Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0033-0353
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Metal Products and Machinery Point Source Category; Final Rule.
Posted Date: 2003-05-13T04:00Z

Tuesday,

May
13,
2003
Part
II
Environmental
Protection
Agency
40
CFR
Part
438
Effluent
Limitations
Guidelines
and
New
Source
Performance
Standards
for
the
Metal
Products
and
Machinery
Point
Source
Category;
Final
Rule
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00001
Fmt
4717
Sfmt
4717
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25686
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
438
[
FRL
 
7453
 
6]

RIN
2040
 
AB79
Effluent
Limitations
Guidelines
and
New
Source
Performance
Standards
for
the
Metal
Products
and
Machinery
Point
Source
Category
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Final
rule.

SUMMARY:
EPA
is
publishing
final
regulations
establishing
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA)
technology­
based
effluent
limitations
guidelines
for
the
metal
products
and
machinery
(
MP&
M)
point
source
category.
The
metal
products
and
machinery
point
source
category
includes
facilities
that
manufacture,
rebuild,
or
maintain
metal
products,
parts,
or
machines.
EPA
is
promulgating
limitations
and
standards
only
for
facilities
that
directly
discharge
wastewaters
from
oily
operations
in
the
Oily
Wastes
subcategory.
EPA
expects
compliance
with
this
regulation
to
reduce
the
discharge
of
conventional
pollutants
by
approximately
500,000
pounds
per
year.
EPA
estimates
the
annual
cost
of
the
rule
will
be
$
13.8
million
(
pre­
tax
$
2001).
EPA
estimates
that
the
annual
benefits
of
the
rule
to
be
approximately
$
1.5
million
($
2001).
DATES:
This
regulation
shall
become
effective
June
12,
2003.
ADDRESSES:
The
administrative
record
is
available
for
inspection
and
copying
at
the
Water
Docket,
located
at
the
EPA
Docket
Center
(
EPA/
DC)
in
the
basement
of
the
EPA
West
Building,
Room
B
 
102,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC.
The
rule
and
key
supporting
materials
are
also
electronically
available
via
EPA
Dockets
(
Edocket)
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket/
under
Edocket
number
OW
 
2002
 
0033
or
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
guide/
mpm/.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
For
technical
information
concerning
today's
final
rule,
contact
Mr.
Carey
A.
Johnston
at
(
202)
566
 
1014
or
Ms.
Shari
Z.
Barash
at
(
202)
566
 
0996.
For
economic
information
contact
Mr.
James
Covington
at
(
202)
566
 
1034.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

What
Entities
Are
Potentially
Regulated
by
This
Final
Rule?

Entities
potentially
regulated
by
this
action
include
facilities
that
directly
discharge
wastewaters
from
oily
operations
and
include
the
following
types:

Category
Examples
of
regulated
entities
Industry
........................................
Facilities
that
discharge
wastewater
from
oily
operations
and
manufacture,
maintain,
or
rebuild
metal
parts,
products
or
machines
used
in
the
following
sectors:
Aerospace,
Aircraft,
Bus
&
Truck,
Electronic
Equipment
Hardware,
Household
Equipment,
Instruments,
Mobile
Industrial
Equipment,
Motor
Vehicles,
Office
Machines,
Ordnance,
Precious
Metals
and
Jewelry,
Railroad,
Ships
and
Boats,
Stationary
Industrial
Equipment
and
Miscellaneous
Metal
Products.
Government
.................................
State
and
local
government
facilities
that
discharge
wastewater
from
oily
operations
and
manufacture,
maintain
or
rebuild
metal
parts,
products
or
machines
in
one
of
the
sectors
previously
listed
(
e.
g.,
a
town
that
operates
its
own
bus,
truck,
and/
or
snow
removal
equipment
maintenance
facility).
Federal
facilities
that
discharge
wastewater
from
oily
operations
and
manufacture,
maintain,
or
rebuild
metal
parts,
products
or
machines.

Note:
The
term
``
oily
operations''
is
defined
at
40
CFR
438.2(
f)
and
appendix
B
of
part
438.
Note:
See
Appendix
A
of
the
TDD
for
a
list
of
example
NAICS
and
SIC
codes
that
may
apply
to
facilities
regulated
by
MP&
M.

EPA
does
not
intend
the
preceding
table
to
be
exhaustive,
but
rather
it
provides
a
guide
for
readers
regarding
entities
likely
to
be
regulated
by
this
action.
This
table
lists
the
types
of
entities
that
EPA
is
now
aware
could
potentially
be
regulated
by
this
action.
Other
types
of
entities
not
listed
in
the
table
could
also
be
regulated.
To
determine
whether
your
facility
is
regulated
by
this
action,
you
should
carefully
examine
the
applicability
criteria
listed
at
40
CFR
438.1
and
438.10
of
today's
rule.
If
you
still
have
questions
regarding
the
applicability
of
this
action
to
a
particular
entity,
consult
one
of
the
persons
listed
for
technical
information
in
the
preceding
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT
section.

How
Can
I
Get
Copies
of
This
Document
and
Other
Related
Information?
EPA
has
established
an
official
public
docket
for
this
action
under
Docket
ID.
No.
OW
 
2002
 
0033.
The
official
public
docket
is
the
collection
of
materials
that
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
Water
Docket
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center
(
EPA/
DC)
in
the
basement
of
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington
DC.
The
EPA
Docket
Center
Public
Reading
Room
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Public
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566
 
1744,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
Water
Docket
is
(
202)
566
 
2426.
For
access
to
the
docket
materials,
please
call
ahead
to
schedule
an
appointment.
A
reasonable
fee
may
be
charged
for
photocopying.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
and
comment
system,
EPA
Dockets.
You
may
use
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket/
to
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
official
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
Although
not
all
docket
materials
may
be
available
electronically,
you
may
still
access
any
of
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
through
the
docket
facility
previously
identified.
Once
in
the
system,
select
``
search,''
then
key
in
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number
(
OW
 
2002
 
0033).
Major
supporting
documents
are
also
available
in
hard
copy
from
the
National
Service
Center
for
Environmental
Publications
(
NSCEP),
U.
S.
EPA/
NSCEP,
PO
Box
42419,
Cincinnati,
Ohio,
USA
45242
 
2419,
(
800)
490
 
9198,
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ncepihom/.
You
can
obtain
electronic
copies
of
this
preamble
and
rule
as
well
as
major
supporting
documents
at
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket/
and
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
guide/
mpm.
The
two
major
documents
supporting
the
final
regulations
are:
 
``
Development
Document
for
the
Final
Effluent
Limitations
Guidelines
and
Standards
for
the
Metal
Products
&
Machinery
Point
Source
Category''
[
EPA
 
821
 
B
 
03
 
001]
referred
to
in
the
preamble
as
the
Technical
Development
Document
(
TDD):
This
document
presents
the
technical
information
that
formed
the
basis
for
EPA's
decisions
in
today's
final
rule.
The
TDD
describes,
among
other
things,
the
data
collection
activities,
the
wastewater
treatment
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00002
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25687
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
technology
options
considered
by
the
Agency
as
the
basis
for
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
standards,
the
pollutants
found
in
MP&
M
wastewaters,
and
the
estimation
of
pollutant
removals
associated
with
certain
pollutant
control
options.
 
``
Economic,
Environmental,
and
Benefits
Analysis
of
the
Final
Metal
Products
&
Machinery
Rule''
[
EPA
 
821
 
B
 
03
 
002]
referred
to
in
the
preamble
as
the
Economic,
Environmental,
and
Benefits
Analysis
(
EEBA):
This
document
presents
the
methodology
employed
to
assess
economic
impacts
and
environmental
impacts
and
benefits
of
the
final
rule
and
the
results
of
the
analysis.

What
Process
Governs
Judicial
Review
for
Today's
Final
Rule?
In
accordance
with
40
CFR
23.2,
today's
rule
is
considered
promulgated
for
the
purposes
of
judicial
review
as
of
1
p.
m.
Eastern
Daylight
Time,
May
27,
2003.
Under
section
509(
b)(
1)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA),
judicial
review
of
today's
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
standards
may
be
obtained
by
filing
a
petition
in
the
United
States
Circuit
Court
of
Appeals
for
review
within
120
days
from
the
date
of
promulgation
of
these
guidelines
and
standards.
Under
section
509(
b)(
2)
of
the
CWA,
the
requirements
of
this
regulation
may
not
be
challenged
later
in
civil
or
criminal
proceedings
brought
by
EPA
to
enforce
these
requirements.

What
Are
the
Compliance
Dates
for
Today's
Final
Rule?
Existing
direct
dischargers
must
comply
with
today's
limitations
based
on
the
best
practicable
control
technology
currently
available
(
BPT)
and
the
best
conventional
pollutant
control
technology
(
BCT)
as
soon
as
their
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
permits
include
such
limitations.
New
direct
discharging
sources
must
comply
with
applicable
new
source
performance
standards
(
NSPS)
on
the
date
the
new
sources
begin
discharging.
For
purposes
of
NSPS,
a
source
is
a
new
source
if
it
commences
construction
after
June
12,
2003.

How
Does
EPA
Protect
Confidential
Business
Information
(
CBI)?
EPA
notes
that
certain
information
and
data
in
the
record
supporting
the
final
rule
have
been
claimed
as
CBI
and,
therefore,
EPA
has
not
included
these
materials
in
the
record
that
is
available
to
the
public
in
the
Water
Docket.
Further,
the
Agency
has
withheld
from
disclosure
some
data
not
claimed
as
CBI
because
release
of
this
information
could
indirectly
reveal
information
claimed
to
be
confidential.
To
support
the
rulemaking
while
preserving
confidentiality
claims,
EPA
is
presenting
in
the
public
record
certain
information
in
aggregated
form
or,
alternatively,
is
masking
facility
identities
or
employing
other
strategies.
This
approach
assures
that
the
information
in
the
public
record
explains
the
basis
for
today's
final
rule
without
compromising
CBI
claims.

How
Is
This
Preamble
Organized?
The
following
outline
is
for
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule.
It
is
written
in
plain
language
designed
to
help
the
reader
understand
the
information
in
the
final
rule.
This
preamble
contains
a
short
summary
of
what
was
proposed,
the
key
comments
that
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
received
on
the
proposed
rule,
and
the
principal
bases
for
EPA's
decisions.

I.
Legal
Authority
II.
Legislative
Background
A.
Clean
Water
Act
B.
Pollution
Prevention
Act
C.
Section
304(
m)
Requirements
III.
Metal
Products
&
Machinery
Effluent
Guidelines
Rulemaking
History
A.
1995
and
2001
Proposed
Regulations
B.
June
2002
Notice
of
Data
Availability
IV.
Summary
of
Significant
Decisions
A.
Decisions
Regarding
the
Content
of
the
Regulation
B.
Decisions
Regarding
Methodology
V.
Scope/
Applicability
of
the
Final
Regulation
A.
General
Overview
and
Wastewaters
Covered
B.
Subcategorization
VI.
The
Final
Regulation
A.
General
Metals
Subcategory
B.
Metal
Finishing
Job
Shops
Subcategory
C.
Printed
Wiring
Board
Subcategory
D.
Non­
Chromium
Anodizing
Subcategory
E.
Steel
Forming
&
Finishing
Subcategory
F.
Oily
Wastes
Subcategory
G.
Railroad
Line
Maintenance
Subcategory
H.
Shipbuilding
Dry
Dock
Subcategory
VII.
Pollutant
Reduction
and
Compliance
Cost
Estimates
A.
Pollutant
Reductions
B.
Regulatory
Costs
VIII.
Economic
Analyses
A.
Introduction
and
Overview
B.
Economic
Costs
of
Technology
Options
by
Subcategory
C.
Facility
Level
Economic
Impacts
of
the
Final
Rule
by
Subcategory
D.
Firm
Level
Impacts
E.
Impacts
on
Government­
Owned
Facilities
F.
Community
Level
Impacts
G.
Foreign
Trade
Impacts
H.
Administrative
Costs
I.
Social
Costs
J.
Cost
and
Removal
Comparison
Analysis
K.
Cost­
Effectiveness
Analysis
IX.
Water
Quality
Analysis
and
Environmental
Benefits
A.
Introduction
and
Overview
B.
Reduced
Human
Health
Risk
C.
Improved
Ecological
Conditions
and
Recreational
Uses
D.
Effect
on
POTW
Operations
E.
Summary
of
Benefits
F.
National
Cost­
Benefit
Comparison
G.
Ohio
Case
Study
X.
Non­
Water
Quality
Environmental
Impacts
A.
Air
Pollution
B.
Solid
Waste
C.
Energy
Requirements
XI.
Regulatory
Implementation
A.
Implementation
of
the
Limitations
and
Standards
for
Direct
Dischargers
B.
Upset
and
Bypass
Provisions
C.
Variances
and
Modifications
XII.
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
A.
Executive
Order
12866:
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
B.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
C.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA)
D.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
E.
Executive
Order
13132:
Federalism
F.
Executive
Order
13175:
Consultation
and
Coordination
With
Indian
Tribal
Governments
G.
Executive
Order
13045:
Protection
of
Children
From
Environmental
Health
&
Safety
Risks
H.
Executive
Order
13211:
Actions
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use
I.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
J.
Executive
Order
12898:
Federal
Actions
to
Address
Environmental
Justice
in
Minority
Populations
and
Low
Income
Populations
K.
Congressional
Review
Act
Appendix
A
To
The
Preamble:
Abbreviations,
Acronyms,
and
Other
Terms
Used
in
Today's
Final
Rule
I.
Legal
Authority
The
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
is
promulgating
these
regulations
under
the
authority
of
sections
301,
304,
306,
307,
308,
402,
and
501
of
the
Clean
Water
Act,
33
U.
S.
C.
1311,
1314,
1316,
1317,
1318,
1342,
and
1361
and
under
authority
of
the
Pollution
Prevention
Act
of
1990
(
PPA),
42
U.
S.
C.
13101
et
seq.,
Public
Law
101
 
508,
November
5,
1990.

II.
Legislative
Background
A.
Clean
Water
Act
Congress
adopted
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA)
to
``
restore
and
maintain
the
chemical,
physical,
and
biological
integrity
of
the
Nation's
waters''
(
section
101(
a),
33
U.
S.
C.
1251(
a)).
To
achieve
this
goal,
the
CWA
prohibits
the
discharge
of
pollutants
into
navigable
waters
except
in
compliance
with
the
statute.
The
Clean
Water
Act
confronts
the
problem
of
water
pollution
on
a
number
of
different
fronts.
Its
primary
reliance,
however,
is
on
establishing
restrictions
on
the
types
and
amounts
of
pollutants
discharged
from
various
industrial,
commercial,
and
public
sources
of
wastewater.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00003
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25688
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
Congress
recognized
that
regulating
only
those
sources
that
discharge
effluent
directly
into
the
nation's
waters
would
not
be
sufficient
to
achieve
the
CWA's
goals.
Consequently,
the
CWA
requires
EPA
to
promulgate
nationally
applicable
pretreatment
standards
that
restrict
pollutant
discharges
from
facilities
that
discharge
wastewater
through
sewers
flowing
to
publiclyowned
treatment
works
(
POTWs)
(
section
307(
b)
and
(
c),
33
U.
S.
C.
1317(
b)
and
(
c)).
National
pretreatment
standards
are
established
for
those
pollutants
in
wastewater
from
indirect
dischargers
which
pass
through,
interfere
with,
or
are
otherwise
incompatible
with
POTW
operations.
Generally,
pretreatment
standards
are
designed
to
ensure
that
wastewater
from
direct
and
indirect
industrial
dischargers
are
subject
to
similar
levels
of
treatment.
In
addition,
POTWs
are
required
to
develop
and
enforce
local
pretreatment
limits
applicable
to
their
industrial
indirect
dischargers
to
satisfy
any
local
requirements
(
see
40
CFR
403.5).
Direct
dischargers
must
comply
with
effluent
limitations
in
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
permits;
indirect
dischargers
must
comply
with
pretreatment
standards.
These
limitations
and
standards
are
established
by
regulation
for
categories
of
industrial
dischargers
and
are
based
on
the
degree
of
control
that
can
be
achieved
using
various
levels
of
pollution
control
technology.

