[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10253-10265]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3730]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 420

[FRL 6897-8]
RIN 2040-AB79


Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New 
Source Performance Standards for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point 
Source Category

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Extension of comment period; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On December 27, 2000 (65 FR 81964), EPA published proposed 
effluent limitations guidelines, pretreatment standards, and new source 
performance standards under the Clean Water Act (CWA) for wastewater 
discharges from iron and steel manufacturing facilities. The proposed 
regulation would revise technology-based effluent limitations 
guidelines and standards for wastewater discharges associated with the 
operation of new and existing iron and steel facilities.
    This action presents clarifying discussion on seven regulatory 
issues related to the proposed effluent limitations guidelines and 
standards for the iron and steel industry and solicits public comment. 
This action also contains corrections to certain portions of the 
proposed regulation and accompanying preamble to eliminate 
inconsistencies in the proposal, and to correct potentially confusing 
typographical errors.
    This action also provides additional information on the 
pretreatment hearing and public meeting.
    This action also announces that EPA is extending the comment period 
on the proposed rule until March 26, 2001. EPA is providing this 
extension in response to numerous requests for additional time to allow 
the public to consolidate their comments on the proposal.

DATES: EPA must receive comments on this action by midnight March 26, 
2001. This is also the new deadline for submitting comments on the 
proposed rule, which was published on December 27, 2000 (65 FR 81964). 
On February 20, 2001, EPA will conduct a hearing on the pretreatment 
standards (9:00 AM-10:30 AM), followed by a public meeting on the 
entire proposed rule, including issues in today's action (10:30 AM-
12:00 PM and 1:00 PM-2:30 PM).

ADDRESSES: The public meeting and hearing will be held at the EPA 
auditorium in Waterside Mall, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC.
    Submit written comments to Mr. George M. Jett at the following 
address: Office of Water, Engineering and Analysis Division (4303), 
U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Comments 
submitted via hand-delivery or Federal Express may be sent to the 
following address: Room 607a West Tower, 401 M Street SW., Washington, 
DC 20460. For additional information on how to submit comments, see 
``HOW TO SUBMIT COMMENTS'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 
this action.
    The public record for this action and the proposed rulemaking has 
been established under docket number W-00-25 and is located in the 
Water Docket East Tower Basement, Room EB57, 401 M Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20460. The record is available for inspection from 9:00 
a.m. to 4:00 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 
this action and the proposed rule, contact Mr. George M. Jett at (202) 
260-7151 or Mr. Kevin Tingley at (202) 260-9843. For economic 
information, contact Mr. William Anderson at (202) 260-5131.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How to Submit Comments

    EPA encourages comments on today's action to be combined with 
comments on the notice published on December 27, 2000. 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. Please submit any references cited 
in your comments.
    Comments may also be sent via e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#076d627373296062687560624762776629606871"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="58323d2c2c763f3d372a3f3d183d2839763f372e">[email protected]</span></a>. 
Electronic comments must specify docket number W-00-25 and must be 
submitted as an ASCII, Word, or WordPerfect file avoiding the use of 
special characters and any form of encryption. Electronic comments on 
this action may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries. 
No confidential business information (CBI) should be sent via e-mail.

Contents of This Document

I. Purpose of this Action
II. Solicitation of Public Comment on New Regulatory Issues
III. Corrections to Proposed Preamble and Regulation

I. Purpose of This Action

    In this action, EPA presents seven regulatory issues related to the 
proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the Iron and 
Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category. This action also contains 
corrections to certain portions of the proposed regulation and 
accompanying preamble. This action also announces March 26, 2001 as the 
new deadline for submitting comments on the proposed rule. EPA solicits 
public comment on all information presented in this action and in the 
administrative record supporting this action.

II. Solicitation of Public Comment on New Regulatory Issues

    EPA has identified seven substantive issues related to the proposed 
rulemaking to bring to the public's attention. These issues are 
discussed below. EPA solicits comment on these issues and the various 
approaches the Agency is considering to resolve these issues.
A. BPT Revision for Semi-wet BOF Operations
    In the effluent limitations guidelines and standards promulgated 
for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category in 1982, BPT 
and BAT for basic oxygen furnaces with semi-wet air pollution controls 
(semi-wet BOFs) were set at no discharge of process wastewater 
pollutants to waters of the United States. In the December 27, 2000 
notice, we proposed to revise BAT for semi-wet BOFs in the steelmaking 
subcategory. We had intended to revise BPT at the same time so that BAT 
and BPT would be consistent. However, we failed to do that. Instead, we 
republished the 1982 BPT of no discharge of process wastewater 
pollutants for semi-wet BOFs, with the result that the BPT would be 
more stringent than the proposed BAT. EPA did not intend this anomalous 
result. Today's action advises the public that we intend to revise BPT 
to be consistent with BAT in the final action.
    Conforming BPT to BAT, as EPA intended, would allow for the 
discharge

[[Page 10254]]

of process wastewater from semi-wet BOFs, which EPA considers 
desirable, because certain safety concerns preclude some sites 
currently from balancing the water applied for BOF gas conditioning 
with evaporative losses to achieve zero discharge. Specifically, some 
sites operate their semi-wet systems with excess water, which they use 
to flush the air pollution control ductwork in order to prevent the 
buildup of debris within the ductwork. If wet debris accumulates within 
the ductwork, it has the potential to fall back into the BOF, and may 
cause explosions and process upsets. The sites thus discharge the 
process wastewater used for flushing. EPA does not want to discourage 
this flushing practice because of its safety implications. 
Consequently, EPA intends to revise BPT for semi-wet BOF operations to 
conform to the proposed BAT so as to allow for the discharge of process 
wastewater under BPT for the reasons set forth above. The pollutants 
regulated under a revised BPT for semi-wet BOF operations would be TSS 
and pH. EPA is not proposing to regulate oil and grease in wastewater 
discharges from semi-wet BOF operations because there is virtually no 
oil and grease is in the wastestream. (EPA notes that oil and grease 
was not regulated in the 1982 regulation for this segment.)
    If EPA were to revise BPT limitations for semi-wet BOF operations, 
EPA would base the new limitations for TSS on pollutant concentrations 
established in the 1982 rulemaking for both wet-open combustion and 
wet-suppressed combustion BOFs (150 mg/L maximum daily and 50 mg/L 
maximum monthly average concentrations for TSS) and the production-
normalized flow (PNF) (10 gpt) developed in the proposed rule for semi-
wet BOFs. It is reasonable to transfer limitations from these segments 
to the semi-wet BOF segment because of similarity in wastewater 
characteristics and in the proposed treatment technology. Using these 
data, EPA has calculated the BPT limitations shown in Table II.A.1 for 
semi-wet BOFs, which EPA would promulgate under this approach:

       Table II.A.1.--Effluent Limitations (BPT) for Semi-Wet BOFs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
           Process wastewater source              Maximum      monthly
                                                 daily \1\   average \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Basic oxygen furnaces (1) semi-wet air           0.0125     0.00417
 pollution controls TSS.......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.

    The pH level would be maintained between 6.0 and 9.0 su at all 
times.
    EPA solicits comment on this issue, including the limitations 
specified above.
B. PSES Limits for Electroplaters
    The proposed regulation at section 420.66(g) (65 FR 82076) would 
establish concentration-based PSES for electroplating operations in the 
Steel Finishing Subcategory. These concentration-based limits were 
carried forward from the current regulations for the Metal Finishing 
Category. See 40 CFR 433.15 (2000 ed.). All other limitations and 
standards set forth in the proposed iron and steel rule are mass-based. 
EPA is considering converting the proposed concentration-based limits 
for electroplating (see Table II.B.1) to mass-based limits using the 
PNFs proposed for electroplating operations (see Table II.B.2). Table 
II.B.3 then presents the mass-based PSES limits for electroplating 
operations, for which it solicits comments today.

      Table II.B.1.--Concentration-Based Pretreatment Standards for
          Electroplating Operations Set Forth in Proposed Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
                   Pollutant                      Maximum      monthly
                                                 daily \1\   average \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium......................................         2.77         1.71
Lead..........................................         0.69         0.43
Nickel........................................         3.98         2.38
Zinc..........................................         2.61        1.48
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Milligrams per liter.


