Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules 10253

(k) Effective date. This section is

applicable on the date final regulations

are published in the Federal Register.

Robert E. Wenzel,

Deputy Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

[FR Doc. 01–1562 Filed 2–13–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P

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 technologybased 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 jett.george@epa.gov. 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 email.

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

10254 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules

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 wetopen 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

Process wastewater sourceMaximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly

average 1

(a) Basic oxygen

furnaces (1)

semi-wet air

pollution controls TSS ....... 0.0125 0.00417

1Pounds 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 concentrationbased 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

Pollutant Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly

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

Electroplating operation type PNF

(gal/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

Pollutant Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly

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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules 10255

TABLE II.B.3.—MASS-BASED PRE-TREATMENT STANDARDS CONSIDERED FOR ELECTROPLATING OPERATIONS—Continued

Pollutant Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly

average 1

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

1Pounds 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

NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX 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.

10256 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules

TABLE II.D.1.—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT) FOR CHROMIUM (VI)

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly

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 stands ........................................................................................................... 0.000110 0.0000813

(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

1Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.

2The 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

daily 1

Maximum

monthly

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 stands ........................................................................................................... 0.000110 0.0000813

(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

1Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.

2The 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

daily 1

Maximum

monthly

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 ....................................................................................................................................... 0.05772 0.0426

(iii) Alkaline cleaning:

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules 10257

TABLE II.D.3.—PRETREATMENT STANDARDS (PSNS) FOR CHROMIUM (VI)—Continued

Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly

average 1

(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 stands ........................................................................................................... 0.000110 0.0000813

(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

1Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.

2The 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 nondetect levels (10 parts per billion (ppb)

or 10 μg/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 nondetectable 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 μg/L to greater than 400,000 μg/

L. On the other hand, the average

influent phenol concentration for eight

POTWs that passed the editing criteria

was only 387 μg/L, and the average

effluent concentrations were 10 to 27

μg/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

10258 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules

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 byproducts 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

Regulated parameter Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg. 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 ..........................

1Pounds 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)

Regulated parameter Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly avg. 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

1Pounds per ton of product.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules 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)

Regulated parameter Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly 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

1Pounds 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)

Regulated parameter Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly 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

1Pounds 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.

10260 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules

TABLE II.F.5.—PHYSICAL CHEMICAL PLUS BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT PRETREATMENT STANDARDS (PSNS)

Regulated parameter Maximum

daily 1

Maximum

monthly 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

1Pounds 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 byproduct 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)

Process wastewater source Maximum

daily 2

Maximum

Monthly

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. 2Pounds 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:

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules 10261

Subpart A. Cokemaking (ByProduct Recovery).BAT/NSPS ................... BAT–3 .......................... tar removal, equalization, 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 nonconventional metals, 24 nonconventional organics, 11 other nonconventionals, 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 nonconventionals, 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 nonconventionals, 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 NonIntegrated Steelmaking and Hot Forming

Subcategory: 2 conventionals, 2 nonconventional metals, 4 other nonconventionals, 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 nonconventional metals, 6 other nonconventionals, 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 nonconventional organics, 8 other nonconventionals, 2 priority organics, and 8

10262 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules

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; multistand, 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 Nonconventional 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¥4 atm.m3/

mol.’’

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules 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 coproposing 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 nonconventional 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 § 420.1(b) as follows:

§ 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.

§ 420.4 [Corrected]

2. On page 82041, in column 1,

correct § 420.4 by removing § 420.4 (h).

§ 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:

§ 420.11 Subcategory definitions.

* * * * *

(a) Product means the daily operating

(production) rate of metallurgical coke

plus coke breeze determined in

accordance with § 420.3.

* * * * *

(h) Wet desulfurization system means

one that involves scrubbing the sulfurrich coke oven gas stream with an

absorbent solution, with subsequent

recovery of elemental sulfur from the

solution and discharge of process

wastewater.

§ 420.14 [Corrected]

4. On page 82042, in column 1,

correct paragraph (a)(3) as follows:

§ 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.

* * * * *

§ 420.15 [Amended]

5. On page 82042, correct the title of

the table in § 420.15(b) to read as

follows: ‘‘PERFORMANCE

STANDARDS (NSPS)’’.

6. On page 82043, correct the title of

the table in § 420.15(b) to read as

follows: ‘‘PERFORMANCE

STANDARDS (NSPS)—Continued’’.

§ 420.15 [Amended]

7. On page 82043, in column 1,

correct § 420.15(b)(3) as follows:

§ 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.

* * * * *

§ 420.16 [Corrected]

8. On page 82043, in column 2,

correct § 420.16(a)(3) Option 1; and on

page 82044, in column 1, correct

§ 420.16(a)(3) Option 2 as follows:

§ 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

10264 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules

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.