1.
Best
Practicable
Control
Technology
Currently
Available
(
BPT)
 
Section
304(
b)(
1)
of
the
CWA
In
the
regulations,
EPA
defines
BPT
effluent
limitations
for
conventional,
toxic,
and
non­
conventional
pollutants.
Section
304(
a)(
4)
designates
the
following
as
conventional
pollutants:
biochemical
oxygen
demand
(
BOD5),
total
suspended
solids
(
TSS),
fecal
coliform,
pH,
and
any
additional
pollutants
defined
by
the
Administrator
as
conventional.
The
Administrator
designated
oil
and
grease
(
O&
G)
as
an
additional
conventional
pollutant
on
July
30,
1979
(
see
44
FR
44501).
EPA
has
identified
65
pollutants
and
classes
of
pollutants
as
toxic
pollutants,
of
which
126
specific
substances
have
been
designated
priority
toxic
pollutants
(
see
Appendix
A
to
part
403,
reprinted
after
40
CFR
423.17).
All
other
pollutants
are
considered
to
be
nonconventional
In
specifying
BPT,
EPA
looks
at
a
number
of
factors.
EPA
first
considers
the
total
cost
of
applying
the
control
technology
in
relation
to
the
effluent
reduction
benefits.
The
Agency
also
considers
the
age
of
the
equipment
and
facilities,
the
processes
employed
and
any
required
process
changes,
engineering
aspects
of
the
control
technologies,
non­
water
quality
environmental
impacts
(
including
energy
requirements),
and
such
other
factors
as
the
EPA
Administrator
deems
appropriate
(
CWA
304(
b)(
1)(
B)).
Traditionally,
EPA
establishes
BPT
effluent
limitations
based
on
the
average
of
the
best
performances
of
facilities
within
the
industry
of
various
ages,
sizes,
processes
or
other
common
characteristics.
Where
existing
performance
is
uniformly
inadequate,
BPT
may
reflect
higher
levels
of
control
than
currently
in
place
in
an
industrial
category
if
the
Agency
determines
that
the
technology
can
be
practically
applied.

2.
Best
Conventional
Pollutant
Control
Technology
(
BCT)
 
Section
304(
b)(
4)
of
the
CWA
The
1977
amendments
to
the
CWA
required
EPA
to
identify
effluent
reduction
levels
for
conventional
pollutants
associated
with
BCT
for
discharges
from
existing
industrial
point
sources.
In
addition
to
the
other
factors
specified
in
section
304(
b)(
4)(
B),
the
CWA
requires
that
EPA
establish
BCT
limitations
after
consideration
of
a
two
part
``
cost­
reasonableness''
test.
EPA
explained
its
methodology
for
the
development
of
BCT
limitations
in
July
1986
(
see
51
FR
24974).

3.
Best
Available
Technology
Economically
Achievable
(
BAT)
 
Section
304(
b)(
2)
of
the
CWA
In
general,
BAT
effluent
limitations
guidelines
represent
the
best
available
economically
achievable
performance
of
plants
in
the
industrial
subcategory
or
category.
The
factors
considered
in
assessing
BAT
include
the
cost
of
achieving
BAT
effluent
reductions,
the
age
of
equipment
and
facilities
involved,
the
process
employed,
potential
process
changes,
and
nonwater
quality
environmental
impacts,
including
energy
requirements.
The
Agency
retains
considerable
discretion
in
assigning
the
weight
to
be
accorded
these
factors.
BAT
limitations
may
be
based
on
effluent
reductions
attainable
through
changes
in
a
facility's
processes
and
operations.
Where
existing
performance
is
uniformly
inadequate,
BAT
may
reflect
a
higher
level
of
performance
than
is
currently
being
achieved
within
a
particular
subcategory
based
on
technology
transferred
from
a
different
subcategory
or
category.
BAT
may
be
based
upon
process
changes
or
internal
controls,
even
when
these
technologies
are
not
common
industry
practice.

4.
New
Source
Performance
Standards
(
NSPS)
 
Section
306
of
the
CWA
NSPS
reflect
effluent
reductions
that
are
achievable
based
on
the
best
available
demonstrated
control
technology.
New
sources
have
the
opportunity
to
install
the
best
and
most
efficient
production
processes
and
wastewater
treatment
technologies.
As
a
result,
NSPS
should
represent
the
most
stringent
controls
attainable
through
the
application
of
the
best
available
demonstrated
control
technology
for
all
pollutants
(
i.
e.,
conventional,
nonconventional
and
priority
pollutants).
In
establishing
NSPS,
EPA
is
directed
to
take
into
consideration
the
cost
of
achieving
the
effluent
reduction
and
any
non­
water
quality
environmental
impacts
and
energy
requirements.

5.
Pretreatment
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
(
PSES)
 
Section
307(
b)
of
the
CWA
PSES
are
designed
to
prevent
the
discharge
of
pollutants
that
pass
through,
interfere
with,
or
are
otherwise
incompatible
with
the
operation
of
publicly­
owned
treatment
works
(
POTWs),
including
sludge
disposal
methods
at
POTWs.
Pretreatment
standards
for
existing
sources
are
technology­
based
and
are
analogous
to
BAT
effluent
limitations
guidelines.
The
General
Pretreatment
Regulations,
which
set
forth
the
framework
for
the
implementation
of
national
pretreatment
standards,
are
found
at
40
CFR
403.

6.
Pretreatment
Standards
for
New
Sources
(
PSNS)
 
Section
307(
c)
of
the
CWA
Like
PSES,
PSNS
are
designed
to
prevent
the
discharges
of
pollutants
that
pass
through,
interfere
with,
or
are
otherwise
incompatible
with
the
operation
of
POTWs.
PSNS
are
to
be
issued
at
the
same
time
as
NSPS.
New
indirect
dischargers
have
the
opportunity
to
incorporate
into
their
plants
the
best
available
demonstrated
technologies.
The
Agency
considers
the
same
factors
in
promulgating
PSNS
as
it
considers
in
promulgating
NSPS.

B.
Pollution
Prevention
Act
The
Pollution
Prevention
Act
of
1990
(
PPA)
(
42
U.
S.
C.
13101
et
seq.,
Public
Law
101
 
508,
November
5,
1990)
``
declares
it
to
be
the
national
policy
of
the
United
States
that
pollution
should
be
prevented
or
reduced
whenever
feasible;
pollution
that
cannot
be
prevented
should
be
recycled
in
an
environmentally
safe
manner,
whenever
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00004
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25689
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
feasible;
pollution
that
cannot
be
prevented
or
recycled
should
be
treated
in
an
environmentally
safe
manner
whenever
feasible;
and
disposal
or
release
into
the
environment
should
be
employed
only
as
a
last
resort
*
*
*''
(
Sec.
6602;
42
U.
S.
C.
13101
(
b)).
In
short,
preventing
pollution
before
it
is
created
is
preferable
to
trying
to
manage,
treat
or
dispose
of
it
after
it
is
created.
The
PPA
directs
the
Agency
to,
among
other
things,
``
review
regulations
of
the
Agency
prior
and
subsequent
to
their
proposal
to
determine
their
effect
on
source
reduction''
(
Sec.
6604;
42
U.
S.
C.
13103(
b)(
2)).
EPA
reviewed
this
effluent
guideline
for
its
incorporation
of
pollution
prevention.
According
to
the
PPA,
source
reduction
reduces
the
generation
and
release
of
hazardous
substances,
pollutants,
wastes,
contaminants,
or
residuals
at
the
source,
usually
within
a
process.
The
term
source
reduction
``
include[
s]
equipment
or
technology
modifications,
process
or
procedure
modifications,
reformulation
or
redesign
of
products,
substitution
of
raw
materials,
and
improvements
in
housekeeping,
maintenance,
training
or
inventory
control.
The
term
`
source
reduction'
does
not
include
any
practice
which
alters
the
physical,
chemical,
or
biological
characteristics
or
the
volume
of
a
hazardous
substance,
pollutant,
or
contaminant
through
a
process
or
activity
which
itself
is
not
integral
to
or
necessary
for
the
production
of
a
product
or
the
providing
of
a
service.''
42
U.
S.
C.
13102(
5).
In
effect,
source
reduction
means
reducing
the
amount
of
a
pollutant
that
enters
a
waste
stream
or
that
is
otherwise
released
into
the
environment
prior
to
out­
of­
process
recycling,
treatment,
or
disposal.
In
these
final
regulations,
EPA
supports
pollution
prevention
technology
by
including
pollution
prevention
in
its
technology
basis
for
today's
limitations
and
new
source
performance
standards.
This
includes
water
conservation
and
re­
use
of
lubricants
and
solvents.

C.
Section
304(
m)
Requirements
Section
304(
m)
of
the
CWA,
added
by
the
Water
Quality
Act
of
1987,
requires
EPA
to
establish
schedules
for:
(
1)
Reviewing
and
revising
existing
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
standards;
and
(
2)
promulgating
new
effluent
guidelines.
On
January
2,
1990,
EPA
published
an
Effluent
Guidelines
Plan
(
see
55
FR
80),
in
which
schedules
were
established
for
developing
new
and
revised
effluent
guidelines
for
several
industry
categories,
including
the
metal
products
and
machinery
industry.
Natural
Resources
Defense
Council,
Inc.,
and
Public
Citizen,
Inc.,
challenged
the
Effluent
Guidelines
Plan
in
a
suit
filed
in
the
U.
S.
District
Court
for
the
District
of
Columbia,
(
NRDC
et
al.,
v.
Browner,
Civ.
No.
89
 
2980).
On
January
31,
1992,
the
Court
entered
a
consent
decree
(
the
``
304(
m)
Decree''),
which
establishes
schedules
for,
among
other
things,
EPA's
proposal
and
promulgation
of
effluent
guidelines
for
a
number
of
point
source
categories.
The
consent
decree,
as
amended,
requires
EPA
to
take
final
action
on
the
Metal
Products
and
Machinery
effluent
guidelines
by
February
14,
2003.

III.
Metal
Products
&
Machinery
Effluent
Guidelines
Rulemaking
History
A.
1995
and
2001
Proposed
Regulations
On
May
30,
1995,
EPA
published
a
proposal
entitled,
``
Effluent
Limitations
Guidelines,
Pretreatment
Standards,
and
New
Source
Performance
Standards:
Metal
Products
and
Machinery''
(
see
60
FR
28210).
Throughout
today's
preamble,
EPA
refers
to
this
1995
proposal
as
the
``
Phase
I''
or
the
``
1995''
proposal
for
the
Metal
Products
and
Machinery
industry.
To
make
the
regulation
more
manageable,
EPA
initially
divided
the
industry
into
two
phases
based
on
industrial
sectors.
The
Phase
I
proposal
included
the
following
industry
sectors:
Aerospace;
Aircraft;
Electronic
Equipment;
Hardware;
Mobile
Industrial
Equipment;
Ordnance;
and
Stationary
Industrial
Equipment.
At
that
time,
EPA
planned
to
propose
a
rule
for
the
Phase
II
sectors
approximately
three
years
after
the
MP&
M
Phase
I
proposal.
Phase
II
sectors
included:
Bus
&
Truck,
Household
Equipment,
Instruments,
Job
Shops,
Motor
Vehicles,
Office
Machines,
Precious
Metals
and
Jewelry,
Printed
Wiring
Boards,
Railroad,
Ships
and
Boats,
and
Miscellaneous
Metal
Products.
EPA
received
over
350
public
comments
on
the
Phase
I
proposal.
One
area
where
commentors
from
all
stakeholder
groups
(
i.
e.,
industry,
environmental
groups,
regulators)
were
in
agreement
was
that
EPA
should
not
divide
the
industry
into
two
separate
regulations.
Commentors
raised
concerns
regarding
the
regulation
of
similar
facilities
with
different
compliance
schedules
and
potentially
different
limitations
solely
based
on
whether
they
were
in
a
Phase
I
or
Phase
II
MP&
M
industrial
sector.
Furthermore,
many
facilities
performed
work
in
multiple
sectors.
In
such
cases,
permit
writers
and
control
authorities
(
e.
g.,
POTWs)
would
need
to
decide
which
MP&
M
rule
(
Phase
I
or
II)
applied
to
a
facility.
EPA's
responses
to
comments
can
be
found
in
section
20.3
of
the
docket
for
the
rule.
Based
on
these
comments,
EPA
published
a
new
proposal
on
January
3,
2001
(
see
66
FR
424)
which
completely
replaced
the
1995
proposal.
Throughout
this
preamble,
EPA
refers
to
this
proposal
as
the
``
2001''
proposal
for
the
Metal
Products
and
Machinery
industry.
In
that
notice,
EPA
proposed
to
establish
new
limitations
and
standards
for
approximately
10,000
facilities
in
the
18
industrial
sectors
(
without
any
designation
of
``
Phase
I''
or
``
Phase
II'').
EPA
also
divided
the
industry
into
eight
regulatory
subcategories:
General
Metals,
Metal
Finishing
Job
Shops,
Printed
Wiring
Board,
Non­
Chromium
Anodizing,
Steel
Forming
&
Finishing,
Oily
Wastes,
Railroad
Line
Maintenance,
and
Shipbuilding
Dry
Docks
(
see
66
FR
439
for
a
discussion
on
the
development
of
EPA's
proposed
subcategorization
scheme).
EPA
found
two
basic
types
of
waste
streams
in
the
industry:
(
1)
Wastewater
with
high
metals
content
(
metalbearing
and
(
2)
wastewater
with
low
concentration
of
metals,
and
high
oil
and
grease
content
(
oil­
bearing).
When
looking
at
facilities
generating
metalbearing
wastewater
(
with
or
without
oilbearing
wastewater),
EPA
identified
five
groups
of
facilities
that
could
potentially
be
subcategorized
by
dominant
product,
raw
materials
used,
and/
or
nature
of
the
waste
generated
(
i.
e.,
General
Metals,
Metal
Finishing
Job
Shops,
Printed
Wiring
Board,
Non­
Chromium
Anodizing,
and
Steel
Forming
&
Finishing).
When
evaluating
facilities
with
only
oil­
bearing
wastewater
for
potential
further
subcategorization,
EPA
identified
two
types
of
facilities
(
i.
e.,
Railroad
Line
Maintenance
and
Shipbuilding
Dry
Docks)
that
were
different
from
the
other
facilities
in
the
Oily
Wastes
subcategory
based
on
size,
location,
and
dominant
product
or
activity.
This
subcategorization
scheme
allowed
EPA
to
more
accurately
assess
various
technology
options
in
terms
of
compliance
costs,
pollutant
reductions,
benefits,
and
economic
impacts.
EPA
proposed
new
limitations
and
standards
for
direct
dischargers
in
all
eight
MP&
M
subcategories
and
proposed
pretreatment
standards
for
all
indirect
dischargers
in
three
subcategories
(
i.
e.,
Metal
Finishing
Job
Shops,
Printed
Wiring
Board,
and
Steel
Forming
&
Finishing);
pretreatment
standards
for
facilities
above
a
certain
wastewater
flow
volume
in
two
subcategories
(
i.
e.,
General
Metals
and
Oily
Wastes);
and
no
national
pretreatment
standards
for
facilities
in
three
subcategories
(
i.
e.,
Non­
Chromium
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00005
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25690
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
Anodizing,
Railroad
Line
Maintenance,
and
Shipbuilding
Dry
Docks).
EPA
received
over
1500
comment
letters
on
the
2001
proposal.
EPA's
responses
to
the
comments
can
be
found
in
section
20.3
of
the
rulemaking.