Table II.B.2.--Production-Normalized Flows for Electroplating Operations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              PNF  (gal/
               Electroplating operation type                     ton)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strip, sheet: tin, chromium................................         1100
Strip, sheet: zinc, other metals...........................          550
Plate......................................................           35
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Table II.B.3.--Mass-Based Pre-treatment Standards Considered for
                        Electroplating Operations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
                  Pollutant                      Maximum       monthly
                                                daily \1\    average \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Strip, sheet: tin, chromium:
  Chromium..................................       0.0254        0.0157
  Lead......................................       0.0063        0.0039
  Nickel....................................       0.0365        0.0218
  Zinc......................................       0.0240        0.0136
(2) Strip, sheet: zinc, other metals:
  Chromium..................................       0.0127        0.0078

[[Page 10255]]

 
  Lead......................................       0.0032        0.0020
  Nickel....................................       0.0183        0.0109
  Zinc......................................       0.0120        0.0068
(3) Plate:
  Chromium..................................       0.00081       0.00050
  Lead......................................       0.00020       0.00013
  Nickel....................................       0.00116       0.00070
  Zinc......................................       0.00076       0.00043 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.

    EPA does not believe this action will result in increased costs to 
the industry. EPA solicits comment on whether to establish mass-based 
PSES limits for electroplating operations in the Steel Finishing 
Subcategory. EPA also solicits comment on the specific mass-based 
pretreatment standards set forth in Table II.B.3 and the approach 
employed to develop those pretreatment standards.
C. Limitations and Standards for Ammonia-N in Steel Finishing 
Subcategory
    The proposed regulation would regulate ammonia (as N) at BAT 
(section 420.64(a)), NSPS (section 420.65(b)(3)), and PSNS (section 
420.67(b)(1)) levels in the stainless steel segment of the Steel 
Finishing Subcategory. EPA intended for the limits to apply only to 
nitric acid picklers using urea to control NO<INF>X</INF> emissions, 
because ammonia (as N) is present in wastewater from stainless steel 
finishing operations at significant levels only when nitric acid is 
used in pickling baths and urea is used to control NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions. However, EPA did not make this distinction in the proposal. 
EPA intends to correct this error with today's notice. Consistent with 
EPA's original intent, EPA would specify in the final action that the 
BAT, NSPS, and PSNS limits as presented would apply only to stainless 
steel finishing operations with nitric acid pickling baths in which 
urea is used to control NO<INF>X</INF> emissions, and solicits comment.
    The Agency also solicits comment on not establishing nationwide 
limits for ammonia (as N) for any operations in the stainless steel 
segment of the Steel Finishing subcategory. EPA notes that there are no 
limits for ammonia (as N) under the current Part 420 regulations for 
this segment. We would allow permit writers and pretreatment control 
authorities to use best professional judgment (BPJ) to make case-by-
case determinations of the need to regulate ammonia (as N) in 
wastewater discharges from nitric acid pickling operations. EPA is also 
considering providing guidance for best management practices to reduce 
discharges of ammonia (as N).
D. Chromium (VI) Data
    The proposed regulation would establish BAT (section 420.64(b)), 
NSPS (section 420.65(b)(4)), and PSNS (section 420.67(b)(2)) to 
regulate chromium (VI) in wastewaters from both segments of the Steel 
Finishing Subcategory. EPA proposed different limits for the carbon and 
alloy steel segment and the stainless steel segment of the subcategory. 
The following discussion pertains only to the stainless steel segment 
of the Steel Finishing Subcategory. Also, it does not apply to PSES 
standards, because EPA did not propose modification of the existing 
PSES standards for the Steel Finishing Subcategory.
    The proposed limitations and standards for the stainless steel 
segment are based upon two sets of chromium (VI) data, which are 
described in Section 12.2.6.2 of the Technical Development Document 
(EPA-821-B-00-011). EPA acquired the two sets of data through self-
monitoring performed by two different facilities. Prior to proposal, 
EPA lacked information from one facility regarding the chemical 
analytical method employed by that facility in analyzing the chromium 
(VI) data provided to EPA. Since proposal, EPA has received additional 
information about the chemical analytical methods for one set of these 
data and has verified that these data were determined by a method 
specified in or approved under 40 CFR Part 136, thus fulfilling one of 
EPA's criteria for data selection. Since proposal, EPA also has 
determined that the second set of data does not demonstrate effective 
performance of the model treatment technology. EPA believes that 
chromium (VI) reduction, if practiced properly, can consistently 
achieve effluent concentrations at or close to the minimum level of 
0.01 mg/L. This is supported by sampling data from two Metal Products 
and Machinery (MP&M) facilities and three iron and steel finishing 
facilities operating chromium (VI) reduction pretreatment systems. 
Consequently, EPA has removed the second data set from analysis.
    As a result of this change in the database, EPA recalculated the 
proposed limitations for BAT, NSPS, and PSNS for chromium (VI) in 
wastewater from the stainless steel segment of the Steel Finishing 
Subcategory. The limitations and standards that EPA is now considering 
are set forth in tables II.D.1, II.D.2 and II.D.3. The Agency believes 
that the data set used to establish theses limitations represents the 
best performing treatment system. We did not recalculate standards for 
PSES because EPA did not in the December, 2000 notice propose to revise 
the standards for existing indirect dischargers, but instead 
transferred them unchanged from the 1982 regulation, which did not set 
standards for chromium (VI). EPA is soliciting comment on this approach 
and on the recalculated limitations and standards.
    For BAT, Table II.D.1 presents the effluent limitations that would 
apply to discharges in the stainless steel segment for the Steel 
Finishing Subcategory for each operation as applicable.

[[Page 10256]]



       Table II.D.1.--Effluent Limitations (BAT) for Chromium (VI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
                                           Maximum daily      monthly
                                                \1\         average \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Acid pickling and other descaling:
    (A) bar, billet.....................      0.0000922      0.0000680
    (B) pipe, tube......................      0.000309       0.000228
    (C) plate...........................      0.0000140      0.0000103
    (D) strip, sheet....................      0.000281       0.000207
(ii) Acid regeneration:
    (A) fume scrubbers..................      0.0577 \2\     0.0426
(iii) Alkaline cleaning:
    (A) pipe, tube......................      0.00000802     0.00000591
    (B) strip, sheet....................      0.00100        0.000739
(iv) Cold forming:
    (A) direct application-single stand.      0.0000140      0.0000103
    (B) direct application-multiple           0.000110       0.0000813
     stands.............................
    (C) recirculation-single stand......      0.00000120     0.000000887
    (D) recirculation-multiple stands...      0.00000641     0.00000473
    (E) combination-multiple stand......      0.0000573      0.0000423
(v) Continuous annealing................      0.00000802     0.00000591
(vi) Wet air pollution control devices:
    (A) fume scrubbers..................      0.00866 \2\    0.006382
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

    For NSPS, Table II.D.2 presents the effluent limitations for 
chromium (VI) that would apply to discharges in the stainless steel 
segment for the Steel Finishing Subcategory for each operation as 
applicable.

      Table II.D.2.--Effluent Limitations (NSPS) for Chromium (VI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
                                           Maximum daily      monthly
                                                \1\         average \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Acid pickling and other descaling:
    (A) bar, billet.....................      0.0000922      0.0000680
    (B) pipe, tube......................      0.000309       0.000228
    (C) plate...........................      0.0000140      0.0000103
    (D) strip, sheet....................      0.000281       0.000207
(ii) Acid regeneration:
    (A) fume scrubbers..................      0.0577 \2\     0.0426
(iii) Alkaline cleaning:
    (A) pipe, tube......................      0.00000802     0.00000591
    (B) strip, sheet....................      0.00100        0.000739
(iv) Cold forming:
    (A) direct application-single stand.      0.0000140      0.0000103
    (B) direct application-multiple           0.000110       0.0000813
     stands.............................
    (C) recirculation-single stand......      0.00000120     0.000000887
    (D) recirculation-multiple stands...      0.00000641     0.00000473
    (E) combination-multiple stand......      0.0000573      0.0000423
(v) Continuous annealing................      0.00000802     0.00000591
(vi) Wet air pollution control devices:
    (A) fume scrubbers..................      0.00866 \2\    0.00638 \2\ 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

    For PSNS, Table II.D.3 presents the pretreatment standards for 
chromium (VI) that would apply to discharges in the stainless steel 
segment for the Steel Finishing Subcategory for each operation as 
applicable.

