards in place of the concentrationbased standards. To convert to massbased 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

§ 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 § 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.

§ 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]

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly

avg.1

1. BOD5 .................... 34 12

2. TSS ....................... 30 16

3. O&G (as HEM) ..... 11 8

1 mg/L (ppm).

§ 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 BOD5, TSS, O&G (as

HEM) and pH are the same as the

corresponding limitation specified in

§ 438.72.

§ 438.76 New source performance

standards (NSPS).

Any new point source subject to this

subpart must achieve performance

standards for BOD5, TSS, O&G (as HEM)

and pH, which are the same as the

corresponding limitation specified in

§ 438.72.

Subpart H—Shipbuilding Dry Docks

§ 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

§ 438.81(a)), dry dock ballast water (as

defined in § 438.81(b)), and storm water.

§ 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.

§ 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]

Regulated

parameter

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly

avg. 1

1. TSS ....................... 81 44

2. O&G (as HEM) ..... 16 11

1 mg/L (ppm).

§ 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 § 438.82.

§ 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

§ 438.82.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 555

APPENDIX A TO PART 483—TYPICAL PRODUCTS IN METAL PRODUCTS & MACHINERY SECTORS

AEROSPACE AIRCRAFT BUS & TRUCK

Guided Missiles & Space Vehicle

Guided Missile & Space Vehicle Prop.

Other Space Vehicle & Missile Parts

Aircraft Engines & Engine Parts

Aircraft Frames Manufacturing

Aircraft Parts & Equipment

Airports, Flying Fields, & Services

Bus Terminal & Service Facilities

Courier Services, Except by Air Freight Truck Terminals, W/ or W/O 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

Connectors for Electronic Applications

Electric Lamps

Electron Tubes

Electronic Capacitors

Electronic Coils & Transformers

Electronic Components

Radio & TV Communications Equipment

Telephone & Telegraph Apparatus

Architectural & Ornamental Metal Work

Bolts, Nuts, Screws, Rivets & Washers

Crowns & Closures

Cutlery

Fabricated Metal Products

Fabricated Pipe & Fabricated Pipe Fittings

Fabricated Plate Work (Boiler Shops)

Fabricated Structural Metal

Fasteners, Buttons, Needles & Pins

Fluid Power Valves & Hose Fittings

Hand & Edge Tools

Commercial, Ind. & Inst. Elec. Lighting Fixtures

Current-Carrying Wiring Devices

Electric Housewares & Fans

Electric Lamps

Farm Freezers

Household Appliances

Household Cooking Equipment

Household Refrig. & Home & Farm Freezers

Household Laundry Equipment

Hand Saws & Saw Blades

Hardware

Heating Equipment, Except Electric

Industrial Furnaces & Ovens

Iron & Steel Forgings

Machine Tool Accessories & Measuring Devices

Machine Tools, Metal Cutting Types

Machine Tools, Metal Forming Types

Metal Shipping Barrels, Drums Kegs, 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

Household Vacuum Cleaners

Lighting Equipment

Noncurrent-Carrying Wiring Devices

Radio & Television Repair Shops

Radio & Television Sets Except Commn. Types

Refrig. & Air Cond. Serv. & Repair Shops

Residential Electrical Lighting Fixtures

INSTRUMENTS JOB SHOP MOBILE INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

Analytical Instruments

Automatic Environmental Controls

Coating, Engraving, & Allied Services

Dental Equipment & Supplies

Ophthalmic Goods

Fluid Meters & Counting Devices

Instruments to Measure Electricity

Laboratory Apparatus & Furniture 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

Perform Work on Products for Use In Any MP&M

Sector But Owns Less Than 50% of the Products

On-Site (e.g., Electroplating, Plating, Polishing, Anodizing, and Coloring)

Construction Machinery & Equipment

Farm Machinery & Equipment

Garden Tractors & Lawn & Garden Equipment

Hoist, Industrial Cranes & Monorails

Industrial Trucks, Tractors, Trailers, Tanks & Tank

Components

Mining Machinery & Equipment, Except Oil Field

MOTOR VEHICLE OFFICE MACHINE ORDNANCE

Auto Exhaust System Repair Shops

Automobile Dealers (new & used)

Auto. Dealers (Dunebuggy, Go-Cart, Snowmobile)

Automovile Service (includes Diag. & Insp. Cntrs.)

Automotive Equipment

Automotive Glass Replacement Shops

Automotive Repairs Shops

Automotive Stampings

Automotive Transmission Repair Shops

Carburetors, Pistons Rings, Valves

Electrical Equipment for Motor

Calculating & Accounting Equipment

Computer Maintenance & Repair

Computer Peripheral Equipment

Computer Related Services

Computer Rental & Leasing

Computer Storage Devices

Computer Terminals

Electrical & Electronic Repair

Electronic Computers

Office Machines

Photographic Equipment & Supplies

Ammunition

Ordinance & Accessories

Small Arms

Small Arms Ammunition

General Automotive Repair Shops

Mobile Homes

Motor Vehicle & Automotive Bodies

Motor Vehicle Parts & Accessories

Motorcycle Dealers

Motorcycles

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

APPENDIX A TO PART 483—TYPICAL PRODUCTS IN METAL PRODUCTS & MACHINERY SECTORS—Continued

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

Jewelers’ Materials & Lapidary Work

Jewelry, Precious Metal

Musical Instruments

Silverware, Plated Ware, & Stainless

Printed Circuit Boards

Printed Circuit Boards for Television and Radio

Wiring Boards

Line-Haul Railroads

Railcars, Railway Systems

Switching & Terminal Stations

SHIPS AND BOATS STATIONARY INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT STEEL FORMING & FINISHING

Boat Building & Repairing

Deep Sea Domestic Transportation of Freight

Deep Sea Passenger Transportation, Except by Ferry

Freight Transportation on the Great Lakes

Marinas

Ship Building & Repairing

Towing & Tugboat Service

Water Passenger Transportation Ferries

Water Transportation of Freight

Water Transportation Services

Air & Gas Compressors

Automatic Vending Machines

Ball & Roller Bearings

Blowers & Exhaust & Ventilation Fans

Commercial Laundry Equipment

Conveyors & Conveying Equipment

Electric Industrial Apparatus

Elevators & Moving Stairways

Equipment Rental & Leasing

Food Product Machinery

Fluid Power Cylinders & Actuators

Fluid Power Pumps & Motors

General Industrial Machinery

Heavy Construction Equipment Rental

Industrial Machinery

Industrial Patterns

Cold-Finished Steel Bars

Steel Pipe and Tubes

Steel Wiredrawing and Steel Nails and Spikes

Miscellaneous Fabricated Wire Products (e.g., steel

wire rope, cable, netting)

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

Total organics parameter pollutants CAS number

Nominal 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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 557

APPENDIX B TO PART 438—TOP POLLUTANTS LIST—Continued

Total organics parameter pollutants CAS number

Nominal quantitation value

(mg/L)

14. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (methylchloroform) ........................................................................................................................................... 71–55–6 0.01

15. Tetrachloroethene ............................................................................................................................................................................... 127–18–4 0.01

16. 1,1-Dichloroethylene (vinylidene chloride) .......................................................................................................................................... 75–35–4 0.01

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 (parachlorometacresol or 4-chloro-3-methylphenol) ............................................................................................. 59–50–7 0.01

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:

§ 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:

§ 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:

§ 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

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

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:

§ 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