B.
June
2002
Notice
of
Data
Availability
On
June
5,
2002,
EPA
published
a
Notice
of
Data
Availability
(
NODA)
at
67
FR
38752.
In
the
NODA,
EPA
discussed
major
issues
raised
in
comments
on
the
2001
proposal;
suggested
revisions
to
the
technical
and
economic
methodologies
used
to
estimate
compliance
costs,
pollutant
loadings,
and
economic
and
environmental
impacts;
presented
the
results
of
these
suggested
methodology
changes
and
incorporation
of
new
(
or
revised)
data;
and
summarized
the
Agency's
thinking
on
how
these
results
could
affect
the
Agency's
final
decisions.
The
NODA
also
included
a
discussion
of
possible
alternative
options
for
certain
subcategories
based
on
comments,
including
an
Environmental
Management
System
(
EMS)
alternative
in
lieu
of
part
438
limitations
and
standards,
and
a
discussion
of
``
upgrading''
facilities
currently
regulated
under
the
Electroplating
regulations
(
40
CFR
part
413)
to
meet
the
Metal
Finishing
regulations
(
40
CFR
part
433)
(
see
67
FR
38797).
Finally,
the
NODA
included
preliminary
revised
effluent
limitations
and
pretreatment
standards
for
all
eight
proposed
subcategories.
EPA
received
over
300
comment
letters
on
the
NODA.
EPA's
responses
to
the
comments
can
be
found
in
section
20.3
of
the
docket
for
the
rule.

IV.
Summary
of
Significant
Decisions
As
the
previous
discussion
of
the
development
of
this
regulation
explains,
EPA
proposed
regulating
discharges
associated
with
a
number
of
different
operations
in
the
MP&
M
industry.
Thus,
EPA
proposed
regulations
that
would
have
established
new
limitations
and
standards
for
approximately
10,000
facilities
in
18
industrial
sectors
that
EPA
subcategorized
in
eight
subcategories.
Following
its
consideration
of
comments
submitted
to
EPA
as
well
as
intensive
scrutiny
of
the
data
used
to
develop
the
proposal,
EPA
has
determined
that
it
should
only
finalize
regulations
for
the
Oily
Wastes
subcategory.
These
regulations
would
affect
approximately
2,400
facilities.
The
following
material
explains
EPA's
decisions
underlying
today's
regulation.
It
discusses
significant
issues
considered
by
EPA
or
raised
by
commentors
on
the
May
1995
and
January
2001
proposed
rules
and
June
2002
NODA,
and
how
EPA
has
resolved
these
issues
in
today's
final
rule.

A.
Decisions
Regarding
the
Content
of
the
Regulation
The
following
discussion
describes
how
EPA
has
subcategorized
this
industry
in
developing
limitations
and
standards,
and
EPA's
decisions
about
whether
to
subject
particular
subcategories
to
limitations
and
standards.
It
also
identifies
the
pollution
control
technology
EPA
used
as
the
basis
for
establishing
limitations
and
standards.
Next,
this
section
discusses
the
applicability
of
the
rule
to
iron
and
steel
operations
and
to
``
oily
operations.''
The
section
also
looks
at
the
regulated
pollutants
and
describes
EPA
decisions
concerning
the
use
of
a
``
pollution
prevention''
alternative
for
complying
with
the
final
rule.

1.
Subcategorization
Structure
The
CWA
requires
EPA,
in
developing
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
pretreatment
standards
that
reflect
the
best
available
technology
economically
achievable
to
consider
a
number
of
different
factors.
Among
others,
these
include
the
age
of
the
equipment
and
facilities
in
the
category,
manufacturing
processes
employed,
types
of
treatment
technology
to
reduce
effluent
discharges,
and
the
cost
of
effluent
reductions
(
section
304(
b)(
2)(
b)
of
the
CWA,
33
U.
S.
C.
1314(
b)(
2)(
B)).
The
statute
also
authorizes
EPA
to
take
into
account
other
factors
that
the
Administrator
deems
appropriate.
One
way
in
which
the
Agency
has
taken
some
of
these
factors
into
account
is
by
breaking
down
categories
of
industries
into
separate
classes
of
similar
characteristics.
This
recognizes
the
major
differences
among
companies
within
an
industry
that
may
reflect,
for
example,
different
manufacturing
processes
or
wastewater
characteristics.
One
result
of
subdividing
an
industry
by
subcategories
is
to
safeguard
against
overzealous
regulatory
standards,
increase
the
confidence
that
the
regulations
are
practicable,
and
diminish
the
need
to
address
variations
between
facilities
through
a
variance
process
(
Weyerhaeuser
Co.
v.
Costle,
590
F.
2d
1011,
1053
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1978)).
As
discussed
in
section
III.
A
of
today's
final
rule,
in
2001
EPA
proposed
to
divide
the
MP&
M
industry
into
eight
regulatory
subcategories
based
on
the
manufacturing,
maintenance
or
rebuilding
operations
performed
at
a
facility
(
called
``
unit
operations''
in
this
preamble):
General
Metals,
Metal
Finishing
Job
Shops,
Printed
Wiring
Board,
Non­
Chromium
Anodizing,
Steel
Forming
&
Finishing,
Oily
Wastes,
Railroad
Line
Maintenance,
and
Shipbuilding
Dry
Docks.
Based
on
comments
submitted
on
the
proposed
rule
and
NODA,
EPA
has
refined
today's
final
subcategorization
structure
for
the
analyses
performed
to
support
today's
final
rule.
For
the
purposes
of
analyzing
issues
in
developing
the
final
rule,
EPA
retained
the
eight
subcategory
structure,
but
altered
the
placement
of
some
operations
within
certain
subcategories.
For
example,
the
subcategorization
approach
that
EPA
has
used
for
analyses
supporting
today's
final
rule
incorporates
printed
wiring
board
job
shops
in
the
Printed
Wiring
Board
subcategory
(
as
opposed
to
the
Metal
Finishing
Job
Shop
subcategory,
as
proposed)
and
places
printed
wiring
assembly
facilities
in
the
General
Metals
subcategory
(
see
67
FR
38756).
As
discussed
in
the
NODA,
EPA
also
considered
an
additional
subcategory
for
facilities
that
primarily
perform
zinc
electroplating
(``
zinc
platers'').
Depending
on
whether
or
not
these
facilities
operate
as
a
captive
or
a
job
shop,
EPA
had
proposed
to
include
them
as
part
of
the
General
Metals
or
Metal
Finishing
Job
Shop
subcategories,
respectively.
The
NODA
explained
that
EPA
was
also
considering:
(
1)
Creating
a
separate
subcategory
for
zinc
platers;
(
2)
segmenting
zinc
platers
within
the
General
Metals
and
Metal
Finishing
Job
Shop
subcategories
for
zinc
platers;
or
(
3)
retaining
the
proposed
subcategory
structure
and
establishing
numerical
limitations
and
standards
for
zinc
that
would
be
achievable
by
zinc
platers
(
see
67
FR
38756).
Commentors
on
the
NODA
supported
retaining
the
proposed
subcategories
as
long
as
the
record
demonstrated
that
zinc
platers
could
achieve
the
zinc
numerical
limitations
and
standards.
They
raised
concerns
that
creating
a
separate
subcategory
or
segment
to
address
the
limitations
for
one
pollutant
would
be
confusing
and
difficult
to
implement.
EPA
did
not
create
a
separate
subcategory
or
segment
for
zinc
platers
in
evaluating
the
data
for
the
final
rule.
These
zinc
platers
remain
subject
to
parts
413
and/
or
433.
Also,
as
discussed
in
the
NODA,
EPA
considered
establishing
the
Steel
Forming
and
Finishing
subcategory
for
wastewater
discharges
resulting
from:
(
1)
Steel
forming
and
finishing
operations
(
e.
g.,
cold
forming
on
steel
wire,
rod,
bar,
pipe,
and
tube);
and
(
2)
continuous
electroplating
of
flat
steel
products
(
e.
g.,
strip,
sheet,
and
plate).
EPA
re­
examined
its
database
for
facilities
that
perform
continuous
steel
electroplating,
and
found
that,
contrary
to
its
initial
finding,
continuous
electroplaters
do
not
perform
operations
similar
to
other
facilities
in
this
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00006
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25691
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
subcategory
(
i.
e.,
steel
forming
and
finishing
facilities
performing
cold
forming
on
steel
wire,
rod,
bar,
pipe,
and
tube).
Thus,
EPA
included
continuous
electroplaters
performing
electroplating
and
coating
operations
in
the
General
Metals
subcategory
for
analyses
supporting
today's
final
rule.
Finally,
as
explained
in
section
IV.
B,
based
on
comments
and
revisions
to
analytical
databases,
the
Agency
reevaluated
its
technical
and
economic
analyses
for
the
final
rule.
EPA
performed
its
re­
evaluation
of
all
proposed
subcategories.
As
a
result
of
this
assessment,
EPA
decided
to
only
establish
effluent
guidelines
for
the
Oily
Wastes
subcategory.

2.
Summary
of
Regulatory
Decisions
The
analyses
for
today's
final
rule
incorporate
database
changes,
additional
data,
and
methodological
changes
as
discussed
in
the
NODA
and
in
section
IV.
B
of
today's
preamble.
Based
on
EPA's
analyses
for
today's
final
rule,
EPA
is
establishing
limitations
and
standards
for
one
of
the
subcategories
listed
in
the
January
2001
proposed
rule.
For
others,
EPA
has
concluded
that
national
limitations
and
standards
are
not
warranted.
In
addition,
EPA
is
not
establishing
pretreatment
standards
for
existing
or
new
sources
for
any
of
the
subcategories
in
today's
rule.
Some
of
today's
limitations
and
standards
are
based
on
the
technology
options
that
formed
the
basis
for
the
proposal
while
others
are
based
on
modified
technology
options.
Table
IV
 
1
Summarizes
EPA's
decisions
for
each
subcategory
considered
for
today's
final
rule
and
each
regulatory
level.
Each
of
these
decisions
is
further
detailed
in
section
VI
of
today's
final
rule.

TABLE
IV
 
1.
 
SUMMARY
OF
FINAL
REGULATORY
DECISIONS
Subcategory
considered
Final
regulation
Section
of
today's
final
rule
Discharger
status
(
regulatory
level)
Selected
technology
option
General
Metals
...........................................
Direct
Dischargers
(
BPT/
BCT/
BAT/
NSPS)
No
new
or
revised
limitations
or
standards
established.
VI.
A.
1
 
4
Indirect
Dischargers
(
PSES/
PSNS)
..........
No
new
or
revised
standards
established
VI.
A.
5
 
6
Metal
Finishing
Job
Shop
..........................
Direct
Dischargers
(
BPT/
BCT/
BAT/
NSPS)
No
revised
limitations
or
standards
established
VI.
B.
1
 
2
Indirect
Dischargers
(
PSES/
PSNS)
..........
No
revised
standards
established
.............
VI.
B.
3
 
4
Printed
Wiring
Board
..................................
Direct
Dischargers
(
BPT/
BCT/
BAT/
NSPS)
No
revised
limitations
or
standards
established
VI.
C.
1
 
2
Indirect
Dischargers
(
PSES/
PSNS)
..........
No
revised
standards
established
.............
VI.
C.
3
 
4
Non­
Chromium
Anodizing
..........................
Direct
Dischargers
(
BPT/
BCT/
BAT/
NSPS)
No
revised
limitations
or
standards
established
VI.
D.
1
 
2
Indirect
Dischargers
(
PSES/
PSNS)
..........
No
revised
standards
established
.............
VI.
D.
3
Steel
Forming
&
Finishing
.........................
Direct
Dischargers
(
BPT/
BCT/
BAT/
NSPS)
No
revised
limitations
or
standards
established
VI.
E.
1
 
2
Indirect
Dischargers
(
PSES/
PSNS)
..........
No
revised
standards
established
.............
VI.
E.
3
 
4
Oily
Wastes
................................................
Direct
Dischargers
(
BPT/
BCT/
NSPS)
.......
Pollution
Prevention
+
Chemical
Emulsion
Breaking
+
Oil­
Water
Separation
(
Option
6).
VI.
F.
1
 
4
Indirect
Dischargers
(
PSES/
PSNS)
..........
No
standards
established
.........................
VI.
F.
5
 
6
Railroad
Line
Maintenance
........................
Direct
Dischargers
(
BPT/
BCT/
BAT/
NSPS)
No
limitations
or
standards
established
....
VI.
G.
1
 
4
Indirect
Dischargers
(
PSES/
PSNS)
..........
No
standards
established
.........................
VI.
G.
5
Shipbuilding
Dry
Dock
...............................
Direct
Dischargers
(
BPT/
BCT/
BAT/
NSPS)
No
limitations
or
standards
established
....
VI.
H.
1
Indirect
Dischargers
(
PSES/
PSNS)
..........
No
standards
established
.........................
VI.
H.
2
3.
Summary
of
Significant
Applicability
Decisions
a.
Applicability
of
MP&
M
to
Certain
Iron
and
Steel
Operations
EPA
received
comment
regarding
the
inclusion
of
certain
operations
now
subject
to
the
Iron
&
Steel
effluent
guidelines
(
40
CFR
part
420)
within
the
proposed
MP&
M
effluent
guidelines.
In
the
proposed
MP&
M
rule,
EPA
refers
to
facilities
with
these
operations
as
the
Steel
Forming
&
Finishing
subcategory.
Specifically,
EPA
proposed
to
move
operations
that
produce
finished
products
such
as
bars,
wire,
pipe
and
tubes,
nails,
chain
link
fencing,
and
steel
rope
into
the
MP&
M
rule
(
as
the
Steel
Forming
&
Finishing
subcategory)
from
stand­
alone
facilities,
as
well
as
from
facilities
that
also
have
other
operations
that
are
currently
regulated
by
the
Iron
&
Steel
effluent
guidelines
(
i.
e.,
facilities
that
are
making
steel
and
producing
wire
and
wire
products
and
are
subject
to
both
ELGs
through
the
combined
wastestream
formula).
Commentors
stated
that
these
operations
and
resulting
wastewaters
are
comparable
to
those
at
facilities
subject
to
the
Iron
and
Steel
Manufacturing
effluent
guidelines
and
that
these
discharges
should
remain
subject
to
part
420
rather
than
today's
rule.
In
addition,
commentors
stated
that
part
420
adequately
protects
the
environment
from
discharges
associated
with
these
activities.
Based
on
its
analyses
for
this
final
rule,
EPA
has
determined
that
limitations
and
standards
for
the
proposed
Steel
Forming
&
Finishing
subcategory
based
on
MP&
M
Option
2
technology
are
not
economically
achievable.
Therefore,
today's
final
rule
does
not
establish
a
Steel
Forming
&
Finishing
subcategory
and
accompanying
limitations
and
standards.
Thus,
wastewaters
generated
by
these
operations
remain
subject
to
the
Iron
&
Steel
Manufacturing
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
standards
(
40
CFR
part
420).
Also,
as
discussed
in
section
IV.
A.
1,
EPA
included
continuous
electroplaters
in
the
General
Metals
subcategory
for
analyses
supporting
today's
final
rule.

b.
Applicability
to
Certain
Oily
Operations
Today's
final
rule
revises
the
proposed
definition
of
``
oily
operations''
by
including
additional
operations
(
see
67
FR
38765).
EPA
is
incorporating
into
the
definition
of
``
oily
operations''
the
following
unit
operations
and
any
associated
rinses:
 
Abrasive
blasting;
 
Adhesive
bonding;
 
Alkaline
treatment
without
cyanide;
 
Assembly/
disassembly;

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00007
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25692
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
 
Burnishing;
 
Calibration;
 
Electrical
discharge
machining;
 
Iron
phosphate
conversion
coating;
 
Painting­
spray
or
brush
(
including
water
curtains);
 
Polishing;
 
Thermal
cutting;
 
Tumbling/
barrel
finishing/
mass
finishing/
vibratory
finishing;
 
Washing
(
finished
products);
 