     Table II.D.3.--Pretreatment Standards (PSNS) for Chromium (VI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
                                           Maximum daily      monthly
                                                \1\         average \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Acid pickling and other descaling:
    (A) bar, billet.....................      0.0000922      0.0000680
    (B) pipe, tube......................      0.000309       0.000228
    (C) plate...........................      0.0000140      0.0000103
    (D) strip, sheet....................      0.000281       0.000207
(ii) Acid regeneration:
    (A) fume scrubbers..................      0.0577\2\      0.0426
(iii) Alkaline cleaning:

[[Page 10257]]

 
    (A) pipe, tube......................      0.00000802     0.00000591
    (B) strip, sheet....................      0.00100        0.000739
(iv) Cold forming:
    (A) direct application-single stand.      0.0000140      0.0000103
    (B) direct application-multiple           0.000110       0.0000813
     stands.............................
    (C) recirculation-single stand......      0.00000120     0.000000887
    (D) recirculation-multiple stands...      0.00000641     0.00000473
    (E) combination-multiple stand......      0.0000573      0.0000423
(v) Continuous annealing................      0.00000802     0.00000591
(vi)Wet air pollution control devices:
    (A) fume scrubbers..................      0.00866 \2\    0.00638 \2\ 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

E. Pretreatment Standards for Phenol for the Cokemaking Subcategory
    Generally, EPA establishes pretreatment standards for BAT 
pollutants that pass through publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) to 
waters of the U.S. or interfere with POTW operations or sludge disposal 
practices. The proposed regulation would establish PSES and PSNS for 
phenol for the byproducts segment of the Cokemaking Subcategory, based 
on the Agency's POTW pass-through analysis. To determine whether a 
pollutant passes through POTWs, EPA generally compares the average 
percentage of a pollutant removed by well-operated POTWs performing 
secondary treatment to the percentage of a pollutant removed by BAT 
treatment. When the median percentage removed nationwide by well-
operated POTWs is less than the median percentage removed by direct 
dischargers complying with the proposed BAT effluent limitations, EPA 
typically determines that the pollutant passes through.
    For the proposal, EPA calculated a POTW percent removal of 95% for 
phenol using data from the U.S. EPA Fate of Priority Pollutants in 
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (EPA 440/1-82/303, September 1982). The 
Agency calculated a cokemaking BAT percent removal of 99.9% for phenol 
based on data from iron and steel manufacturing facilities 
demonstrating BAT technology. Because the BAT percent removal is higher 
than the POTW percent removal, EPA concluded at the time of proposal 
that phenol in cokemaking process wastewater would pass through POTWs. 
However, in today's action EPA is considering finding that phenol does 
not pass through for the Cokemaking Subcategory of the proposed 
regulation. Instead, EPA is considering the following approach employed 
by EPA in the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) 
guideline.
    As explained in the ``Supplement to the Development Document for 
Effluent Limitations and Guidelines and New Source Performance 
Standards for the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers 
Point Source Category'' (EPA 821-R-93-007), EPA determined that phenol 
is highly biodegradable and is treated by POTWs to the same non-detect 
levels (10 parts per billion (ppb) or 10 <greek-m>g/L) that the OCPSF 
direct dischargers achieve. EPA also observed that the direct 
dischargers had significantly higher influent concentrations than the 
POTWs, with the result that the OCPSF direct dischargers showed higher 
removals than the performance at the POTWs. EPA determined in the OCPSF 
rule that phenol did not pass through. EPA reasoned that application of 
the traditional approach to these facts would reflect the significant 
differences in influent concentrations rather than a real difference in 
the POTWs' ability to treat phenols.
    For the cokemaking subcategory in the Iron and Steel Point Source 
Category, EPA concluded at proposal that phenol passed through because 
the BAT percent removal was greater than 99.9 percent, while the POTW 
percent removal was 95 percent. Both the POTW and the cokemaking BAT 
facility were capable of treating phenol to a non-detectable level. 
However, as was the case for the OCPSF rulemaking, the influent 
concentrations of phenol at the BAT facility in the cokemaking 
subcategory are much higher than those at the POTWs. The average 
influent concentrations for phenol for the cokemaking BAT facility 
ranged from 48,000 <greek-m>g/L to greater than 400,000 <greek-m>g/L. 
On the other hand, the average influent phenol concentration for eight 
POTWs that passed the editing criteria was only 387 <greek-m>g/L, and 
the average effluent concentrations were 10 to 27 <greek-m>g/L 
corresponding to an average percent removal of 95.25 percent. Because 
the data for this subcategory resemble the data in OCPSF, EPA is 
considering employing the OCPSF approach here. Therefore, EPA is 
considering making a finding that phenol does not pass through because 
it is treated to essentially the same level by direct dischargers and 
POTWs.
    In addition, EPA conducted an additional POTW pass-through analysis 
following proposal using 1997-1998 data from a well-operated POTW 
performing secondary treatment on cokemaking process wastewater. This 
data is in the iron and steel rulemaking record. Using these 
alternative data, the Agency found that the POTW percent removal for 
phenol is 99.9%--a value equivalent to the BAT percent removal. Based 
upon this analysis, phenol would not pass through POTWs. Consequently, 
EPA is considering finding that phenol does not pass through for the 
Cokemaking Subcategory of the proposed regulation.
    EPA solicits comment on the results of the POTW pass-through 
analysis using the alternative data and whether the Agency should 
decide not to establish pretreatment standards for phenol for the 
Cokemaking Subcategory.
F. Alternate BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS Limitations for the By-product 
Recovery Segment of the Cokemaking Subcategory
    EPA is requesting comment on an alternative approach to regulating 
discharges from by-product coke plants. Under this alternative, water 
added to optimize biological treatment processes would be regulated in 
the same manner as other flows added to cokemaking wastewaters (e.g., 
flows from wet

[[Page 10258]]

desulfurization systems and coke plant NESHAP controls). In the 
proposed regulation published on December 27, 2000, EPA included 50 
gallons per ton (gpt) of control water flow in the list of flow sources 
used to determine the baseline model production-normalized flow rate 
(PNF). EPA now recognizes that this control water is not used at all 
cokemaking biological treatment plants. Additionally, this flow is not 
necessary for the operation of physical/chemical treatment systems 
operated at a majority of indirect discharging facilities. Therefore, 
adding this flow to the baseline PNF would yield a higher PNF, and, 
consequently, less stringent limits than appear to be appropriate for 
many dischargers in the segment. For this reason, EPA is now 
considering not including this control water flow in the baseline 
cokemaking model PNFs. The result would be a decrease in the baseline 
cokemaking model PNF from 158 gpt to 108 gpt.
    In order to accommodate the facilities that actually add water to 
optimize biological treatment, EPA would make available an incremental 
flow allowance (expressed as a footnote) for the facilities. Those 
facilities using control water in the operation of their biological 
treatment systems would be allowed an increase in limitations not to 
exceed 46.3 percent. Facilities not using biological treatment for 
cokemaking wastewaters would not be eligible for the additional 
allowance. (EPA would maintain the other allowances EPA proposed in 
December 2000, which are printed below for the sake of completeness.)
    This alternative approach would not impact EPA's estimated cost of 
compliance. The Technical Development Document (EPA-821-B-00-011) 
presents the PNF development in section 7.3 and the methodology for 
costing in section 9.2.
    For this revision, EPA would base the new limitations on the 
pollutant concentrations established for the proposed rulemaking and a 
PNF of 108 gpt. The following tables show the by-products cokemaking 
limitations which EPA would promulgate under this approach. Table 
II.F.1 presents the BAT limitations. Table II.F.2 presents the NSPS 
limitations. Table II.F.3 presents the Physical Chemical Treatment PSES 
limitations. Table II.F.4 presents the Physical Chemical plus 
Biological Treatment PSES limitations. Table II.F.5 presents the 
Physical Chemical plus Biological Treatment PSNS limitations.

                 Table II.F.1.--BAT Effluent Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
           Regulated parameter             Maximum daily   monthly avg.
                                                \1\             \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)..........................     0.000936        0.000422
Benzo(a)pyrene..........................     0.0000621       0.0000208
Cyanide.................................     0.00711         0.00269
Mercury.................................     0.000000591     0.000000357
Naphthalene.............................     0.0000704       0.0000236
Phenol..................................     0.0000227       0.0000128
Selenium................................     0.000126        0.000109
Thiocyanate.............................     0.00112         0.000786
TRC.....................................     0.000450     ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.