* * * * *

§ 420.17 [Corrected]

9. On page 82044, in column 1,

correct paragraph (b)(3) as follows:

§ 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.

* * * * *

§ 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:

§ 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 § 420.3. * * *

* * * * *

(d) Pg/L means picograms per liter

(PPT = 1.0 × 10¥12 g/L).

* * * * *

(f) Wet-air pollution control system is

an emission control system that utilizes

water to clean process or furnace offgases.

§ 420.25 [Corrected]

11. On page 82046, correct footnote 3

of the PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

(NSPS) table in § 420.25(b)(1) to read: ‘‘3

Ten parts per quadrillion (10 × 10¥12 g/

l).’’

§ 420.26 [Corrected]

12. On page 82047, correct footnote 4

of the PRETREATMENT STANDARDS

(PSES) table in § 420.26(c) to read: ‘‘4

Ten parts per quadrillion (10 × 10¥12 g/

l).’’

§ 420.27 [Corrected]

13. On page 82047, correct footnote 3

of the PRETREATMENT STANDARDS

(PSNS) table in § 420.27(b)(1) to read: ‘‘3

Ten parts per quadrillion (10 × 10¥12 g/

l).’’

14. On page 82047, correct footnote 4

of the PRETREATMENT STANDARDS

(PSNS) table in § 420.27(b)(3) to read: ‘‘4

Ten parts per quadrillion (10 × 10¥12 g/

l).’’

§ 420.31 [Corrected]

15. On page 82048, in column 2,

correct the second sentence in

paragraph (a) as follows:

§ 420.31 Subcategory definitions.

* * * * *

(a) * * * The daily operating

(production) rates shall be determined

in accordance with § 420.3.

16. On page 82048, in column 2,

correct § 420.31 by removing and

reserving paragraph (b).

§ 420.32 [Corrected]

17. On page 82048, correct footnote 2

of the EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BPT)

table in § 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.’’

§ 420.34 [Corrected]

18. On page 82049, in column 1,

correct § 420.34(c) as follows:

§ 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.

§ 420.35 [Corrected]

19. On page 82050, in column 1,

correct § 420.35(b)(3) as follows:

§ 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.

§ 420.36 [Corrected]

20. On page 82051, in column 1,

correct § 420.36(c) as follows:

§ 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.

§ 420.37 [Corrected]

21. On page 82051, in column 1,

correct § 420.37(b)(3) as follows:

§ 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.

§ 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:

§ 420.41 Subcategory definitions.

* * * * *

(a) Product * * * The daily operating

(production) rate shall be determined in

accordance with § 420.3.

* * * * *

(n) Skelp means flat, hot rolled steel.

§ 420.51 [Corrected]

23. On page 82054, correct § 420.51(c)

as follows:

§ 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.

§ 420.52 [Corrected]

24. On page 82054, correct footnote 2

of the EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BPT)

table in § 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.’’

§ 420.54 [Corrected]

25. On page 82055, in column 1,

correct paragraph (a)(4); and on page

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules 10265

82055, in column 1, correct paragraph

(b)(4) as follows:

§ 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.

§ 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:

§ 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.

§ 420.61 [Amended]

27. On page 82057, in column 2,

correct § 420.61 by removing and

reserving paragraph (z).

§ 420.64 [Amended]

28. On page 82059, in the EFFLUENT

LIMITATIONS (BAT) table of § 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 § 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 § 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

§ 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

§ 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

§ 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

§ 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

§ 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

§ 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

§ 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

§ 420.64(g)(1), correct the entry in the

third column for paragraph (g)(1)(iv)(C)

to read ‘‘0.000000535’’.

§ 420.65 [Amended]

39. On page 82065, in the

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)

table of § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 420.65(b)(9), correct paragraph

(b)(9)(ix)(A) by adding a ‘‘2’’ superscript

in the second and third columns.

§ 420.66 [Amended]

49. On page 82075, correct the

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (PSES)

table of § 420.66 (e)(6) by adding a ‘‘2’’

superscript to the title.

§ 420.67 [Amended]

50. On page 82078, in the

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS (PSNS)

table of § 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 § 420.70 as follows.

§ 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.

§ 420.71 [Amended]

52. On page 82082, in column 1

correct paragraph (a)(2) as follows:

§ 420.71 Subcategory definitions.

* * * * *

(a) * * *

(2) The daily operating (production)

rate must be determined as specified in

§ 420.3.

* * * * *

53. On page 82082, in column 2,

correct § 420.71 by removing paragraph

(a)(3).

§ 420.75 [Amended]

54. On page 82083, correct the table

title in § 420.75(a) to read:

‘‘PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

(NSPS)’’.

55. On page 82083, correct the table

title in § 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