Welding;
and
 
Wet
air
pollution
control
for
organic
constituents
EPA
notes
that
this
revision
to
the
oily
operations
definition
has
the
effect
of
moving
1,550
facilities
from
the
General
Metals
subcategory
to
the
Oily
Wastes
subcategory.
See
section
V.
B
for
the
complete
list
of
oily
operations
subject
to
regulation
in
today's
final
rule.
In
addition,
as
discussed
in
the
NODA,
EPA
is
removing
``
laundering''
from
the
definition
of
oily
operations
(
see
67
FR
38766).
EPA
does
not
consider
wastewater
discharges
from
laundering
(
e.
g.,
uniforms)
at
MP&
M
facilities
to
be
process
wastewater
under
the
MP&
M
final
rule.
The
inclusion
of
laundering
in
the
proposed
definition
of
oily
operations
was
an
oversight
which
the
Agency
has
now
corrected
for
the
final
rule.
At
proposal,
EPA
excluded
bilge
water
(
or
any
other
wastewater)
from
ships
that
are
afloat
from
the
scope
of
the
rule;
however,
bilge
water
was
inadvertently
included
in
the
oily
operations
definition
in
the
NODA
(
see
67
FR
38765).
Today's
final
rule
corrects
this
and
removes
bilge
water
from
the
definition
of
oily
operations.
Because
EPA
is
not
promulgating
limitations
and
standards
for
the
Shipbuilding
Dry
Dock
subcategory,
EPA
also
does
not
consider
bilge
water
from
ships
in
a
dry
dock
or
similar
structure
(
e.
g.,
graving
docks,
building
ways,
marine
railways
and
lift
barges)
a
MP&
M
process
wastewater.

c.
Applicability
to
Certain
Metal
Drum
Reconditioning
and
Cleaning
Operations
At
proposal
EPA
considered
whether
it
should
include
wastewater
generated
from
unit
operations
performed
by
drum
reconditioners/
cleaners
to
prepare
metal
drums
for
resale,
reuse,
or
disposal
in
this
rulemaking.
These
operations
include
chaining,
caustic
washing,
acid
cleaning,
acid
etching,
impact
deformation,
leak
testing,
corrosion
inhibition,
shot
blasting,
and
painting.
In
EPA's
``
Preliminary
Data
Summary
for
Industrial
Container
and
Drum
Cleaning
Industry''
(
EPA
 
821
 
R
 
02
 
011),
EPA
did
not
identify
any
metal
drum
reconditioning
or
cleaning
facilities
that
discharge
directly
to
surface
waters.
The
Agency
estimates
that
the
drum
reconditioning
facilities
are
either
indirect
or
zero
or
alternative
dischargers.
EPA
solicited
comment
on
whether
these
facilities
would
be
more
appropriately
covered
under
the
MP&
M
rule
or
under
a
new
industrial
category
of
effluent
guidelines
for
drum
reconditioners
(
see
66
FR
434).
Commentors
stated
that
these
operations
should
not
be
subject
to
MP&
M
because
drum
reconditioning/
cleaning
wastewaters
are
more
variable
than
MP&
M
wastewaters.
EPA
reviewed
its
database
on
drum
reconditioning
operations
and
wastewater
characteristics.
EPA
found
that
its
database
is
insufficient
to
evaluate
the
technical
and
economic
achievability
of
the
options
considered
for
today's
final
rule.
Therefore,
EPA
is
not
including
drum
reconditioning
and
cleaning
operations
as
within
the
scope
of
this
final
rule.

4.
Environmental
Management
Systems
and
the
Pollution
Prevention
Alternative
In
the
proposed
rule,
EPA
discussed
the
use
of
a
compliance
alternative
(
i.
e.,
the
Pollution
Prevention
Alternative)
for
indirect
dischargers
in
the
Metal
Finishing
Job
Shop
(
MFJS)
subcategory
(
see
66
FR
511).
The
Pollution
Prevention
(
P2)
Alternative
would
act
as
a
voluntary
incentive
for
MFJS
indirect
dischargers
that
agreed
to
perform
specific
best
management/
pollution
prevention
practices.
These
MFJS
indirect
dischargers
would
be
allowed
to
meet
the
pretreatment
standards
of
part
433
in
lieu
of
meeting
the
more
stringent
pretreatment
standards
of
the
proposed
MP&
M
rule.
Because
EPA
is
not
promulgating
pretreatment
standards
that
are
more
stringent
than
those
in
part
433
or
part
413
for
those
facilities
covered
by
part
413
pretreatment
standards,
EPA
is
not
promulgating
today
the
use
of
a
compliance
alternative
for
metal
finishing
job
shops.
EPA
notes
that
many
metal
finishing
jobs
shops
are
currently
employing
best
management/
pollution
prevention
practices
similar
to
those
described
in
the
proposal
as
part
of
the
National
Metal
Finishing
Strategic
Goals
Program.
As
discussed
in
the
NODA
(
see
67
FR
38798),
EPA
also
considered
an
industry
suggested
alternative
for
the
General
Metals
subcategory
based
on
the
use
of
an
Environmental
Management
System
(
EMS)
to
mitigate
economic
impacts
associated
with
today's
rule.
Similar
in
concept
to
the
Pollution
Prevention
Alternative
previously
discussed,
the
EMS
compliance
alternative
would
act
as
a
voluntary
incentive
for
facilities
that
implemented
an
EMS
which
would
include
specific
monitoring,
controls,
and
recordkeeping.
These
facilities
would
be
allowed
to
meet
the
limitations
and
standards
of
part
433
in
lieu
of
meeting
the
more
stringent
limitations
and
standards
of
the
proposed
MP&
M
rule.
EPA
received
several
comments
on
the
EMS
compliance
alternative.
Some
commentors
were
in
favor
of
the
EMS
compliance
alternative
and
stated
that:
(
1)
The
EMS
compliance
alternative
is
an
innovative
tool
for
continually
enhancing
environmental
regulation;
(
2)
an
EMS
does
not
replace
the
need
for
regulatory
enforcement,
but
can
be
used
as
a
tool
to
enhance
a
facility's
environmental
performance;
and
(
3)
requiring
ISO
14001
adds
another
level
of
compliance
assurance
due
to
independent
third
party
auditing.
Other
commentors
were
not
in
favor
of
this
EMS
compliance
alternative
and
stated
that:
(
1)
The
administrative
and
enforcement
burden
for
pretreatment
control
authorities
would
be
excessive
as
it
could
result
in
protracted
discussions
regarding
the
adequacy
of
the
EMS;
and
(
2)
the
EMS
compliance
alternative
is
overly
restrictive
and
does
not
allow
for
variability
found
among
MP&
M
industries
and
the
POTWs
to
which
they
discharge.
In
particular,
commentors
noted
that
requiring
ISO
14001
certification
is
extremely
expensive
and
would
have
the
effect
of
rendering
this
option
untenable
for
any
small
business
and
many
larger
businesses
as
well.
EPA
encourages
the
wide
spread
use
of
EMSs
across
a
range
of
organizations
and
settings,
with
particular
emphasis
on
adoption
of
EMSs
to
achieve
improved
environmental
performance
and
compliance,
pollution
prevention
through
source
reduction,
and
continual
improvement
(
see
EPA
Position
Statement
on
Environmental
Management
Systems,
May
15,
2002,
DCN
17848,
section
24.4).
However,
EPA
is
not
promulgating
an
EMS­
based
compliance
alternative
for
facilities
in
the
General
Metals
subcategory
as
EPA
is
not
promulgating
limitations
and
standards
for
the
General
Metals
subcategory
(
see
section
VI.
A).

B.
Decisions
Regarding
Methodology
Sections
11
and
12
of
the
TDD
provide
detailed
description
of
the
methodologies
used
to
develop
compliance
cost
estimates
and
pollutant
reductions
for
this
final
MP&
M
regulation.
In
addition,
the
EEBA
for
the
final
rule
provides
a
detailed
description
of
the
economic
impacts
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00008
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25693
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
and
environmental
benefits
analyses
and
methodologies.
This
section
of
today's
final
rule
summarizes
the
changes
to
the
EPA
Cost
&
Loadings
Model
and
the
changes
in
the
economic
impacts
and
benefits
analyses
methodologies.
This
section
also
discusses
EPA's
decisions
regarding
selection
of
facilities
with
``
BAT''
treatment
technologies.

1.
Changes
to
the
EPA
Cost
&
Loadings
Methodology
for
MP&
M
Options
a.
General
Methodology
Changes
Based
on
comments
to
the
proposed
rule
and
considerations
discussed
in
the
NODA
(
see
67
FR
38756),
EPA
made
significant
changes
to
the
EPA
Cost
&
Loadings
Model
used
to
estimate
compliance
costs
and
pollutant
reductions
at
the
national
level
for
the
technology
options
considered
for
today's
final
rule.
EPA
included
all
of
the
changes
identified
in
the
NODA
(
e.
g.,
review
of
survey
discharge
status
and
reviewed
additional
industrysupplied
data)
into
the
analyses
for
the
final
rule.
EPA
also
stated
in
the
NODA
that
we
would
also
examine
other
potential
changes
in
response
to
comments
after
publication
of
the
NODA
but
before
the
final
rule
(
see
DCN
17804,
section
16.0).
This
section
provides
additional
information
on
EPA's
final
analyses
with
respect
to
these
potential
changes
and
any
changes
identified
by
NODA
comments.

b.
Assignment
of
Treatment­
in­
Place
(
TIP)
Credit
EPA
developed
a
computerized
Cost
&
Loadings
Model
to
estimate
compliance
costs
and
pollutant
loadings
for
the
various
technology
options.
EPA
estimates
the
baseline
pollutant
loadings
(
i.
e.,
pollutant
loading
prior
to
compliance
with
the
MP&
M
regulations)
from
model
facilities
based
on
actual
TIP
at
those
facilities
as
determined
by
the
site's
response
to
EPA's
questionnaire.
EPA
calculates
the
pollutant
loads
removed
by
the
technology
option
under
consideration
as
the
difference
between
the
pollutant
loadings
estimated
for
the
option
and
the
pollutant
loadings
estimated
for
the
baseline
conditions.
In
general,
commentors
stated
that
EPA
failed
to
extend
proper
TIP
credit
to
facilities
in
the
MP&
M
survey
questionnaire
database
and
overestimated
pollutant
discharge
loadings.
Based
on
comments
received
on
the
proposal
and
NODA,
EPA
has
reevaluated
its
assignment
of
TIP
credit
used
for
estimating
baseline
pollutant
loadings
for
the
final
rule
and
has
concluded
that
additional
technologies
are
equivalent
(
or
better
than)
the
BAT
technology
options
in
the
proposal
and
the
NODA.
In
the
NODA,
EPA
assumed
that
endof
pipe
ion
exchange
would
achieve
cyanide
removals
equivalent
to
alkaline
chlorination,
a
proposed
BAT
technology
basis.
Therefore,
EPA
set
cyanide
treatment
credit
for
process
lines
with
ion
exchange
as
equivalent
to
alkaline
chlorination.
Commentors
requested
that
EPA
also
provide
credit
for
in­
process
ion
exchange
for
cyanide
removal
and
for
metals
removal.
EPA
reviewed
the
information
supporting
these
comments
and
concluded
that
ion
exchange,
whether
in­
process
or
end­
ofpipe
would
provide
pollutant
reductions
that
are
equivalent
to
the
corresponding
BAT
technology
option.
Therefore,
for
the
analyses
supporting
the
final
rule,
EPA
provided
TIP
credit
for
all
streams
receiving
end­
of­
pipe
or
in­
process
ion
exchange
treatment
for
cyanide
and
metals.
EPA
also
reviewed
its
NODA
assumptions
regarding
TIP
credit
for
gravity
thickening
and
filter
presses.
In
the
NODA,
EPA
assumed
that
facilities
with
sludge
thickening
or
a
filter
press
had
both
components
in
place.
Upon
closer
review
of
the
survey
questionnaires,
EPA
finds
that
facilities
may
pump
their
sludge
directly
from
a
clarifier
to
a
filter
press
without
using
a
sludge
thickening
step.
Consequently,
EPA
no
longer
assumes
all
facilities
using
filter
presses
also
operate
gravity
thickeners.
EPA
notes
that
it
is
equating
``
sludge
thickening
tanks''
and
``
sludge
dryers''
with
gravity
thickening.
For
facilities
indicating
only
gravity
thickening
or
filter
press,
EPA
has
estimated
costs
associated
with
the
addition
of
the
necessary
equipment.
At
proposal
EPA
did
not
assume
that
facilities
that
indicated
some
form
of
oily
wastewater
treatment
(
e.
g.,
oilwater
separator)
would
be
performing
chemical
emulsion
breaking
(
and
receive
TIP
credit
for
chemical
emulsion
breaking)
prior
to
oil
water
separation
if
they
have
emulsified
oils.
For
the
final
rule
analyses,
EPA
reviewed
all
questionnaires
to
ensure
that
the
same
TIP
assignments
were
given
to
Phase
I
and
Phase
II
questionnaire
facilities.
Based
on
this
review,
EPA
is
assuming
for
the
final
rule
that
facilities
that
indicated
some
form
of
oily
wastewater
treatment
(
e.
g.,
oil­
water
separator)
are
performing
chemical
emulsion
breaking
prior
to
oil­
water
separation
if
they
have
emulsified
oils.
c.
Pollutant
Loadings
Baseline
for
MP&
M
Options
for
Metal­
Bearing
Wastewater
Subcategories
EPA
received
many
comments
on
its
estimation
of
baseline
pollutant
loadings
and
reductions
for
the
various
options.
For
treated
streams,
EPA
estimated
zero
pollutant
removals
for
pollutants
that
are
already
present
in
low
concentrations
(
i.
e.,
are
present
at
a
concentration
below
the
technology
option
long
term
average
(
LTA).
For
untreated
streams,
EPA
estimated
baseline
loadings
and
pollutant
removals
based
on
unit
operation
pollutant
concentrations,
and
did
not
adjust
for
local
or
Federal
regulatory
limits
on
the
facility.
Many
commentors
were
concerned
that
EPA's
use
of
unit
operation­
specific
average
concentrations
to
model
the
concentration
of
untreated
wastewater
streams
would
overestimate
current
pollutant
loadings
at
facilities,
particularly
those
currently
regulated
by
parts
413
or
433
and
at
facilities
that
do
not
treat
their
wastewaters
due
to
low
initial
concentrations.
In
the
NODA,
EPA
presented
information
on
corrections
and
other
revisions
made
to
the
costs
and
pollutant
loadings
model,
and
solicited
comment
on
a
sensitivity
analysis
which
assumed
at
baseline
that
all
MP&
M
facilities
currently
regulated
by
existing
effluent
guidelines
(
i.
e.,
40
CFR
parts
413
and
433)
are
not
discharging
pollutant
concentrations
above
their
applicable
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
standards
(
see
67
FR
38762).
For
the
final
rule,
EPA
implemented
two
strategies
to
estimate
baseline
loadings
and
removals
more
accurately
for
untreated,
low
concentration
streams
at
model
facilities.
First,
EPA
evaluated
discharge
monitoring
report
(
DMR)
data
available
for
direct
discharger
model
facilities.
If
all
pollutant
concentrations
measured,
as
indicated
from
the
DMR
data,
were
below
the
technology
option
limits,
EPA
estimated
zero
pollutant
removals
for
the
model
facility.
Second,
EPA
considered
regulatory
limits
on
the
model
facility.
EPA
assumed
the
pollutant
concentrations
discharged
from
each
stream
at
sites
regulated
under
part
433
were
at
least
meeting
the
monthly
average
limits
set
by
part
433.
Table
IV
 
2
summarizes
the
new
method
and
how
EPA
estimated
baseline
pollutant
concentrations
for
its
pollutant
reduction
estimates
associated
with
the
final
rule
MP&
M
technology
options.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00009
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25694
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
TABLE
IV
 
2.
 
CURRENT
POLLUTANT
CONCENTRATIONS
USED
TO
ESTIMATE
POLLUTANT
REDUCTIONS
ASSOCIATED
WITH
THE
MP&
M
TECHNOLOGY
OPTIONS
433
regulated
parameters
433
unregulated
parameters
Treated
Wastewater
Streams
.............................
LTAs
from
part
433
..........................................
LTAs
from
Technology
Option
2
of
Today's
rule.
Untreated
Wastewater
Streams
Regulated
by
413
or
433.
Monthly
Average
Limitations
from
part
433
.....
Concentrations
from
Subcategory­
Specific
Unit
Operations
Data.
Untreated
Wastewater
Not
Regulated
by
413
or
433.
Concentrations
from
Subcategory­
Specific
Unit
Operations
Data.
Concentrations
from
Subcategory­
Specific
Unit
Operations
Data.