    The following paragraphs, (1) through (5), would appear in the 
regulation, following the table of effluent limitations.
    (1) Increased loadings, not to exceed 9.5 percent of the above 
limitations, shall be provided for process wastewaters from wet 
desulfurization systems, but only to the extent such systems generate 
process wastewaters.
    (2) Increased loadings, not to exceed 6.3 percent of the above 
limitations, shall be provided for process wastewaters generated as a 
result of control measures necessary for compliance with by-product 
coke plant NESHAPs, but only to the extent such systems generate 
process wastewaters.
    (3) Increased loadings shall be provided for process wastewaters 
from other wet air pollution control systems (except those from coal 
charging and coke pushing emission controls), coal tar processing 
operations and coke plant groundwater remediation systems, but only to 
the extent such systems generate process wastewaters and those 
wastewaters are co-treated with process wastewaters from by-product 
cokemaking wastewaters.
    (4) The effluent limitations for TRC shall be applicable only when 
chlorination of cokemaking wastewaters is practiced.
    (5) Increased loadings, not to exceed 46.3 percent of the above 
limitations, shall be provided for water used for the optimization of 
coke plant biological treatment systems.

         Table II.F.2.--New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
           Regulated parameter             Maximum daily   monthly avg.
                                                \1\             \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)..........................     0.000936        0.000422
Benzo(a)pyrene..........................     0.0000621       0.0000208
Cyanide.................................     0.00711         0.00269
Mercury.................................     0.000000591     0.000000357
Naphthalene.............................     0.0000704       0.0000236
Oil & grease............................     0.0168          0.00902
Phenol..................................     0.0000227       0.0000128
Selenium................................     0.000126        0.000109
Thiocyanate.............................     0.00112         0.000786
TRC.....................................     0.000450     ..............
TSS.....................................     0.0454          0.0230
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.


[[Page 10259]]

    The following paragraphs, (1) through (5), would appear in the 
regulation, following the table of effluent limitations.
    (1) Increased loadings, not to exceed 9.5 percent of the above 
limitations, shall be provided for process wastewaters from wet 
desulfurization systems, but only to the extent such systems generate 
process wastewaters.
    (2) Increased loadings, not to exceed 6.3 percent of the above 
limitations, shall be provided for process wastewaters generated as a 
result of control measures necessary for compliance with by-product 
coke plant NESHAPs, but only to the extent such systems generate 
process wastewaters.
    (3) Increased loadings shall be provided for process wastewaters 
from other wet air pollution control systems (except those from coal 
charging and coke pushing emission controls), coal tar processing 
operations and coke plant groundwater remediation systems, but only to 
the extent such systems generate process wastewaters and those 
wastewaters are co-treated with process wastewaters from by-product 
cokemaking wastewaters.
    (4) The effluent limitations for TRC shall be applicable only when 
chlorination of cokemaking wastewaters is practiced.
    (5) Increased loadings, not to exceed 46.3 percent of the above 
limitations, shall be provided for water used for the optimization of 
coke plant biological treatment systems.

Table II.F.3.--Physical Chemical Treatment Pretreatment Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
             Regulated parameter                 Maximum       monthly
                                                daily \1\      avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)..............................      0.0578        0.0382
Cyanide.....................................      0.0167        0.00875
Naphthalene.................................      0.00183       0.000594
Phenol......................................      1.46          0.492
Selenium....................................      0.000854      0.000711
Thiocyanate.................................      0.275         0.217
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.

    The following paragraphs, (1) through (3), would appear in the 
regulation, following the table of effluent limitations.
    (1) Increased loadings, not to exceed 13.9 percent of the above 
limitations, shall be provided for process wastewaters from wet 
desulfurization systems, but only to the extent such systems generate 
process wastewaters.
    (2) Increased loadings, not to exceed 9.3 percent of the above 
limitations, shall be provided for process wastewaters generated as a 
result of control measures necessary for compliance with by-product 
coke plant NESHAPs, but only to the extent such systems generate 
process wastewaters.
    (3) Increased loadings shall be provided for process wastewaters 
from other wet air pollution control systems (except those from coal 
charging and coke pushing emission controls), coal tar processing 
operations and coke plant groundwater remediation systems, but only to 
the extent such systems generate process wastewaters and those 
wastewaters are co-treated with process wastewaters from by-product 
cokemaking wastewaters.

 Table II.F.4.--Physical Chemical Plus Biological Pretreatment Standards
                                 (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
             Regulated parameter                 Maximum       monthly
                                                daily \1\      avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)..............................     0.00368       0.00244
Cyanide.....................................     0.00421       0.00288
Naphthalene.................................     0.0000704     0.0000236
Phenol......................................     0.0000227     0.0000128
Selenium....................................     0.000126      0.000109
Thiocyanate.................................     0.00112       0.000786
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.

    The following paragraphs, (1) through (4), would appear in the 
regulation, following the table of effluent limitations.
    (1) Increased loadings, not to exceed 9.5 percent of the above 
limitations, shall be provided for process wastewaters from wet 
desulfurization systems, but only to the extent such systems generate 
process wastewaters.
    (2) Increased loadings, not to exceed 6.3 percent of the above 
limitations, shall be provided for process wastewaters generated as a 
result of control measures necessary for compliance with by-product 
coke plant NESHAPs, but only to the extent such systems generate 
process wastewaters.
    (3) Increased loadings shall be provided for process wastewaters 
from other wet air pollution control systems (except those from coal 
charging and coke pushing emission controls), coal tar processing 
operations and coke plant groundwater remediation systems, but only to 
the extent such systems generate process wastewaters and those 
wastewaters are co-treated with process wastewaters from by-product 
cokemaking wastewaters.
    (4) Increased loadings, not to exceed 46.3 percent of the above 
limitations, shall be provided for water used for the optimization of 
coke plant biological treatment systems.

[[Page 10260]]



 Table II.F.5.--Physical Chemical Plus Biological Treatment Pretreatment
                            Standards (PSNS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
             Regulated parameter                 Maximum       monthly
                                                daily \1\      avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)..............................     0.00368       0.00244
Cyanide.....................................     0.00421       0.00288
Naphthalene.................................     0.0000704     0.0000236
Phenol......................................     0.0000227     0.0000128
Selenium....................................     0.000126      0.000109
Thiocyanate.................................     0.00112       0.000786
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.

    The following paragraphs, (1) through (4), would appear in the 
regulation, following the table of effluent limitations.
    (1) Increased loadings, not to exceed 9.5 percent of the above 
limitations, shall be provided for process wastewaters from wet 
desulfurization systems, but only to the extent such systems generate 
process wastewaters.
    (2) Increased loadings, not to exceed 6.3 percent of the above 
limitations, shall be provided for process wastewaters generated as a 
result of control measures necessary for compliance with by-product 
coke plant NESHAPs, but only to the extent such systems generate 
process wastewaters.
    (3) Increased loadings shall be provided for process wastewaters 
from other wet air pollution control systems (except those from coal 
charging and coke pushing emission controls), coal tar processing 
operations and coke plant groundwater remediation systems, but only to 
the extent such systems generate process wastewaters and those 
wastewaters are co-treated with process wastewaters from by-product 
cokemaking wastewaters.
    (4) Increased loadings, not to exceed 46.3 percent of the above 
limitations, shall be provided for water used for the optimization of 
coke plant biological treatment systems.
G. BPT Revision for By-Product Cokemaking Operations
    In the December 2000 notice, EPA proposed to recodify the current 
BPT for two cokemaking segments, merchant coke manufacturing and iron 
and steel coke manufacturing. We are now considering combining these 
two historical segments into one, named by-product coke manufacturing, 
because we now believe there is no meaningful distinction between these 
two segments. As a result, the iron and steel coke manufacturing plants 
would be subject to the same BPT limits as the merchant coke plants. 
(The current BPT limitations for merchant by-product cokemaking 
manufacturing plants are within 7 percent of those for iron and steel 
by-product cokemaking manufacturing plants.) The current BPT 
limitations for merchant coke plants that would apply to iron and steel 
coke manufacturing plant under this approach are shown in Table II.G.1:

                Table II.G.1.--Effluent Limitations (BPT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
          Process wastewater source              Maximum       Monthly
                                                daily \2\      Avg.\2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By-product cokemaking: \1\
    Oil & grease............................        0.0698        0.0232
    TSS.....................................        0.540         0.280
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Increased loadings, not to exceed 11 percent of the above
  limitations, shall be provided for process wastewaters from wet
  desulfurization systems, but only to the extent such systems generate
  process wastewaters.
\2\ Pounds per ton of product.

    EPA believes there will be no significant adverse environmental 
impacts associated with this approach. Moreover, there would be no 
additional costs of compliance to achieve the resulting BPT. EPA 
solicits comments on this approach and solicits other options for 
consideration.

III. Corrections to Proposed Preamble and Regulation

A. General
    EPA is making the following corrections to the proposed regulation 
and accompanying preamble for the iron and steel manufacturing point 
source category.
    In reviewing the notice and proposed rulemaking (65 FR 81964), EPA 
discovered one error caused by a file conversion problem during Federal 
Register publication that occurred more than 100 times (starting on 
page 82000). In numerous instances on or after page 82000, words 
starting with the letters ``For'' (including the word ``For'' itself) 
were printed without the ``For.'' Therefore, ``Forming'' became 
``ming,'' ``Foreign'' became ``eign,'' ``Forging'' became ``ging,'' and 
sentences that started with ``For'' appeared without their first word. 
Although this action does not explicitly correct each and every such 
omission, EPA intends for the proposal to read logically and encourages 
reviewers to use the context of the sentence, and replace the missing 
letters as necessary. If reviewers have any questions on how to 
interpret inaccurately spelled words, please contact any of the EPA 
staff listed under the ``For Further Information Contact'' heading at 
the beginning of today's action.
B. Corrections to Preamble
    1. On page 81964, column 2, paragraph 2 under the heading ``How to 
Submit Comments,'' the second sentence should read ``Electronic 
comments must specify docket number W-00-25 and must be submitted as an 
ASCII, Word, or WordPerfect file avoiding the use of special characters 
and any form of encryption.''
    2. On page 81968, in the summary table, the entries for Subpart A, 
Cokemaking, (By -Product Recovery) should be as follows:

[[Page 10261]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart A. Cokemaking (By-Product    BAT/NSPS..............  BAT-3.................  tar removal, equalization,
 Recovery).                                                                           ammonia stripping,
                                                                                      temperature control,
                                                                                      equalization, single-stage
                                                                                      biological treatment with
                                                                                      nitrification, alkaline
                                                                                      chlorination, and sludge
                                                                                      dewatering.
                                     PSES/PSNS.............  PSES-3................  tar removal, equalization,
                                                                                      ammonia stripping,
                                                                                      temperature control,
                                                                                      equalization, single-stage
                                                                                      biological treatment with
                                                                                      nitrification.
                                     co-proposed PSES......  PSES-1................  tar removal, equalization,
                                                                                      ammonia PSES stripping.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. On page 81972, column 1, the sentence beginning in the last line 
should be ``See Appendix A of the Development Document for the Proposed 
Effluent Limitations and Guidelines for the Iron and Steel 
Manufacturing Point Source Category.''
    4. On page 81974, column 3, at the end of line 40, the sentence 
should be ``The exception is Subpart D (the Integrated and Stand Alone 
Hot Forming subcategory) for which EPA is proposing alternative BAT 
approaches to account for possible economic issues.''
    5. On page 81977, column 2, first paragraph under Non-Integrated 
Steelmaking and Hot Forming Operations--Subpart E, the second sentence 
should be ``The wastewater generated from this proposed subcategory 
originates from direct contact water with gases in the vacuum degassing 
process; direct contact water used for spray cooling and for flume 
flushing to transport scale in the casting process; and process water 
used for scale breaking, flume flushing, and direct contact cooling in 
the hot forming process.''
    6. On page 81979, column 1, end of line 40, the second sentence 
should be ``From these data, EPA identified 71 POCs for the Cokemaking 
Subcategory: 4 conventionals, 1 non-conventional metal, 30 non-
conventional organics, 10 other non-conventionals, 22 priority 
organics, 3 priority metals, and 1 other priority pollutant (total 
cyanide).''
    7. On page 81979, column 1, at the end of line 53, add these three 
sentences: ``EPA could not evaluate total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), weak 
acid dissociable (WAD) cyanide, and thiocyanate using the POC selection 
criteria because no method MLs were available at the time of the 
Agency's analysis. Nevertheless, EPA selected these pollutants as POCs 
because they are widely present in cokemaking wastewater (each was 
detected at significant concentrations in 16 out of 16 untreated 
cokemaking wastewater samples collected) and are important indicators 
of biological treatment effectiveness. In addition, EPA selected 
nitrate/nitrite as a POC even though it failed the screening criteria 
because of its importance as an indicator of biological treatment 
effectiveness.''
    8. On page 81979, column 2, beginning on line 51, the next two 
paragraphs should be: ``EPA identified 27 POCs for the blast furnace 
segment of the Ironmaking Subcategory: 2 conventionals, 7 non-
conventional metals, 1 non-conventional organic, 10 other non-
conventionals, 6 priority metals, and 1 other priority pollutant (total 
cyanide). EPA could not evaluate TKN, WAD cyanide, and thiocyanate 
using the POC selection criteria because no method MLs were available 
at the time of the Agency's analysis. Nevertheless, EPA selected these 
pollutants as POCs because they are widely present in the blast furnace 
wastewater (each was detected in at least 60% of the untreated blast 
furnace wastewater samples collected).''
    ``EPA identified 65 POCs for the sintering segment of the 
Ironmaking Subcategory: 2 conventionals, 6 non-conventional metals, 24 
non-conventional organics, 11 other non-conventionals, 11 priority 
organics, 10 priority metals, and 1 other priority pollutant (total 
cyanide). EPA could not evaluate TKN, WAD cyanide, and thiocyanate 
using the POC selection criteria because no method MLs were available 
at the time of the Agency's analysis. Nevertheless, EPA selected those 
pollutants as POCs because they are widely present in sintering 
wastewater (each was detected in 10 out of 10 untreated sintering 
wastewater samples collected).''
    9. On page 81980, column 1, line 30, remove the sentence beginning 
on line 30 and ending on line 34 (i.e. the last sentence of that 
paragraph).
    10. On page 81980, column 1, line 64, the next three sentences 
should be: ``Some operators report achieving zero discharge by 
balancing the applied water for gas conditioning with evaporative 
losses but not all sites are able to achieve this because of safety 
concerns. One of the eight BOFs operating wet-open combustion gas 
cleaning systems discharge less than 20 gpt, and two of the seven BOFs 
operating wet-suppressed combustion gas cleaning systems discharge less 
than 20 gpt. EPA is using a PNF for recycle system blowdown of 20 gpt 
at BOFs with wet-open combustion gas cleaning systems, and 20 gpt for 
BOFs equipped with wet-suppressed combustion gas cleaning systems.''
    11. On page 81980, column 2, remove the sentence beginning on line 
11 and ending on line 15.
    12. On page 81980, column 2, line 50, the next two sentences should 
be ``EPA identified the following 11 POCs for the carbon and alloy 
segment of the Integrated and Stand-Alone Hot Forming Subcategory: 2 
conventionals, 3 non-conventional metals, 4 other non-conventionals, 
and 2 priority metals. EPA identified the following 15 POCs for the 
stainless segment of the Integrated and Stand-Alone Hot Forming 
Subcategory: 2 conventionals, 4 non-conventional metals, 4 other non-
conventionals, and 5 priority metals.''
    13. On page 81980, column 3, line 60, the paragraph should be ``EPA 
identified the following 10 POCs for the carbon and alloy segment of 
the Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot Forming Subcategory: 2 
conventionals, 2 non-conventional metals, 4 other non-conventionals, 
and 2 priority metals. EPA selected lead as a POC for the reasons set 
out above for integrated and stand-alone hot forming mills. EPA 
identified the following 22 POCs for the stainless segment of the Non-
Integrated Steelmaking and Hot Forming Subcategory: 2 conventionals, 7 
non-conventional metals, 6 other non-conventionals, 1 priority organic, 
and 6 priority metals. EPA selected lead and zinc as POCs for the 
reasons set out above for integrated and stand-alone hot forming 
mills.''
    14. On page 81981, column 1, line 16, the sentence should be ``Two 
types of air pollution control systems (semi-wet and dry) are commonly 
used in the EAF steelmaking operations; neither type of system 
generates process wastewater.''
    15. On page 81981, column 1, remove the sentences beginning on line 
20 and ending on line 26.
    16. On page 81981, column 3, line 15, the paragraph should be ``EPA 
identified a total of 37 POCs for the carbon and alloy segment of the 
Steel Finishing Subcategory: 2 conventionals, 8 non-conventional 
metals, 9 non-conventional organics, 8 other non-conventionals, 2 
priority organics, and 8