Note:
See
Section
VI
and
Section
9
of
the
TDD
for
further
discussion
of
Technology
Option
2.
Note:
EPA
assigns
Option
2
LTAs
to
all
wastewater
streams
for
all
pollutant
to
model
facilities
TIP
equal
to
or
greater
than
BAT
treatment
For
the
final
rule,
EPA
assumed
that
facilities
currently
treating
their
wastewater
discharges
(
regardless
of
their
regulatory
status)
operate
their
wastewater
treatment
systems
to
achieve
the
long­
term
average
concentrations
of
the
part
433
regulations.
Furthermore,
in
the
case
of
pollutants
of
concern
not
regulated
in
part
433,
EPA
made
the
conservative
assumption
that
facilities
with
wastewater
treatment
operate
their
wastewater
treatment
systems
to
achieve
the
long­
term
average
concentrations
for
such
pollutants
from
MP&
M
Option
2
(
see
section
VI
and
section
9
of
the
TDD
for
further
discussion
of
Technology
Option
2).
For
untreated
streams
at
facilities
currently
regulated
by
parts
413
or
433
for
the
parameters
regulated
by
part
433,
EPA
assumed
for
its
evaluations
for
the
final
rule
that
facilities
achieve
the
monthly
average
limitation
of
part
433.
As
discussed
in
the
NODA,
EPA
concluded
it
is
appropriate
to
use
the
monthly
average
limitation,
as
opposed
to
the
long­
term
average
concentration,
for
streams
that
are
not
being
treated
or
for
parameters
that
are
not
being
targeted
for
treatment.
Finally,
for
untreated
streams
(
regardless
of
regulatory
status)
for
the
parameters
not
regulated
by
part
433,
and
for
regulated
parameters
for
untreated
streams
at
facilities
not
subject
to
parts
413
or
433,
EPA
has
assumed
the
baseline
concentrations
are
equivalent
to
the
raw
waste
load
using
subcategory­
specific
unit
operations
data.
For
all
direct
discharging
facilities
in
the
General
Metals
subcategory,
EPA
has
assumed
the
facilities
achieve
permit
limits
for
non­
conventional
pollutants
Chemical
Oxygen
Demand
(
COD),
Total
Kjeldahl
Nitrogen
(
TKN),
and
Ammonia
as
Nitrogen
(
NH3­
N).
EPA
received
several
comments
that
the
Agency
overestimated
concentrations
of
COD.
While
this
parameter
is
not
regulated
by
Parts
413
or
433,
comments
stated
that
it
is
typically
regulated
in
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
permits.
Additionally,
EPA
notes
that
COD
removals
had
a
significant
impact
on
the
cost
and
removal
comparison
ratio
($/
lbremoved
for
the
General
Metals
subcategory.
While
these
parameters
are
also
not
regulated
by
Parts
413
or
433,
limits
for
these
parameters
are
found
in
EPA's
Permit
Compliance
System
(
PCS).
To
reduce
overestimation
of
pollutant
removals
for
COD,
TKN,
and
NH3­
N,
EPA
did
not
allow
the
pollutant
concentrations
discharged
from
the
facility
to
exceed
permit
limits.
EPA
modeled
the
limits
based
on
data
from
EPA's
Permit
Compliance
System
(
PCS)
for
these
types
of
facilities.
Because
EPA
could
not
determine
which
sites
in
PCS
were
MP&
M
sites,
for
the
purposes
of
this
analysis,
EPA
calculated
the
average
permit
limit
concentrations
for
process
wastewater
discharged
from
each
facility
in
the
3000
series
of
SIC
codes.
Based
on
these
data,
EPA
set
the
maximum
concentration
for
the
commingled
MP&
M
wastewater
discharged
from
each
model
site
at
175,
35.67,
and
19.3
milligrams
per
liter
(
mg/
L)
for
COD,
TKN,
and
NH3­
N,
respectively
(
see
DCN
17846,
section
24.7).

d.
Unit
Operations
Data
EPA
used
unit
operations
data
from
the
questionnaires,
sampling
episodes,
and
commentors
data,
to
estimate
baseline
pollutant
loading
for
some
untreated
wastewaters
at
certain
facilities.
As
described
in
section
IV.
B.
1,
and
as
discussed
in
the
NODA
(
see
67
FR
38756),
in
response
to
proposal
commentors,
EPA
changed
its
proposal
methodology
to
account
for
subcategoryspecific
differences
in
pollutant
concentrations
for
the
same
unit
operations.
EPA
received
additional
comments
on
the
unit
operations
data
from
commentors
on
the
NODA.
In
particular,
comments
on
the
NODA
focused
on
three
specific
areas:
(
1)
Requests
to
subdivide
the
``
testing''
unit
operation
to
better
reflect
various
types
of
testing
wastewaters;
(
2)
requests
to
remove
additional
``
outliers''
from
the
data
set
used
to
estimate
the
average
pollutant
concentrations
for
certain
unit
operation;
and
(
3)
requests
to
reevaluate
the
ratio
of
pollutant
concentrations
in
unit
operation
baths
and
the
corresponding
rinse.
For
direct
dischargers,
EPA
also
compared
the
baseline
pollutant
loadings
from
the
pollutant
loading
model
to
available
Discharge
Monitoring
Report
(
DMR)
data
(
see
section
IV.
B.
2.
b).
For
the
proposed
rule,
EPA
combined
testing
unit
operations
from
wastewater
sampling
of
hydraulic
testing,
hydrostatic
testing,
dye
penetrant
testing,
and
alpha­
case
detection
into
a
single
pollutant
concentration
set
for
the
``
testing''
unit
operation
(
UP
 
42).
Commentors
explained
that
EPA
should
not
group
all
testing
operations
together
because
these
operations
produce
nonsimilar
wastewaters.
For
example,
commentors
noted
that
dye
penetrant
testing
produces
wastewater
with
high
pollutant
concentrations
while
hydrostatic
testing
produces
wastewater
with
low
pollutant
concentrations,
but
very
large
flows.
For
today's
final
rule,
EPA
reevaluated
its
data
sets.
EPA
has
concluded
that
it
should
divide
the
testing
unit
operations
into
subcategoryspecific
unit
operations.
Furthermore,
EPA
found
no
clear
indication
that
facilities
continue
to
perform
alpha­
case
detection.
Consequently,
EPA's
final
database
included
separate,
subcategory­
specific
data
for
two
testing
operations:
Hydrostatic
and
dye
penetrant.
EPA
reviewed
each
survey
questionnaire
and
made
a
case­
by­
case
determination
of
which
of
the
two
types
of
testing
is
being
performed
at
a
site
(
if
any).
See
section
12
of
the
TDD
for
more
information.
EPA
has
also
addressed
commentors
concerns
regarding
the
ratio
of
pollutant
concentrations
in
unit
operation
baths
(
e.
g.,
electroplating
baths)
and
their
corresponding
rinses.
EPA
has
reviewed
all
bath­
rinse
pairs
and
ensured
for
the
final
analysis
that
the
data
used
do
not
include
any
cases
where
a
rinse
is
more
concentrated
than
its
bath.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00010
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25695
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
e.
Site­
Specific
Data
Revisions
for
Survey
Facilities
EPA
revised
its
questionnaire
database
to
reflect
detailed
comments
provided
about
specific
facilities
in
EPA's
questionnaire
database.
EPA
uses
information
about
facilities
in
the
questionnaire
database
to
estimate
various
costs
and
benefits
(
e.
g.,
compliance
costs,
pollutant
reductions,
economic
impacts,
non­
water
quality
environmental
impacts).
For
example,
in
some
cases
facilities
that
did
not
provide
flow
or
production
data
for
certain
wastestreams
at
the
time
they
submitted
their
questionnaire
provided
such
information
in
their
comments
on
the
proposal
or
NODA.
In
other
cases,
facilities
provided
updated
information
about
their:
(
1)
Unit
operations
(
e.
g.,
whether
they
currently
have
these
UPs);
(
2)
regulatory
status
(
e.
g.,
whether
they
were
currently
covered
by
parts
413
or
433
regulations);
(
3)
wastewater
discharge
status
(
i.
e.,
direct,
indirect,
or
zero
discharger);
and
(
4)
wastewater
treatment
technology.
As
noted
in
section
3
of
the
TDD,
EPA
conducted
several
surveys,
with
the
two
major
surveys
occurring
in
1990
and
1996.
For
proposal
and
NODA
analyses
EPA
used
both
1990
and
1996
as
reference
years
to
estimate
costs
and
benefits
associated
with
the
various
regulatory
options.
These
two
survey
efforts
provided
information
about
the
MP&
M
industry
at
two
different
times
(
i.
e.,
1990
and
1996).
Commentors
suggested
that
EPA
rely
on
more
recent
information
and
gave
specific
comments
updating
information
concerning
some
facilities
surveyed
in
the
Phase
I
survey
effort.
EPA
is
using
the
later
survey
year,
1996,
as
the
base
year
for
the
questionnaire
database
to
more
accurately
reflect
current
conditions
in
the
MP&
M
industry.
EPA
incorporated
information
about
specific
facilities
from
commentors
into
the
questionnaire
database
when
the
information
reflected
facility
conditions
at
or
prior
to
1996.
EPA
did
not
incorporate
information
from
commentors
into
its
questionnaire
database
when
the
information
reflected
facility
conditions
post­
1996.
When
commentors
provided
post­
1996
information,
EPA
did,
however,
use
this
information
for
a
sensitivity
analysis
for
all
subcategories
where
it
is
promulgating
limitations
or
new
source
standards
to
assess
recent
trends
in
the
industry.
See
DCN
17843,
section
24.6.2,
of
the
record
for
results
and
discussion
of
this
sensitivity
analysis.

f.
Site
Discharge
Destination
EPA
solicited
comment
in
the
NODA
on
its
methodology
for
categorizing
a
facility
as
either
a
direct
discharger
(
to
surface
water),
an
indirect
discharger
(
to
a
POTW),
or
a
zero
or
alternative
discharger
(
no
wastewater
is
discharged)
based
on
its
questionnaire
database.
Facilities
that
are
zero
or
alternative
dischargers
do
not
incur
costs
to
comply
with
the
regulation.
For
the
January
2001
proposal
and
NODA,
EPA
identified
direct
dischargers
as
facilities
that
discharge
any
MP&
M
process
wastewater
to
surface
waters
and
calculated
compliance
costs
and
pollutant
loadings
and
reductions
for
all
MP&
M
process
wastewaters
as
direct
discharges.
Commentors
said
that
EPA
should
alter
its
methodology
to
allow
facilities
multiple
discharge
destinations
rather
than
only
assign
a
facility
to
a
single
category
or
discharge
destination
(
i.
e.,
allow
facilities
with
some
streams
discharging
to
a
POTW
and
other
streams
to
surface
waters).
Commentors
also
noted
that
EPA
had
misclassified
some
indirect
dischargers
as
direct
dischargers
and
provided
examples.
EPA
agrees
with
commentors
that
its
methodology
should
address
facilities
with
multiple
wastewater
discharge
destinations.
Consequently,
EPA
revised
its
methodology
for
the
final
rule
to
allow
facilities
that
have
multiple
discharge
destinations
to
be
``
split.''
For
the
purposes
of
estimating
compliance
costs
and
pollutant
reductions,
``
splitting''
a
site
means
that
EPA
runs
only
those
process
wastewater
streams
that
are
discharged
to
the
POTW
through
the
EPA
Cost
&
Loadings
Model
for
indirect
dischargers
and
runs
only
those
process
wastewater
(
not
stormwater)
streams
that
are
discharged
directly
to
surface
waters
through
the
model
for
direct
dischargers.
In
addition
to
those
facilities
identified
by
commentors,
EPA
reviewed
survey
questionnaires
for
all
facilities
with
multiple
discharge
destinations
to
determine
if
they
should
be
designated
as
direct,
indirect,
or
split
(
see
DCN
17825,
section
24.6.2).
In
addition,
in
response
to
the
comments
that
EPA
incorrectly
classified
some
facilities
as
direct
dischargers,
EPA
also
reviewed
survey
questionnaires
for
all
facilities
it
had
previously
designated
as
direct
to
confirm
their
discharge
status
(
see
DCN
17826,
section
24.6.2).
This
review
altered
the
discharge
status
of
a
number
of
facilities
(
see
section
11
of
the
final
TDD
for
additional
discussion
of
EPA's
review).
EPA's
databases
for
the
final
rule
reflects
these
changes.
EPA
also
reviewed
all
direct
discharges
to
ensure
that
EPA
did
not
consider
stormwater
as
a
MP&
M
process
wastewater
in
its
analysis
of
compliance
costs
and
pollutant
loadings.

g.
Monitoring
Costs
EPA
revised
its
monitoring
cost
estimate
for
today's
final
rule
to
reflect
the
final
list
of
regulated
pollutants
and
monitoring
frequencies.
For
example,
as
discussed
in
section
IV.
B
of
the
NODA
(
see
67
FR
38767)
and
section
7
of
the
TDD,
EPA
is
not
regulating
total
sulfide,
molybdenum,
manganese,
tin,
or
toxic
organics.
See
section
11
of
the
TDD
for
today's
final
rule
for
a
detailed
discussion
of
EPA's
monitoring
cost
estimates
for
each
subcategory.

2.
Methodology
for
Determining
Cost
&
Loadings
for
the
433
Upgrade
Options
In
the
NODA,
EPA
also
discussed
alternative
options,
``
413
to
433
Upgrade
Option''
and
``
All
to
433
Upgrade
Option,''
and
an
associated
simplified
cost
and
loadings
analysis
for
these
upgrade
options.
EPA
provided
estimates
of
compliance
costs,
pollutant
reductions,
economic
impacts
and
costeffectiveness
based
on
this
simplified
analysis.
For
today's
final
rule,
EPA
revised
its
upgrade
option
methodology
and
performed
a
more
detailed
analysis
of
compliance
costs
and
pollutant
reductions,
incorporating
many
of
the
comments
received
on
the
NODA
as
previously
discussed.

a.
Determining
Regulatory
Status
EPA
reviewed
the
regulatory
status
for
each
survey
questionnaire
(
i.
e.,
to
confirm
whether
a
given
facility
was
currently
regulated
by
part
413,
part
433,
both,
or
neither).
Based
on
the
applicability
section
of
part
413
and
433
(
see
40
CFR
413.01
and
433.11(
c)
and
(
d)),
EPA
concluded
that
currently
all
surveyed
facilities
included
in
the
database
for
the
proposed
Metal
Finishing
Job
Shop
and
Printed
Wiring
Board
subcategories
are
regulated
by
part
413
and/
or
part
433.
EPA
first
used
the
date
operations
began
at
the
facility
(
as
reported
in
the
survey
questionnaire)
to
identify
the
appropriate
regulation.
EPA
assumed
a
facility
was
subject
to
part
433
if
it
began
operations
after
1982
because
part
413
only
applies
to
indirect
discharging
facilities
operating
before
1982.
Next,
EPA
reviewed
effluent
discharge
data
from
the
remaining
facilities
to
determine
if
the
facility
was
discharging
MP&
M
process
wastewater.
Finally,
for
facilities
for
which
EPA
does
not
have
effluent
discharge
data,
EPA
called
the
site
or
its
control
authority
to
determine
the
regulatory
status.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00011
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25696
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
b.
Revised
Methodology
for
Estimating
Pollutant
Loadings
and
Reductions:
Upgrade
Options
EPA
developed
a
methodology
to
estimate
the
baseline
pollutant
loadings
at
facilities
that
would
be
affected
by
the
upgrade:
(
1)
facilities
currently
regulated
by
413
only;
and
(
2)
facilities
regulated
by
local
limits
or
general
pretreatment
standards
only
(
i.
e.,
``
local
limits''
facilities).
EPA
also
performed
a
sensitivity
analyses
on
facilities
regulated
by
both
parts
413
and
433.
Facilities
``
regulated
by
local
limits
and
general
pretreatment
standards
only''
also
include
facilities
regulated
by
other
effluent
guidelines
except
parts
413
or
433.
EPA
notes
that
facilities
currently
regulated
by
only
part
433
would
not
be
affected
by
the
upgrade
and
EPA
did
not
project
pollutant
removals
or
compliance
costs
for
them.
EPA's
pollutant
loadings
methodology
also
distinguishes
between
``
small''
and
``
large''
platers
currently
regulated
by
part
413.
Part
413
defines
small
platers
as
facilities
discharging
less
than
10,000
gallons/
day
of
process
wastewater.
When
the
part
413
regulations
were
promulgated,
EPA
made
provisions
to
accommodate
the
economic
condition
of
``
small''
platers
by
reducing
the
numbers
of
regulated
metals
and
allowing
an
alternative
requirements
for
cyanide,
as
amenable
to
alkaline
chlorination
instead
of
total
cyanide.
Consequently,
EPA
adjusted
its
pollutant
loadings
methodology
for
the
upgrade
options
to
account
for
the
additional
parameters
that
small
platers
would
need
to
treat
(
see
section
9
of
the
final
TDD
for
details
on
EPA's
methodology
for
small
platers).
For
treated
streams
at
affected
facilities,
EPA
revised
methodology
assumes
the
facilities
operate
their
wastewater
treatment
systems
to
achieve
the
LTAs
from
part
413.
This
is
consistent
with
EPA's
guidance
that
facilities
use
LTAs
(
rather
than
limitations
or
standards)
as
a
``
target''
to
design
their
treatment
systems.
For
untreated
streams
at
affected
facilities,
EPA
used
the
4­
day
average
limit
for
part
413.
As
discussed
in
the
NODA,
EPA
concludes
this
is
appropriate
because
these
facilities
are
complying
with
existing
standards
at
the
end­
ofpipe
In
estimating
toxic
pollutant
reductions
for
the
upgrade
options,
EPA
compared
the
baseline
loadings
for
affected
facilities
to
the
resulting
loadings
if
these
affected
facilities
treated
their
wastewater
to
achieve
the
long­
term
average
concentrations
(
for
existing
sources)
for
part
433.
For
facilities
in
the
General
Metals
subcategory
that
are
not
regulated
by
either
part
413
or
part
433
(
i.
e.,
``
local
limits
facilities''),
EPA
altered
its
NODA
methodology
to
incorporate
actual
local
limits
data
and
to
include
analysis
of
other
pollutant
parameters
(
e.
g.,
COD).
Although
EPA
could
not
obtain
actual
local
limits
for
all
facilities,
EPA
gathered
local
limits
data
from
213
POTWs
in
7
EPA
Regions
to
develop
national
median
local
limit
values.
See
DCN
17844,
section
24.7,
of
the
record
for
a
listing
of
the
data
and
the
median
value
for
each
parameter.
EPA
used
half
the
national
median
local
limit
values
to
approximate
long­
term
average
concentrations
for
all
treated
streams.
EPA
used
the
national
median
for
all
parameters
regulated
by
part
413
in
untreated
streams.
EPA
applied
the
raw
waste
load
based
on
the
subcategoryspecific
unit
operations
data
for
all
other
parameters
in
untreated
streams.
EPA
then
estimated
the
pollutant
loading
reductions
as
described
in
the
previous
paragraph.
In
the
NODA,
EPA
considered
two
different
upgrade
options
for
indirect
dischargers
in
the
General
Metals,
Printed
Wiring
Boards,
and
Metal
Finishing
Job
Shop
subcategories.
The
first
option
upgrades
all
facilities
regulated
by
part
413
(
including
both
large
and
small
platers)
to
meet
part
433
standards.
The
second
option
upgrades
only
large
platers
regulated
by
part
413
and
facilities
not
regulated
by
parts
413
or
433
(
regulated
by
local
limits)
to
meet
part
433
standards.
EPA
rejected
these
upgrade
options
for
existing
indirect
dischargers
as:
(
1)
Greater
than
10%
of
existing
indirect
dischargers
not
covered
by
part
433
are
projected
to
close
at
the
upgrade
option;
or
(
2)
the
incremental
compliance
costs
of
the
upgrade
options
were
too
great
in
terms
of
toxic
removals
(
cost­
effectiveness
values
(
in
1981$)
in
excess
of
$
420/
PE).
See
section
VI
for
further
discussion
on
these
upgrade
options
for
the
General
Metals,
Printed
Wiring
Boards,
and
Metal
Finishing
Job
Shop
subcategories.
For
direct
dischargers,
EPA
also
compared
the
baseline
pollutant
loadings
from
the
pollutant
loading
model
to
available
Discharge
Monitoring
Report
(
DMR)
data
reflecting
the
measured
values
for
the
permitted
parameters.
EPA
obtained
DMR
data
for
eighteen
surveyed
direct
discharging
facilities
in
EPA's
questionnaire
database
for
the
General
Metals
subcategory.
The
MP&
M
model
approach
utilizing
the
revised
baseline
method
used
for
the
final
rule,
calculates
lower
baseline
loadings
for
twelve
of
these
eighteen
direct
discharging
facilities
than
the
loadings
reported
in
DMR
data
(
see
DCN
17851,
section
24.7).
Based
on
this
analysis,
EPA
has
concluded
that
the
MP&
M
model
approach
utilizing
the
revised
baseline
method
used
for
the
final
rule
does
not
excessively
over­
or
underestimate
baseline
pollutant
loadings
and
EPA's
use
of
this
model
approach
for
today's
final
rule
is
a
reasonable
and
appropriate
basis
for
today's
regulatory
determinations.

c.
TIP
Changes
for
Upgrade
In
evaluating
the
upgrade
options
analyzed
for
the
final
rule,
EPA
also
provided
TIP
credit
for
hydroxide
precipitation
and
clarification
treatments
for
metal­
bearing
facilities
that
use
dissolved
air
flotation
(
DAF)
for
metals
removal
(
e.
g.,
settling).
However,
EPA
notes
that
TIP
credit
for
hydroxide
precipitation
and
clarification
credit
to
metal­
bearing
facilities
using
DAF
for
metals
removal
was
not
provided
in
evaluating
options
to
achieve
the
more
stringent
proposed
MP&
M
limits.
EPA
is
concerned
that
DAF
alone
would
not
achieve
the
long­
term
average
concentrations
associated
with
the
limitations
and
standards
considered
for
the
subcategories
discharging
metalbearing
wastewaters.
Therefore,
EPA
included
costs
associated
with
installing
hydroxide
precipitation
and
clarification
at
these
facilities
for
the
final
rule.

d.
Revised
Compliance
Cost
Estimates
for
Upgrade
Analyses
Based
on
comments
to
the
NODA
and
subsequent
discussions
with
industry
representatives,
EPA
revised
its
analysis
for
estimating
the
cost
of
compliance
for
upgrading
facilities
to
meet
the
part
433
existing
source
limitations
and
standards.
Section
11
of
the
final
TDD
describes
EPA's
final
methodology
in
detail.
In
addition
to
the
costs
included
in
the
NODA
analysis,
EPA's
final
methodology
also
includes
costs
to:
 
Increase
the
size
of
the
treatment
train
(
e.
g.,
holding
tanks,
clarifier,
gravity
thickening,
filter
press)
to
treat
additional
wastewater
(
which
had
pollutant
concentrations
below
the
part
413
standards
but
not
low
enough
to
meet
the
option
limits
without
treatment);
 
Increase
the
amount
of
treatment
chemicals
to
account
for
treating
additional
wastewaters
and
more
stringent
LTAs;
 
Increase
sludge
handling
and
disposal
costs
due
to
the
treatment
of
additional
streams
as
well
as
the
more
stringent
long­
term
averages
in
part
433;
 
Install
and
operate
additional
automated
controls
such
as
ORP
meters
and
pH
meters;
 
Provide
additional
operator
training;
and
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00012
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25697
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
 
Increase
analytical
monitoring
costs
for
small
platers
to
monitor
for
the
additional
pollutants
covered
by
part
433.

3.
Revisions
to
Economic
&
Benefits
Methodologies
For
the
final
rule,
EPA
incorporated
several
important
revisions
to
the
economic
impact
and
benefits
methodologies
from
the
NODA.
Section
V
of
the
NODA
provides
a
detailed
discussion
of
all
changes
incorporated
in
the
economic
impact
and
benefits
analyses
after
publication
of
the
proposed
MP&
M
rule
(
see
67
FR
38752).
In
addition,
based
on
NODA
comments
the
Agency
further
refined
the
moderate
impact
analysis.
As
previously
discussed,
the
Economic,
Environmental,
and
Benefits
Analysis
(
EEBA)
for
the
final
rule
provides
a
complete
discussion
of
economic
impact
and
benefits
methodologies
used
in
the
final
rule
analyses.

a.
Revisions
Incorporated
in
the
Economic
Impact
Methodology
From
the
NODA
The
major
changes
to
the
economic
impact
analyses
incorporated
from
the
NODA
include:
(
1)
Use
of
sector­
specific
thresholds
for
the
moderate
impact
analysis
tests
(
redefined
in
part
c
of
this
section);
(
2)
use
of
a
single
test,
based
on
net
present
value,
to
assess
the
potential
for
closures
(
this
test
excludes
consideration
of
liquidation
values
for
all
MP&
M
facilities,
including
the
219
facilities
that
reported
them
in
their
response
to
the
MP&
M
survey);
and
(
3)
use
of
estimated
baseline
capital
outlays
in
the
calculation
of
cash
flow
for
the
net
present
value
test.
Other
changes
to
the
economic
impact
methodology
include:
(
1)
Use
of
revised
cost
passthrough
coefficients;
(
2)
use
of
sectorspecific
price
indices
in
updating
survey
data;
(
3)
adjusting
labor
costs
for
facilities
that
report
abnormally
high
labor
costs;
and
(
4)
limiting
postcompliance
tax
shields
to
no
greater
than
reported
baseline
taxes.

b.
Using
Multiple
Years
of
Data
To
Estimate
Sector­
Specific
Moderate
Impact
Threshold
Values
As
part
of
its
facility
impact
analysis,
the
Agency
assesses
whether
facilities
may
incur
moderate
financial
impacts
 
financial
stress
short
of
closure
 
from
regulatory
compliance.
To
assess
the
occurrence
of
moderate
impacts,
the
Agency
analyzes
the
change
in
two
financial
measures
 
(
1)
Pre­
Tax
Return
on
Assets
(
PTRA);
and
(
2)
Interest
Coverage
Ratio
(
ICR)
 
against
threshold
values
(
e.
g.,
after­
tax
compliance
costs
as
a
percentage
of
annual
revenues)
indicating
weak,
but
still
viable,
financial
performance.
At
proposal,
EPA
used
single
threshold
values
of
the
financial
measures
for
all
MP&
M
sectors.
Commentors
argued
that
EPA
used
thresholds
without
providing
any
supporting
information
regarding
their
predictive
value,
the
threshold
values
chosen,
or
their
applicability.
EPA
finds
that
using
threshold
values
that
vary
by
industry
better
reflects
the
differences
in
business
risks
and
operating
circumstances
by
industry,
and
will
provide
more
robust
analysis
of
moderate
impacts.
In
response
to
comments,
EPA
revised
this
approach
for
the
NODA
to
use
threshold
values
that
varied
by
MP&
M
sector.
For
the
NODA,
EPA
also
considered
using
an
alternative
financial
measure
 
Pre­
Tax
Operating
Margin
 
instead
of
PTRA
for
the
moderate
impact
analysis.
Since
the
NODA,
EPA
continued
to
review
its
moderate
impact
analysis
methodology,
and
for
the
final
rule
analysis,
decided
to
retain
the
financial
impact
measures
used
at
proposal:
PTRA
and
ICR.
Pre­
tax
return
on
assets
provides
stronger
insight
into
operating
financial
performance
and
is
a
better
indicator
of
a
business'
ability
to
attract
capital
and
remain
viable
than
operating
margin.
However,
in
contrast
to
the
NODA,
EPA
decided
to
use
multiple
years
of
data
for
developing
the
threshold
values
for
the
final
rule.
Using
multiple
years
of
data
increases
the
number
of
observations
on
which
the
moderate
impact
thresholds
are
based
and
reduces
the
likelihood
that
threshold
values
will
reflect
anomalous
conditions
that
could
arise
from
using
only
a
single
year
of
data.
EPA
calculated
the
thresholds
using
income
and
financial
structure
information
by
4­
digit
SIC
code
from
the
Risk
Management
Association
(
RMA)
Annual
Statement
Studies
for
eight
years
from
1994
to
2001.
The
RMA
data
set
provides
quartile
values
derived
from
statements
of
commercial
bank
borrowers
and
loan
applicants
for
firms
having
less
than
$
250
million
in
total
assets.
EPA
used
the
lowest
25
percentile
values,
by
industry,
from
the
RMA
data
set
as
the
basis
for
the
moderate
impact
thresholds.
The
RMA
data
set
captures
a
limited
industry
segment,
because
the
data
set
likely
omits
firms
with
too
weak
financial
performance
to
seek
bank
loans
and
also
omits
firms
that
use
the
public
securities
markets
or
other
non­
bank
sources
to
obtain
capital.
However,
it
is
difficult
to
know
what
kind
of
bias,
if
any,
is
introduced
into
the
analysis
by
these
limitations.
On
balance,
because
EPA
used
impact
thresholds
based
on
the
25th
percentile
of
values
reported
for
borrowers
and
loan
applicants,
EPA
estimates
that
the
basis
for
the
moderate
impact
thresholds
is
conservative
 
i.
e.,
we
are
more
likely
to
err
in
finding
that
a
business
is
in
moderate
financial
stress
than
in
finding
that
a
facility
is
not
in
moderate
financial
stress.
EPA
notes
that
RMA
did
not
provide
data
for
all
4­
digit
SIC
codes
associated
with
an
MP&
M
sector.
Therefore,
for
sectors
with
missing
data
for
some
4­
digit
SIC
codes,
EPA
calculated
the
weighted
average
of
threshold
values
based
only
on
those
4­
digit
SIC
codes
for
which
data
were
provided.
This
treatment
assumes
that
the
financial
characteristics
of
the
omitted
SIC
code
segments
are
the
same
as
the
weighted
average
of
SIC
code
segments
that
were
included
in
the
analysis
for
a
given
MP&
M
sector.
See
Chapter
5
of
the
EEBA
for
the
final
rule
for
a
detailed
discussion
of
the
analysis
of
moderate
impacts.