[[Page 10262]]

priority metals. EPA identified a total of 49 POCs for the stainless 
segment of the Steel Finishing Subcategory: 2 conventionals, 12 non-
conventional metals, 14 non-conventional organics, 7 other non-
conventionals, 4 priority organics, 9 priority metals, and one other 
priority pollutant (total cyanide).''
    17. On page 81982, column 1, line 12, the next two sentences should 
be ``For sulfuric acid pickling of carbon and alloy steel, EPA is using 
a PNF of 230 gpt for strip and sheet (achieved by four of nine lines), 
280 gpt for bar, billet, rod, and coil, and 500 gpt for pipe and tube. 
For acid pickling of stainless steel, EPA is using a PNF of 230 gpt for 
bar and billet (representing the median flow rate), 700 gpt for sheet 
and strip (achieved by 19 of 50 lines), and 35 gpt for plate.''
    18. On page 81982, column 1, the sentences from line 37 to line 53 
should be ``EPA is using the following PNFs for cold rolling of carbon 
and alloy steel: single stand, direct application--3 gpt; single stand, 
recirculation--1 gpt; multi-stand, direct application--275 gpt; multi-
stand, recirculation--25 gpt; multi-stand, combination--143 gpt. EPA is 
using the following PNFs for cold rolling of stainless steel: single 
stand, direct application--35 gpt; single stand, recirculation--3 gpt; 
multi-stand, direct application--275 gpt; multi-stand, recirculation--
16 gpt; multi-stand, combination--143 gpt. EPA is using a PNF for 
stand-alone continuous annealing lines of 20 gpt (achieved by seven of 
14 stand-alone continuous annealing lines). Wastewater discharge rates 
for alkaline cleaning vary by product and steel type. For carbon and 
alloy steel, EPA is using a PNF of 350 gpt for sheet and strip and 20 
gpt for pipe and tube. EPA is using a PNF of 2,500 gpt for stainless 
sheet and strip. EPA is using a PNF of 550 gpt for hot dip coating 
operations.''
    19. On page 81982, column 1, remove the sentence that begins on 
line 65 and ends on line 66.
    20. On page 81982, column 2, line 31, the paragraph should be 
``Using the POC selection criteria presented above, EPA identified 10 
POCs for the Other Operations Subcategory: 2 conventionals, 4 non-
conventional metals, and other non-conventionals.''
    21. On page 81986, column 1, line 21, the sentence should be ``The 
third BAT option also results in no further reduction in flow beyond 
BAT-1 levels, but does result in the additional removal of 42% of the 
total cyanide (as well as additional removal of other pollutants) from 
direct discharging cokemaking wastestreams beyond BAT-1 levels through 
the use of alkaline chlorination.''
    22. On page 81987, column 1, line 15, the paragraph should be 
``Under PSES-1, the rate of removal of ammonia can increase by 69% over 
current levels. Under PSES-2, removal of cyanide can increase by 28% 
over that expected under PSES-1. Under PSES-3, the removal of ammonia 
can increase by 28% over that expected under PSES-2. Under PSES-4, 
there are no additional flow reductions and no significant additional 
pollutant removals.''
    23. On page 81988, column 3, the second table should be numbered 
``Table V.C.3-3.''
    24. On page 81988, column 3, the name of the second table should be 
``estimated pollutant loading reduction for integrated steelmaking.''
    25. On page 81988, column 3, in the second table, the number in the 
second column under the technical options ``(BAT-1 and PSES-1)'' for 
entry ``Incidental Removal of Conventional Pollutants (TSS and O&G)'' 
should be ``1.9.''
    26. On page 81989, in Table V.C.4-2., under ``Carbon and Alloy 
Steels'', align the entry ``Annual O&M costs'' to the left margin in 
the first column.
    27. On page 81989, in Table V.C.4-2., insert an extra line after 
``Annual O&M costs'' under Carbon and Alloy Steels''. In this line, 
insert ``One-time costs'', ``1.0'', and ``0.1'' in the three columns.
    28. On page 81990, in Table V.C.4-3., the entry in the second 
column under technology option ``BAT-1'' in the line labeled ``Removal 
of Priority and Non-conventional Pollutants'' should be ``02.''
    29. On page 81990, column 2, line 11, the sentence should be 
``Stainless steel integrated and stand-alone hot forming operations 
discharge indirectly approximately 1,400 pounds of total priority and 
non-conventional pollutants.''
    30. On page 81990, column 2, line 37, the sentence should be ``As 
with the Carbon and Alloy segment, the technology basis of BAT-1 for 
the Stainless segment consists of a scale pit with oil skimming, a 
roughing clarifier, sludge dewatering, high rate recycle, with mixed-
media filtration.''
    31. On page 81992, column 1, line 1, the two sentences should be 
``EPA estimated that carbon and alloy steel operations directly 
discharge approximately 2.8 million pounds of conventional pollutants 
(TSS and O&G). These operations also discharge approximately 47,000 
pounds of total toxic and non-conventional pollutants directly and 
approximately 3,100 pounds indirectly.''
    32. On page 81992, column 1, line 39, the sentence should be ``The 
technological basis for PSES-1 is solids removal, a cooling tower, 
sludge dewatering, high-rate recycle, and mixed-media filtration.''
    33. On page 81993, in Table V.C.6-1, in the section titled 
``Stainless Steels'', insert an ``X'' in the line for ``Countercurrent 
rinses'' in the third column under Technology option ``PSES-1.''
    34. On page 82009, column 3, line 12, the sentence should be ``EPA 
estimates that approximately 6.2 million pounds (dry wt.) per year of 
additional biological treatment sludge will be generated by the 
cokemaking subcategory as a result of lower effluent ammonia limits.''
    35. On page 82009, column 3, line 22, the paragraph should be 
``Additional solids captured by roughing clarifiers and sand filters 
proposed for recycle water systems within the integrated and non-
integrated steelmaking facilities (blast furnace, sinter plant, BOF, 
vacuum degasser, continuous caster, hot forming mill) will account for 
an additional 0.5 percent of the solids currently being collected in 
scale pits and classifiers. Data provided in the industry surveys 
indicates the total annual sludge and scale production from all of 
these facilities, including stand-alone hot formers, was approximately 
3.8 million tons/year (dry weight). Solids removal equipment proposed 
for this rule is expected to remove an additional 27,500 tons per year 
of dry wastewater treatment sludge.''
    36. On page 82010, column 1, line 13, these two sentences should be 
``Data provided in the industry surveys indicates the total annual 
sludge production from all steel finishing operations throughout the 
industry was approximately 690,000 tons/year (dry weight). Additional 
sludge generation from finishing operations resulting from this 
proposed rule is approximately 2,200 tons/year (dry weight).''
    37. On page 82010, column 2, line 40, the sentence should be ``The 
pH level in process wastewaters subject to a subpart within this part 
shall be monitored at the point of discharge to the receiving water or 
at the point at which the wastewater leaves the wastewater treatment 
facility operated to treat effluent subject to that subpart.''
    38. On page 82010, column 3, line 15, the bullet should be 
``chemical is not considered as a volatile compound, e.g., generally 
with Henry's Law Constant greater than or equal to 1x10<SUP>-</SUP>\4\ 
atm.m\3\/mol.''

[[Page 10263]]

    39. On page 82013, column 3, line 9, the sentence should be ``For a 
more detailed discussion of alternate approaches to the POTW pass-
through analysis, see the Technical Development Document (EPA-821-B-00-
011), Appendices B and C.''
    40. On page 82016, column 3, line 38, these two sentences should be 
``BAT-2 results in no further reduction in flow beyond that to be 
achieved by BAT-1, but does result in the additional removal of 24% of 
the total cyanide from direct discharging cokemaking wastestreams 
through the use of cyanide precipitation. BAT-3 also results in no 
further reduction in flow beyond that to be achieved by BAT-1, but does 
result in the additional removal of 42% of the total cyanide from 
direct discharging cokemaking wastestreams beyond BAT-1 levels through 
the use of alkaline chlorination.''
    41. On page 82017, column 1, line 33, the sentence should be ``EPA 
is co-proposing two sets of technologies to serve as the bases for the 
development of the proposed PSES limits: 1) tar removal, equalization, 
and ammonia stripping.''
    42. On page 82017, column 3, line 44, the sentence should be ``The 
treatment technologies that serve as the basis for the development of 
the proposed BAT limits for the ironmaking subcategory (Blast Furnace 
and Sintering Segments) are: solids removal with high-rate recycle and 
metals precipitation, alkaline chlorination, and mixed-media filtration 
for the blowdown wastewater.''
    43. On page 82019, column 2, line 15, the sentence should be ``The 
treatment technologies that serve as the basis for the development of 
BAT Option A are: scale pit with oil skimming, roughing clarifier, 
cooling tower with high rate recycle and mixed-media filtration of 
recycled flow or of low volume blowdown flow.''
    44. On page 82022, column 1, line 39, the section title should be 
``PSES.''
    45. On page 82022, column 2, line 49, the sentence should be ``The 
treatment technologies that serve as the basis for the development of 
the proposed BAT limits for the stainless segment of the integrated and 
stand alone hot forming subcategory are: Scale pit with oil skimming, 
roughing clarifier, with high rate recycle and mixed-media filtration 
of recycled flow or of low volume blowdown flow.''
    46. On page 82024, column 1, line 40, the sentence should be ``EPA 
estimates that selection of the BAT-1 option as the technology basis 
would result in the reduction of flow by this segment of the steel 
finishing subcategory by 65%, and the reduction in the discharge of 
non-conventional pollutants by 25%.''
    47. On page 82025, column 1, line 11, the section title should be 
``NSPS.''
    48. On page 82030, in the table near the bottom of the page, the 
following numbers should be underlined: ``1,850,000'', ``1,425,000'', 
and ``3,205,000.''
    49. On page 82031, in the table near the top of the page, the 
following numbers should be underlined: ``3,280,000'', ``1,690,000'', 
and ``3,270,000.''
    50. On page 82038, column 1,line 41, the definition for ``NSPS'' 
should appear on a new line.
    51. On page 82038, column 1, line 76, the definition of ``PSES'' 
should be ``Pretreatment standards for existing sources of indirect 
discharges, under Section 307(b) of the CWA, applicable to indirect 
dischargers that commenced construction after December 27, 2000. See 40 
CFR 403.3(k)(1).''
C. Corrections to Regulation
    1. On page 82039, in column 2, correct Sec. 420.1(b) as follows:


Sec. 420.1  General Applicability.

* * * * *
    (b) This part does not apply to discharges and the introduction of 
pollutants to POTWs resulting from cold finished bar or cold finished 
pipe and tube operations, including any acid pickling and other related 
process operations; wire drawing or coating operations; or, stand-
alone, hot-dipped coating operations for products other than flat-
rolled products.


Sec. 420.4  [Corrected]

    2. On page 82041, in column 1, correct Sec. 420.4 by removing 
Sec. 420.4 (h).


Sec. 420.11  [Corrected]

    3. On page 82041, in column 2, correct paragraph (a) and on page 
82041, in column 3, correct paragraph (h) as follows:


Sec. 420.11  Subcategory definitions.

* * * * *
    (a) Product means the daily operating (production) rate of 
metallurgical coke plus coke breeze determined in accordance with 
Sec. 420.3.
* * * * *
    (h) Wet desulfurization system means one that involves scrubbing 
the sulfur-rich coke oven gas stream with an absorbent solution, with 
subsequent recovery of elemental sulfur from the solution and discharge 
of process wastewater.


Sec. 420.14  [Corrected]

    4. On page 82042, in column 1, correct paragraph (a)(3) as follows:


Sec. 420.14  Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of 
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best available 
control technology economically achievable (BAT).

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (3) Increased loadings shall be provided for process wastewaters 
from other wet air pollution control systems (except those from coal 
charging and coke pushing emission controls), coal tar processing 
operations and coke plant groundwater remediation systems, but only to 
the extent such systems generate process wastewaters and those 
wastewaters are co-treated with process wastewaters from by-product 
cokemaking processes.
* * * * *


Sec. 420.15  [Amended]

    5. On page 82042, correct the title of the table in Sec. 420.15(b) 
to read as follows: ``PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)''.
    6. On page 82043, correct the title of the table in Sec. 420.15(b) 
to read as follows: ``PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)--Continued''.


Sec. 420.15  [Amended]

    7. On page 82043, in column 1, correct Sec. 420.15(b)(3) as 
follows:


Sec. 420.15  New source performance standards (NSPS).

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) Increased loadings shall be provided for process wastewaters 
from other wet air pollution control systems (except those from coal 
charging and coke pushing emission controls), coal tar processing 
operations and coke plant groundwater remediation systems, but only to 
the extent such systems generate process wastewaters and those 
wastewaters are co-treated with process wastewaters from by-product 
cokemaking processes.
* * * * *


Sec. 420.16  [Corrected]

    8. On page 82043, in column 2, correct Sec. 420.16(a)(3) Option 1; 
and on page 82044, in column 1, correct Sec. 420.16(a)(3) Option 2 as 
follows:


Sec. 420.16  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    Option 1 for paragraph (a)(3): (3) Increased loadings shall be 
provided for process wastewaters from other wet air

[[Page 10264]]

pollution control systems (except those from coal charging and coke 
pushing emission controls), coal tar processing operations and coke 
plant groundwater remediation systems, but only to the extent such 
systems generate process wastewaters and those wastewaters are co-
treated with process wastewaters from by-product cokemaking processes.
* * * * *
    Option 2 for paragraph (a)(3): (3) Increased loadings shall be 
provided for process wastewaters from other wet air pollution control 
systems (except those from coal charging and coke pushing emission 
controls), coal tar processing operations and coke plant groundwater 
remediation systems, but only to the extent such systems generate 
process wastewaters and those wastewaters are co-treated with process 
wastewaters from by-product cokemaking processes.
* * * * *


Sec. 420.17  [Corrected]

    9. On page 82044, in column 1, correct paragraph (b)(3) as follows:


Sec. 420.17  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) Increased loadings shall be provided for process wastewaters 
from other wet air pollution control systems (except those from coal 
charging and coke pushing emission controls), coal tar processing 
operations and coke plant groundwater remediation systems, but only to 
the extent such systems generate process wastewaters and those 
wastewaters are co-treated with process wastewaters from by-product 
cokemaking processes.
* * * * *


Sec. 420.21  [Corrected]

    10. On page 80244, column 2, correct the second sentence in 
paragraph (a)(2); on page 80244 in column 3 correct paragraph (d); and 
on page 80244, column 3, correct paragraph (f) as follows:


Sec. 420.21  Subcategory definitions.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (2) * * * Molton iron produced in a blast furnace, and does not 
include slag skimmed remotely from the blast furnace. The daily 
operating (production) rate of sinter and molten iron must be 
determined in accordance with Sec. 420.3. * * *
* * * * *
    (d) Pg/L means picograms per liter (PPT = 1.0  x  
10<SUP>-</SUP>\12\ g/L).
* * * * *
    (f) Wet-air pollution control system is an emission control system 
that utilizes water to clean process or furnace off-gases.


Sec. 420.25  [Corrected]

    11. On page 82046, correct footnote 3 of the PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 
(NSPS) table in Sec. 420.25(b)(1) to read: ``\3\ Ten parts per 
quadrillion (10  x  10<SUP>-</SUP>\12\ g/l).''


Sec. 420.26  [Corrected]

    12. On page 82047, correct footnote 4 of the PRETREATMENT STANDARDS 
(PSES) table in Sec. 420.26(c) to read: ``\4\ Ten parts per quadrillion 
(10  x  10<SUP>-</SUP>\12\ g/l).''


Sec. 420.27  [Corrected]

    13. On page 82047, correct footnote 3 of the PRETREATMENT STANDARDS 
(PSNS) table in Sec. 420.27(b)(1) to read: ``\3\ Ten parts per 
quadrillion (10  x  10<SUP>-</SUP>\12\ g/l).''
    14. On page 82047, correct footnote 4 of the PRETREATMENT STANDARDS 
(PSNS) table in Sec. 420.27(b)(3) to read: ``\4\ Ten parts per 
quadrillion (10  x  10<SUP>-</SUP>\12\ g/l).''


Sec. 420.31  [Corrected]

    15. On page 82048, in column 2, correct the second sentence in 
paragraph (a) as follows:


Sec. 420.31  Subcategory definitions.

* * * * *
    (a) * * * The daily operating (production) rates shall be 
determined in accordance with Sec. 420.3.
    16. On page 82048, in column 2, correct Sec. 420.31 by removing and 
reserving paragraph (b).


Sec. 420.32  [Corrected]

    17. On page 82048, correct footnote 2 of the EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS 
(BPT) table in Sec. 420.32 to read: ``\2\ There shall be no discharge 
of process wastewater pollutants to waters of the U.S. for ladle 
metallurgy other than vacuum degassing.''


Sec. 420.34  [Corrected]

    18. On page 82049, in column 1, correct Sec. 420.34(c) as follows:


Sec. 420.34  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available control technology economically achievable (BAT).

* * * * *
    (c) Ladle Metallurgy other than Vacuum Degassing. There shall be no 
discharge of process wastewater pollutants to waters of the U.S.