c.
Revisions
Incorporated
in
the
Benefits
Methodology
from
the
NODA
Major
revisions
to
the
benefits
methodology
incorporated
from
the
NODA
include:
(
1)
Changes
to
the
human
health
methodology;
(
2)
use
of
a
weight­
of­
evidence
approach
in
evaluating
national
benefit
estimates;
and
(
3)
use
of
revised
models
in
the
Ohio
case
study
analysis.
EPA
also
uses
revised
data
on
characteristics
of
POTWs
receiving
discharges
from
the
sample
MP&
M
facilities,
as
discussed
in
the
NODA.
Two
revisions
to
the
human
health
benefits
methodology
incorporated
from
the
NODA
include:
(
1)
Use
of
revised
assumptions
and
updated
model
parameters
in
the
analysis
of
neurological
effects
from
lead
exposure
in
preschool
children;
and
(
2)
use
of
a
revised
drinking
water
intake
database
for
estimating
human
health
effects
from
consumption
of
contaminated
drinking
water.
The
Agency
did
not
incorporate
cancer
effects
from
exposure
to
lead
in
the
final
rule
analysis
because
these
effects
appeared
negligible.
The
use
of
the
weight­
of­
evidence
approach
for
estimating
national
benefits
is
one
of
the
most
important
revisions
to
the
benefits
methodology
incorporated
from
the
NODA.
As
discussed
in
the
NODA,
EPA
traditionally
estimates
national
level
costs
and
benefits
by
extrapolating
analytic
results
from
sample
facilities
to
the
national
level
using
sample
facility
survey
weights.
These
sample
facility
weights
are
based
on
sample
facility
characteristics
only
and
do
not
account
for
characteristics
of
water
bodies
receiving
discharges
from
the
sample
MP&
M
facilities
or
for
the
size
of
the
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00013
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25698
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
population
residing
in
the
vicinity
of
the
sample
MP&
M
facilities.
These
additional
variables,
however,
are
likely
to
affect
the
occurrence
and
size
of
benefits
associated
with
reduced
discharges
from
MP&
M
facilities.
Omission
of
benefit­
related
characteristics
in
designing
the
original
sample
frame
may
lead
to
conditional
bias
in
benefit
estimates.
To
validate
the
general
conclusions
that
EPA
draws
from
its
main
analysis
based
on
the
traditional
benefit
estimation
method,
EPA
also
estimated
national
level
benefits
for
the
final
rule
using
two
alternative
extrapolation
methods.
Detailed
discussion
of
the
alternative
extrapolation
methods
can
be
found
in
the
NODA
(
see
67
FR
38752),
section
IX.
E
and
F
of
this
preamble,
and
in
the
EEBA
for
the
final
rule.
As
discussed
in
the
NODA,
EPA
submitted
its
case
study
analysis
of
recreational
benefits
for
an
official
peer
review.
The
peer
review
was
favorable
and
concluded
that
EPA
had
done
a
competent
job.
Peer
reviewers,
however,
provided
several
suggestions
for
further
improvements
in
the
analysis.
The
Agency
made
most
of
the
recommended
changes
to
the
Ohio
model,
as
discussed
in
the
NODA
(
see
67
FR
38752).
This
revised
model
is
used
in
the
analysis
supporting
today's
final
rule.
However,
EPA
did
not
include
multiple
day
trips
in
the
benefit
estimates
from
improvements
in
recreational
opportunities
due
to
reduced
MP&
M
discharges,
as
it
was
suggested
by
the
peer
reviewers.
The
Ohio
case
study
focuses
on
single
day
trips
because
data
for
single
day
trips
are
more
complete
and
because
the
majority
of
recreational
trips
are
single
day
trips.
Thus,
EPA
estimated
changes
in
per
trip
values
from
improved
water
quality
for
single
day
trips
only.
The
Agency
decided
not
to
approximate
welfare
gain
to
participants
in
multi­
day
recreational
trips
based
on
the
singleday
trip
values
because
multi­
day
recreational
trips
are
likely
to
differ
from
single
day
trips
for
a
number
of
reasons:
overnight
trips
may
include
multiple
purposes
and
destinations;
the
individual
chooses
not
only
to
take
a
trip
and
the
trip's
destination,
but
the
length
of
the
trip;
and
the
length
of
stay
has
costs
that
are
not
connected
to
travel
costs.
The
Agency
acknowledges
that
excluding
multiple
day
trips
from
this
analysis
is
likely
to
result
in
understatement
of
benefits
from
water
quality
improvements.
Detailed
discussion
of
the
Ohio
case
study
can
be
found
in
the
EEBA
for
the
final
rule.
EPA
did
not
incorporate
changes
to
the
recreational
benefits
methodology
used
in
the
national­
level
analysis
from
the
NODA.
In
estimating
benefits
from
improved
boating
and
wildlife
viewing
opportunities
for
the
final
rule,
EPA
considers
only
individuals
taking
single
day
trips
due
to
insufficient
data
on
per
multi­
day
trip
benefits
from
water
quality
improvements.
Both
individuals
taking
single
day
trips
and
those
who
take
multiple
day
trips
to
local
water
bodies
were
considered
in
the
NODA
analysis
of
recreational
benefits.
Similarly
to
the
Ohio
case
study,
excluding
multiple
day
trips
from
the
national
analysis
is
likely
to
result
in
understatement
of
recreational
benefits
from
water
quality
improvements.

d.
POTW
Administrative
Cost
and
POTW
Benefits
Analyses
EPA
received
several
comments
to
the
proposal
on
the
use
of
EPA's
1997
POTW
survey
in
the
analysis
of
POTW
administrative
costs
and
benefits
from
improved
quality
of
sewage
sludge.
Commentors
stated
that
EPA
overestimated
pollutant
loadings,
economic
benefits,
and
environmental
benefits
associated
with
improved
sludge
quality.
Commentors
also
stated
that
EPA
underestimated
the
administrative
costs
associated
with
implementing
the
rule.
They
provided
new
information
on
POTW
characteristics
which
EPA
used
to
revise
assumptions
and
its
analysis
of
POTW
administrative
costs
and
benefits
for
the
final
rule.
Specifically,
the
Association
of
Metropolitan
Sewerage
Agencies
(
AMSA)
provided
EPA
with
comments
on
the
proposed
MP&
M
rule
and
supplemented
these
comments
with
a
spreadsheet
database.
The
database
contains
data
from
an
AMSA
formulated
survey
and
covers
responses
from
176
POTWs,
representing
66
pretreatment
programs.
The
AMSA
survey
was
conducted
to
verify
data
from
EPA's
survey
of
POTWs,
and
therefore,
included
similar,
although
fewer,
variables
compared
to
EPA's
survey.
EPA
used
some
of
the
data
provided
in
AMSA's
survey
to
revise
its
own
analyses
of
POTW
administrative
costs
of
the
proposed
MP&
M
rule.
Elements
of
the
administrative
cost
analysis
include:
(
1)
The
estimated
number
of
indirect
dischargers;
and
(
2)
the
unit
costs
of
certain
permitting
activities,
including
permit
implementation,
sampling,
and
sample
analysis.
EPA
found
that
although
AMSA
estimates
of
the
number
of
indirect
dischargers
and
the
unit
costs
of
permitting
activities
are
consistent
with
the
EPA's
estimates
used
for
the
proposed
rule
analysis,
their
estimate
neglected
to
take
into
account
that
not
all
MP&
M
indirect
discharging
facilities
would
have
been
required
to
meet
the
proposed
standards.
DCN
37500,
section
25.4.1,
provides
comparisons
between
AMSA's
and
EPA's
estimates.
EPA
added
to
its
analysis
using
the
AMSA
data
include:
(
1)
Screening
costs
for
POTWs
that
do
not
currently
operate
under
a
pretreatment
program;
and
(
2)
oversight
costs
associated
with
implementing
various
regulatory
options.
The
revised
methodology
for
POTW
administrative
costs
analysis
is
presented
in
EEBA
Appendix
F.
EPA
also
used
the
AMSA
data
to
revise
the
POTW
benefits
methodology.
Elements
of
the
POTW
benefits
analysis
EPA
verified
using
the
AMSA
survey
include:
(
1)
Percentage
of
metal
loadings
contributed
by
MP&
M
facilities;
and
(
2)
the
number
of
MP&
M
facilities
served
by
POTWs.
AMSA
also
provided
additional
information
on
the
number
of
POTWs
(
and
percentage
of
total
annual
dry
metric
tons
of
POTW
biosolids)
currently
meeting
metals
limitations
in
the
``
Standards
for
the
Use
or
Disposal
of
Sewage
Sludge,''
(
40
CFR
part
503),
and
reasons
why
POTWs
may
choose
to
not
land
apply
biosolids.
These
nationally­
applicable
standards
set
the
general
requirements,
management
practices,
operational
standards
and
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements
for
the
final
use
and
disposal
of
biosolids.
AMSA's
survey
data
includes
the
following
reasons
for
not
land
applying
qualifying
biosolids:
(
1)
Land
was
not
available
for
application
of
sewage
biosolids;
(
2)
other
biosolids
use/
disposal
practices
were
less
expensive
than
land
application;
(
3)
pathogen/
vector
reduction
requirements
could
not
be
met
at
an
acceptable
cost;
and
(
4)
local
regulations
or
opposition
to
land
application.
EPA
revised
the
POTW
benefits
methodology
according
to
the
results
of
the
joint
analysis
of
the
EPA
and
AMSA
surveys.
The
revised
methodology
for
POTW
benefits
analyses
is
presented
in
EEBA
Chapter
16.

4.
Determining
POTW
Percent
Removal
Estimates
As
discussed
in
the
proposed
rule,
EPA
solicited
comment
on
potential
changes
to
the
methodology
for
estimating
the
pollutant
reduction
(
i.
e.,
percent
removal)
used
in
EPA's
pass
through
analysis
for
identifying
pollutants
requiring
pretreatment
standards
(
see
66
FR
476).
For
today's
final
rule,
EPA
has
not
changed
the
POTW
pass­
through
analysis
because
EPA
is
not
promulgating
any
new
pretreatment
standards
for
indirect
dischargers.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00014
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25699
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
V.
Scope/
Applicability
of
the
Final
Regulation
A.
General
Overview
and
Wastewaters
Covered
As
previously
explained,
today's
final
rule
only
applies
to
directly
discharged
wastewaters
generated
from
oily
operations
at
existing
or
new
industrial
facilities
(
including
Federal,
State
and
local
government
facilities).
These
facilities
are
engaged
in
manufacturing,
rebuilding,
or
maintenance
of
metal
parts,
products
or
machines
to
be
used
in
one
of
the
following
industrial
sectors:
 
Aerospace;
 
Aircraft;
 
Bus
and
Truck;
 
Electronic
Equipment;
 
Hardware;
 
Household
Equipment;
 
Instruments;
 
Miscellaneous
Metal
Products;
 
Mobile
Industrial
Equipment;
 
Motor
Vehicle;
 
Office
Machine;
 
Ordnance;
 
Precious
Metals
and
Jewelry;
 
Railroad;
 
Ships
and
Boats;
and
 
Stationary
Industrial
Equipment.
EPA
identified
sixteen
industrial
sectors
as
comprising
the
MP&
M
category.
These
sectors
manufacture,
maintain
and
rebuild
metal
products
under
more
than
200
different
SIC
codes
(
see
the
TDD
for
a
listing
of
typical
SIC
codes
and
NAICs
codes).
EPA
is
not
revising
limitations
and
standards
for
three
proposed
industrial
sectors
(
e.
g.,
Job
Shops,
Printed
Wiring
Board,
and
Steel
Forming
&
Finishing).
Facilities
in
any
one
of
the
sixteen
industrial
sectors
in
the
MP&
M
category
are
subject
to
this
rule
only
if
they
directly
discharge
process
wastewaters
resulting
from
one
or
more
of
the
following
oily
operations:
Abrasive
blasting;
adhesive
bonding;
alkaline
cleaning
for
oil
removal;
alkaline
treatment
without
cyanide;
aqueous
degreasing;
assembly/
disassembly;
burnishing;
calibration;
corrosion
preventive
coating
(
as
specified
at
40
CFR
438.2(
c)
and
appendix
B
of
part
438);
electrical
discharge
machining;
floor
cleaning
(
in
process
area);
grinding;
heat
treating;
impact
deformation;
iron
phosphate
conversion
coating;
machining;
painting­
spray
or
brush
(
including
water
curtains);
polishing;
pressure
deformation;
solvent
degreasing;
steam
cleaning;
testing
(
e.
g.,
hydrostatic,
dye
penetrant,
ultrasonic,
magnetic
flux);
thermal
cutting;
tumbling/
barrel
finishing/
mass
finishing/
vibratory
finishing;
washing
(
finished
products);
welding;
wet
air
pollution
control
for
organic
constituents;
and
numerous
suboperations
within
those
listed
in
this
paragraph.
In
addition,
process
wastewater
also
results
from
associated
rinses
that
remove
materials
that
the
preceding
processes
deposit
on
the
surface
of
the
workpiece.
These
oily
operations
are
defined
in
section
4
of
the
TDD
and
appendix
B
of
today's
final
rule.
In
addition,
today's
final
rule
does
not
apply
to
direct
discharges
of
wastewaters
that
are
otherwise
covered
by
other
effluent
limitations
guidelines.
As
was
the
case
at
proposal,
EPA
defines
process
wastewater
for
the
final
rule
to
include
wastewater
discharges
from
the
following
activities:
(
1)
Wastewater
from
air
pollution
control
devices;
and
(
2)
washing
vehicles
only
when
it
is
a
preparatory
step
prior
to
performing
an
oily
operation
(
e.
g.,
prior
to
disassembly
to
perform
engine
maintenance
or
rebuilding).
EPA
has
adopted
this
approach
for
the
final
rule
due
to
the
potential
of
these
unit
operations
to
produce
significant
quantities
of
pollutants
in
wastewaters
(
see
66
FR
433
to
434).
Not
subject
to
this
final
rule
are
nonprocess
wastewater
discharges
which
include
the
following:
Sanitary
wastewater,
non­
contact
cooling
wastewater,
laundering
wastewater,
and
non­
contact
storm
water.
In
addition,
non­
process
wastewater
also
includes
wastewater
discharges
from
nonindustrial
sources
such
as
residential
housing,
schools,
churches,
recreational
parks,
shopping
centers,
and
wastewater
discharges
from
gas
stations,
utility
plants,
and
hospitals.
In
addition
to
non­
process
wastewater,
the
final
rule
does
not
apply
to
wastewater
generated
from:
(
1)
Gravure
cylinder
and
metallic
platemaking
conducted
within
or
for
printing
and
publishing
facilities;
(
2)
bilge
water
on
ships
afloat;
(
3)
electroplating­
type
operations
during
semiconductor
wafer
manufacturing
or
wafer
fabrication
processes
occurring
in
a
``
clean
room''
environment;
(
4)
the
washing
of
cars,
aircraft
or
other
vehicles
when
it
is
performed
only
for
aesthetic/
cosmetic
purposes;
(
5)
MP&
M
operations
at
gasoline
stations
(
SIC
code
5541)
or
vehicle
rental
facilities
(
SIC
code
7514
or
7519);
or
(
6)
unit
operations
performed
by
drum
reconditioners/
refurbishers
to
prepare
metal
drums
for
reuse.
The
final
rule
does
not
include
these
non­
process
wastewaters
within
the
scope
of
the
rule
for
the
reasons
explained
in
the
preamble
to
the
proposed
rule
(
see
66
FR
433).
EPA
received
no
comments
on
the
proposal
or
NODA
that
have
caused
the
Agency
to
change
its
mind
about
the
approach
it
proposed
and
has
now
adopted.
EPA
is
also
not
promulgating
limitations
and
standards
for
facilities
in
the
Shipbuilding
Dry
Dock
subcategory.
Today's
final
rule
does
not
cover
wastewater
generated
on­
board
ships
and
boats
when
they
are
afloat
(
that
is,
not
in
dry
docks
or
similar
structures),
flooding
water,
and
dry
dock
ballast
water
(
see
66
FR
445).
For
U.
S.
military
ships,
EPA
is
in
the
process
of
establishing
standards
to
regulate
discharges
of
wastewater
generated
on­
board
these
ships
when
they
are
in
U.
S.
waters
and
are
afloat
under
the
Uniform
National
Discharge
Standards
(
UNDS)
pursuant
to
section
312(
n)
of
the
CWA
(
see
64
FR
25125,
May
10,
1999).
Finally,
today's
rule
does
not
apply
to
maintenance
or
repair
of
metal
parts,
products,
or
machines
that
takes
place
only
as
ancillary
activities
at
facilities
not
included
in
the
sixteen
MP&
M
industrial
sectors.
EPA
estimates
that
these
ancillary
repair
and
maintenance
activities
would
typically
discharge
de
minimis
quantities
of
process
wastewater.
For
example,
wastewater
discharges
from
repair
of
metal
parts
at
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
are
not
subject
to
today's
final
rule.
The
Agency
finds
that
permit
writers
will
establish
limits
using
best
professional
judgment
(
BPJ)
to
regulate
wastewater
discharges
from
ancillary
waste
streams
for
direct
dischargers
(
see
66
FR
433).
EPA
has
not
received
any
information
during
the
rulemaking
that
would
contradict
this
conclusion.