Sec. 420.35  [Corrected]

    19. On page 82050, in column 1, correct Sec. 420.35(b)(3) as 
follows:


Sec. 420.35  New Source Performance Standards (NSPS).

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) Ladle Metallurgy other than Vacuum Degassing. There shall be no 
discharge of process wastewater pollutants to waters of the U.S.


Sec. 420.36  [Corrected]

    20. On page 82051, in column 1, correct Sec. 420.36(c) as follows:


Sec. 420.36  Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES).

* * * * *
    (c) Ladle Metallurgy other than Vacuum Degassing. There shall be no 
discharge of process wastewater pollutants to POTWs.


Sec. 420.37  [Corrected]

    21. On page 82051, in column 1, correct Sec. 420.37(b)(3) as 
follows:


Sec. 420.37  Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS).

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) Ladle Metallurgy other than Vacuum Degassing. There shall be no 
discharge of process wastewater pollutants to POTWs.


Sec. 420.41  [Corrected]

    22. On page 82051, in column 2, correct second sentence in 
paragraph (a); and on page 82052, in column 2, correct paragraph (n) as 
follows:


Sec. 420.41  Subcategory definitions.

* * * * *
    (a) Product * * * The daily operating (production) rate shall be 
determined in accordance with Sec. 420.3.
* * * * *
    (n) Skelp means flat, hot rolled steel.


Sec. 420.51  [Corrected]

    23. On page 82054, correct Sec. 420.51(c) as follows:


Sec. 420.51  Subcategory definitions.

* * * * *
    (c) Electric arc furnace means one in which steel is produced by 
melting steel scrap by use of electric current passed through 
electrodes.


Sec. 420.52  [Corrected]

    24. On page 82054, correct footnote 2 of the EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS 
(BPT) table in Sec. 420.52 to read: `` \2\ There shall be no discharge 
of process wastewater pollutants to waters of the U.S. for electric arc 
furnaces or ladle metallurgy other than vacuum degassing.''


Sec. 420.54  [Corrected]

    25. On page 82055, in column 1, correct paragraph (a)(4); and on 
page

[[Page 10265]]

82055, in column 1, correct paragraph (b)(4) as follows:


Sec. 420.54  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available control technology economically achievable (BAT).

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (4) Ladle Metallurgy other than Vacuum Degassing. There shall be no 
discharge of process wastewater pollutants to waters of the U.S.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) Ladle Metallurgy other than Vacuum Degassing. There shall be no 
discharge of process wastewater pollutants to waters of the U.S.


Sec. 420.56  [Corrected]

    26. On page 82055, in column 2, correct paragraph (a)(4); and on 
page 82056, in column 1, correct paragraph (b)(4) as follows:


Sec. 420.56  Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES).

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (4) Ladle Metallurgy other than Vacuum Degassing. There shall be no 
discharge of process wastewater pollutants to POTWs.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) Ladle Metallurgy other than Vacuum Degassing. There shall be no 
discharge of process wastewater pollutants to POTWs.


Sec. 420.61  [Amended]

    27. On page 82057, in column 2, correct Sec. 420.61 by removing and 
reserving paragraph (z).


Sec. 420.64  [Amended]

    28. On page 82059, in the EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT) table of 
Sec. 420.64 (b)(1), correct the entry in the second column for 
paragraph (b)(1)(i)(C) to read ``0.00000363''.
    29. On page 82059, in the EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT) table of 
Sec. 420.64 (b)(1), correct the entry in the second column for 
paragraph (b)(1)(i)(D) to read ``0.00000518''.
    30. On page 82059, in the EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT) table of 
Sec. 420.64 (b)(1), correct the entry in the third column for paragraph 
(b)(1)(v)(C) to read ``0.0000000944''.
    31. On page 82062, in the EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT) table of 
Sec. 420.64(e)(1), correct the entry in the second column for paragrpah 
(d)(1)(i)(D) to read ``0.0000609''.
    32. On page 82062, in the EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT) table of 
Sec. 420.64(e)(1), correct the entry in the second column for paragraph 
(e)(1)(vii)(B) to read ``0.00134''.
    33. On page 82062, in the EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT) table of 
Sec. 420.64(e)(1), correct the entry in the second column for paragraph 
(e)(1)(ix)(A) to read ``0.0263''.
    34. On page 82062, in the EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT) table of 
Sec. 420.64(e)(1), correct the entry in the third column for paragraph 
(e)(1)(iii)(A) to read ``0.0913''.
    35. On page 82062, in the EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT) table of 
Sec. 420.64(e)(1), correct the entry in the third column for paragraph 
(e)(1)(v)(C) to read ``0.000000634''.
    36. On page 82063, in the EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT) table of 
Sec. 420.64(f)(1), correct the entry paragraph (f)(1)(iii)(B) by 
removing the superscripts in the second and third columns.
    37. On page 82063, in the EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT) table of 
Sec. 420.64(g)(1), correct the entry in the third column for paragraph 
(g)(1)(i)(B) to read ``0.000546''.
    38. On page 82063, in the EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT) table of 
Sec. 420.64(g)(1), correct the entry in the third column for paragraph 
(g)(1)(iv)(C) to read ``0.000000535''.


Sec. 420.65  [Amended]

    39. On page 82065, in the PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) table of 
Sec. 420.65(b)(2), correct the entry in the second column for paragraph 
(b)(2)(i)(A)(2) to read ``0.0638''.
    40. On page 82065, in the PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) table of 
Sec. 420.65(b)(2), correct the entry in the second column for paragraph 
(b)(2)(i)(E)(5) to read ``0.00895''.
    41. On page 82066, in the PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) table of 
Sec. 420.65(b)(2), correct the entry in the third column for paragraph 
(b)(2)(i)(G)(1) to read ``0.00196''.
    42. On page 82067, in the PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) table of 
Sec. 420.65(b)(4), correct the entry in the third column for paragraph 
(b)(4)(i)(E)(3) to read ``0.0000000944''.
    43. On page 82068, in the PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) table of 
Sec. 420.65(b)(5), correct the entry in the second column for paragraph 
(B)(5)(i)(I)(1) to read ``0.00999''.
    44. On page 82071, in the PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) table of 
Sec. 420.65(b)(8), correct the entry in the third column for paragraph 
(b)(8)(i)(F)(1) to read ``0.00973''.
    45. On page 82071, in the PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) table of 
Sec. 420.65(b)(8), correct paragraph (b)(8)(i)(F)(1) by adding a ``2'' 
superscript in the second and third columns.
    46. On page 82071, in the PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) table of 
Sec. 420.65(b)(9), correct the entry in the second column for paragraph 
(b)(9)(ix)(A) to read ``0.0281''.
    47. On page 82071, in the PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) table of 
Sec. 420.65(b)(9), correct the entry in the third column for paragraph 
(b)(9)(A) to read ``0.0116''.
    48. On page 82071, in the PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) table of 
Sec. 420.65(b)(9), correct paragraph (b)(9)(ix)(A) by adding a ``2'' 
superscript in the second and third columns.


Sec. 420.66  [Amended]

    49. On page 82075, correct the PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (PSES) table 
of Sec. 420.66 (e)(6) by adding a ``2'' superscript to the title.


Sec. 420.67  [Amended]

    50. On page 82078, in the PRETREATMENT STANDARDS (PSNS) table of 
Sec. 420.67(b)(2), correct the entry in the third column for entry in 
the third column for paragraph (B)(2)(i)(E)(3) to read 
``0.0000000944''.
    51. Revise Sec. 420.70 as follows.


Sec. 420.70  Applicability.

    The provisions of this subpart are applicable to discharges and the 
introduction of pollutants into publicly owned treatment works 
resulting from production of direct-reduced iron, forging and 
briquetting operations.


Sec. 420.71  [Amended]

    52. On page 82082, in column 1 correct paragraph (a)(2) as follows:


Sec. 420.71  Subcategory definitions.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (2) The daily operating (production) rate must be determined as 
specified in Sec. 420.3.
* * * * *
    53. On page 82082, in column 2, correct Sec. 420.71 by removing 
paragraph (a)(3).


Sec. 420.75  [Amended]

    54. On page 82083, correct the table title in Sec. 420.75(a) to 
read: ``PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)''.
    55. On page 82083, correct the table title in Sec. 420.75(b) to 
read: ``PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)''.

    Dated: January 19, 2001.
J. Charles Fox,
Assistant Administrator for Water.
[FR Doc. 01-3730 Filed 2-13-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


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