B.
Subcategorization
For
today's
final
rule,
EPA
is
subcategorizing
the
MP&
M
point
source
category
based
on
the
unit
operations
described
in
more
detail
in
section
4
of
the
TDD,
and
is
establishing
limitations
and
standards
for
direct
dischargers
in
the
Oily
Wastes
subcategory
(
subpart
A).
The
Oily
Wastes
subcategory
applies
to
wastewaters
generated
from
``
oily
operations''
that
are
not
otherwise
covered
by
other
effluent
limitations
guidelines.
EPA
has
previously
defined
``
oily
operations''
in
section
V.
A
and
at
40
CFR
438.2(
f)
and
appendix
B
of
today's
final
rule.
Facilities
engaged
in
the
manufacture,
overhaul
or
heavy
maintenance
of
railroad
engines,
cars,
car­
wheel
trucks,
or
similar
parts
or
machines
(``
railroad
overhaul
or
heavy
maintenance
facilities'')
typically
perform
different
unit
operations
than
railroad
line
maintenance
facilities.
Railroad
line
maintenance
facilities
only
perform
one
or
more
of
the
following
unit
operations
including;
Assembly/
disassembly,
floor
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00015
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25700
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
cleaning,
maintenance
machining
(
wheel
truing),
touch­
up
painting,
and
washing.
Railroad
overhaul
or
heavy
maintenance
facilities
typically
perform
the
following
unit
operations:
Assembly/
disassembly,
floor
cleaning,
maintenance
machining
(
wheel
truing),
touch­
up
painting,
washing,
abrasive
blasting,
alkaline
cleaning,
aqueous
degreasing,
corrosion
preventive
coating,
electrical
discharge
machining,
grinding,
heat
treating,
impact
deformation,
painting,
plasma
arc
machining,
polishing,
pressure
deformation,
soldering/
brazing,
stripping
(
paint),
testing,
thermal
cutting,
and
welding.
Wastewater
discharges
from
railroad
line
maintenance
facilities
(
as
defined
at
40
CFR
438.2(
h))
are
not
subject
to
today's
final
rule.
Wastewater
discharges
from
railroad
overhaul
or
heavy
maintenance
facilities
(
as
defined
at
40
CFR
438.2(
i))
may
be
covered
by
subpart
A
of
this
part,
the
Metal
Finishing
Point
Source
Category
(
40
CFR
part
433),
or
by
other
effluent
limitations
guidelines,
as
applicable.

VI.
The
Final
Regulation
This
section
describes,
by
subcategory,
the
option(
s)
considered
and
selected
for
today's
final
rule.
For
each
subcategory,
EPA
provides
a
discussion,
as
applicable,
for
the
regulatory
levels
that
EPA
considered
for
regulation
(
i.
e.,
BPT,
BCT,
BAT,
NSPS,
PSES,
PSNS).
For
a
detailed
discussion
of
all
technology
options
considered
in
the
development
of
today's
final
rule,
see
the
proposal
(
see
66
FR
447),
the
NODA
(
see
67
FR
38797)
or
section
9
of
the
TDD
for
today's
final
rule.
Based
on
the
record
of
information
supporting
the
final
MP&
M
rule,
EPA
has
determined
that
the
selected
technology
for
the
Oily
Wastes
subcategory
is
technically
available.
EPA
used
the
appropriate
technologies
for
developing
today's
limitations
for
existing
direct
dischargers
(
BPT
and
BCT)
in
one
MP&
M
subcategory
listed
in
the
January
2001
proposal
(
Oily
Wastes).
EPA
has
also
determined
that
each
technology
it
selected
as
the
basis
for
the
final
limitations
or
standards
has
effluent
reductions
commensurate
with
compliance
costs
and
is
economically
achievable
for
the
applicable
subcategory.
EPA
also
considered
the
age,
size,
processes,
and
other
engineering
factors
pertinent
to
facilities
in
the
scope
of
the
final
regulation
for
the
purpose
of
evaluating
the
technology
options.
None
of
these
factors
provides
a
basis
for
selecting
different
technologies
from
those
EPA
has
selected
as
its
technology
options
for
today's
rule
(
see
section
6
of
the
TDD
for
the
final
rule
for
further
discussion
of
EPA's
analyses
of
these
factors).
EPA
considered
the
use
of
a
low­
flow
cutoff
as
the
principal
means
for
reducing
economic
impacts
on
small
businesses
and
administrative
burden
for
control
authorities
associated
with
certain
treatment
technologies
it
considered.
EPA
did
not
identify
any
regulatory
scheme
incorporating
a
lowflow
cutoff
for
direct
dischargers
that
would
assist
EPA
in
meeting
these
objectives.
EPA
notes
that
all
direct
dischargers
require
a
NPDES
discharge
permit
regardless
of
wastewater
discharge
flow
volume.
The
new
source
performance
standards
(
NSPS)
EPA
is
today
establishing
represent
the
greatest
degree
of
effluent
reduction
achievable
through
the
best
available
technology.
In
selecting
its
technology
basis
for
today's
new
source
standards
(
NSPS)
for
the
Oily
Wastes
subcategory
being
promulgated
today,
EPA
considered
all
of
the
factors
specified
in
CWA
section
306,
including
the
cost
of
achieving
effluent
reductions.
EPA
used
the
appropriate
technology
option
for
developing
today's
standards
for
new
direct
dischargers
in
the
Oily
Wastes
subcategory.
The
new
source
technology
basis
for
the
Oily
Wastes
subcategory
is
equivalent
to
the
technology
bases
upon
which
EPA
is
setting
BPT
and
BCT
(
see
Chapter
9
of
the
EEBA).
EPA
has
thoroughly
reviewed
the
costs
of
such
technologies
and
has
concluded
that
such
costs
do
not
present
a
barrier
to
entry.
The
Agency
also
considered
energy
requirements
and
other
nonwater
quality
environmental
impacts
for
the
new
source
technology
basis
and
found
no
basis
for
any
different
standards
from
those
selected
for
NSPS.
Therefore,
EPA
concluded
that
the
NSPS
technology
basis
chosen
for
the
Oily
Wastes
subcategory
constitute
the
best
available
demonstrated
control
technology.
For
a
discussion
on
the
compliance
date
for
new
sources,
see
section
XI
of
today's
final
rule.
EPA
decided
not
to
establish
limitations
for
existing
sources
for
seven
subcategories
listed
in
the
January
2001
proposal
(
General
Metals,
Metal
Finishing
Job
Shops,
Printed
Wiring
Boards,
Non­
Chromium
Anodizers,
Steel
Forming
&
Finishing,
Railroad
Line
Maintenance,
and
Shipbuilding
Dry
Dock).
EPA
also
decided
not
to
establish
standards
for
new
sources
for
the
same
seven
subcategories.
Finally,
EPA
decided
not
to
establish
standards
for
new
and
existing
indirect
dischargers
(
PSES
and
PSNS)
for
all
eight
subcategories
listed
in
the
January
2001
proposal.
EPA's
bases
for
not
promulgating
revised
limitations
and
standards
for
these
subcategories
are
explained
in
the
following
sections.

A.
General
Metals
Subcategory
EPA
is
not
revising
or
establishing
any
limitations
or
standards
for
facilities
that
would
have
been
subject
to
this
subcategory.
Such
facilities
will
continue
to
be
regulated
by
the
General
Pretreatment
Standards
(
part
403),
local
limits,
permit
limits,
and
parts
413
and/
or
433,
as
applicable.

1.
Best
Practicable
Control
Technology
Currently
Available
(
BPT)
EPA
proposed
to
establish
BPT
limitations
for
existing
direct
dischargers
in
the
General
Metals
subcategory
based
on
the
Option
2
technology.
EPA
evaluated
the
cost
of
achieving
effluent
reductions,
pollutant
reductions,
and
the
economic
achievability
of
compliance
with
BPT
limitations
based
on
the
Option
2
technology
and
the
level
of
the
pollutant
reductions
resulting
from
compliance
with
such
limitations.
EPA
has
decided
not
to
establish
BPT
limitations
for
existing
direct
dischargers
in
the
proposed
General
Metals
subcategory.
The
2001
proposal
also
contains
detailed
discussions
on
why
EPA
rejected
BPT
limitations
based
on
other
BPT
technology
options
(
see
66
FR
452).
The
information
in
the
record
for
today's
final
rule
provides
no
basis
for
EPA
to
change
this
conclusion.
EPA
proposed
Option
2
as
a
basis
for
establishing
BPT
limitations
for
the
General
Metals
subcategory.
Option
2
technology
includes
the
following:
(
1)
In­
process
flow
control
and
pollution
prevention;
(
2)
segregation
of
wastewater
streams;
(
3)
preliminary
treatment
steps
as
necessary
(
including
oils
removal
using
chemical
emulsion
breaking
and
oil­
water
separation,
alkaline
chlorination
for
cyanide
destruction,
reduction
of
hexavalent
chromium,
and
chelation
breaking);
(
4)
chemical
precipitation
using
sodium
hydroxide;
(
5)
sedimentation
using
a
clarifier;
and
(
6)
sludge
removal
(
i.
e.,
gravity
thickening
and
filter
press).
See
section
9
of
the
TDD
for
today's
final
rule
for
additional
technical
details
on
the
Option
2
technology.
Those
facilities
potentially
regulated
in
the
General
Metals
subcategory
include
facilities
that
are
currently
subject
to
effluent
limitations
guideline
regulation
under
part
433
as
well
as
facilities
not
currently
subject
to
national
regulation.
Approximately
263
of
the
266
existing
General
Metals
direct
dischargers
(
estimated
from
survey
weights
for
31
surveyed
facilities)
are
currently
covered
by
the
Metal
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00016
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25701
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
Finishing
effluent
guidelines
at
part
433.
The
remaining
three
facilities
(
estimated
from
a
survey
weight
for
one
surveyed
facility)
are
currently
directly
discharging
metal­
bearing
wastewaters
(
e.
g.,
salt
bath
descaling,
UP
 
37)
but
are
not
covered
by
existing
Metal
Finishing
effluent
guidelines.
EPA's
review
of
discharge
monitoring
data
and
unit
operations
for
this
surveyed
non­
433
General
Metals
facility
(
with
a
survey
weight
of
approximately
three)
indicates
that
this
facility
is
already
achieving
part
433
limitations
because
this
facility
has
discharges
that
closely
mirror
those
required
by
part
433.
The
facilities
that
are
currently
subject
to
part
433
regulations
and
those
facilities
achieving
part
433
discharge
levels,
in
most
cases,
have
already
installed
effective
pollution
control
technology
that
includes
many
of
the
components
of
the
Option
2
technology.
Approximately
30
percent
of
the
direct
discharging
facilities
in
the
General
Metals
subcategory
currently
employ
chemical
precipitation
followed
by
a
clarifier.
Further,
EPA
estimates
that
compliance
with
BPT
limitations
based
on
the
Option
2
technology
would
result
in
no
closures
of
the
existing
direct
dischargers
in
the
General
Metals
subcategory.
EPA
also
notes
that
the
adoption
of
this
level
of
control
would
also
represent
a
further
reduction
in
pollutants
discharged
into
the
environment
by
facilities
in
this
subcategory.
For
facilities
in
the
General
Metals
subcategory
at
Option
2,
EPA
estimates
an
annual
compliance
cost
of
$
23.7
million
(
2001$).
Using
the
method
described
in
Table
IV
 
2
to
estimate
baseline
pollutant
loadings,
EPA
estimates
Option
2
pollutant
removals
of
417,477
pounds
of
conventional
pollutants
and
33,716
pounds
of
priority
metal
and
organic
pollutants
from
current
discharges
into
the
Nation's
waters.
Evaluated
under
its
traditional
yardstick,
EPA
calculated
that
the
effluent
reductions
are
achieved
at
a
cost
of
$
18.1/
pound­
pollutant
removed
(
2001$)
for
the
General
Metals
subcategory
at
Option
2.
To
estimate
all
pounds
of
pollutant
removed
by
Option
2
technology
for
direct
dischargers
in
the
General
Metals
subcategory,
EPA
used
the
method
described
in
Table
IV
 
2
to
estimate
baseline
pollutant
loadings,
and
the
sum
of
Chemical
Oxygen
Demand
(
COD)
pounds
removed
plus
the
sum
of
all
metals
pounds
removed
to
measure
the
pollutant
removal
as
compared
to
compliance
costs.
EPA
used
the
combination
of
COD
pounds
removed
plus
the
sum
of
all
metals
pounds
removed
to
avoid
any
significant
double
counting
of
pollutants.
As
previously
stated,
EPA
received
many
comments
on
its
estimation
of
baseline
pollutant
loadings
and
reductions
for
the
various
options
presented
in
the
January
2001
proposal.
In
response
to
these
comments,
EPA
solicited
comment
in
the
June
2002
NODA
on
alternative
methods
to
estimate
baseline
pollutant
loadings.
Commentors
on
the
NODA
were
generally
supportive
of
EPA's
alternative
methods
to
estimate
baseline
pollutant
loadings.
In
particular,
commentors
noted
that
more
accurate
estimates
of
baseline
pollutant
loadings
could
be
achieved
by
using
DMR
data.
In
response
to
these
NODA
comments,
EPA
combined
the
alternative
methods
in
the
NODA
into
the
EPA
Cost
&
Loadings
Model
for
the
final
rule
(
see
Table
IV
 
2).
EPA
also
received
comment
on
the
parameter
or
parameters
it
should
use
for
estimating
total
pounds
removed
by
the
selected
technology
option.
EPA
selected
the
sum
of
COD
and
all
metals
pounds
removed
for
the
final
rule
to
compare
effluent
reductions
and
compliance
costs.
This
approach
avoided
any
significant
double
counting
of
pollutants
and
also
provided
a
reasonable
estimate
of
total
pounds
removed
by
Option
2
for
the
General
Metals
subcategory.
As
more
fully
described
in
the
TDD,
Option
2
technology
segregates
wastewaters
into
at
least
five
different
waste
streams,
each
of
which
have
one
or
two
treatment
steps.
For
example,
segregated
oily
wastewaters
have
two
treatment
steps
under
Option
2
technology
as
they
are
first
treated
by
chemical
emulsion
breaking/
oil
water
separation
and
then
by
chemical
precipitation
and
sedimentation.
These
segregated
wastestreams
can
be
loosely
grouped
together
as
either
oily
wastewaters
or
metal­
bearing
wastewaters.
EPA
use
of
COD
pounds
removed
for
Option
2
technology
generally
represents
the
removal
of
pollutants
from
the
segregated
oily
wastewaters.
EPA
use
of
total
metals
pounds
removed
for
Option
2
technology
generally
represents
the
removal
of
pollutants
from
the
segregated
metal­
bearing
wastewaters.
EPA
also
considered
alternative
parameters
for
calculating
total
pounds
removed
by
Option
2
for
the
comparison
of
effluent
reductions
and
compliance
costs
for
the
General
Metals
subcategory.
In
particular,
EPA
calculated
a
ratio
of
less
than
$
14/
pound­
pollutant
removed
(
2001$)
for
the
General
Metals
subcategory
at
Option
2
when
EPA
used
the
highest
set
of
pollutants
removed
per
facility
with
no
significant
double
counting
of
pollutants
(
i.
e.,
highest
per
facility
pollutant
removals
of:
(
1)
COD
plus
total
metals;
(
2)
oil
and
grease
(
as
HEM)
plus
total
metals;
or
(
3)
oil
and
grease
(
as
HEM)
plus
TSS).
EPA
used
the
highest
per
facility
pollutant
removals
as
a
confirmation
of
its
primary
method
for
calculating
baseline
pollutant
loadings
(
see
Table
IV
 
2)
and
Option
2
for
General
Metals
subcategory.
Based
on
the
revisions
and
corrections
to
the
EPA
Cost
&
Loadings
Model
discussed
in
the
NODA
and
in
section
IV.
B.
1
of
today's
final
rule,
EPA
has
decided
not
to
adopt
BPT
limitations
based
on
Option
2
technology.
A
number
of
factors
supports
EPA's
conclusion
that
BPT
limitations
based
on
Option
2
technology
do
not
represent
effluent
reduction
levels
attainable
by
the
best
practicable
technology
currently
available.
As
previously
noted,
a
substantial
number
of
facilities
that
would
be
subject
to
limitations
as
General
Metals
facilities
are
already
regulated
by
BPT/
BAT
part
433
limitations
and
other
facilities
are
de
facto
part
433
facilities
if
characterized
by
their
discharges.
Thus,
establishing
BPT
limitations
for
a
new
General
Metals
subcategory
would
effectively
revise
existing
BPT/
BAT
limitations
with
respect
to
those
facilities.
In
the
circumstances
presented
here
where
EPA,
for
a
significant
portion
of
an
industry,
is
revising
existing
BPT/
BAT
limitations,
further
review
of
the
character
and
cost
of
the
effluent
reductions
achieved
by
Option
2
is
warranted
in
deciding
what
is
BPT
technology.
Such
an
examination
shows
that,
while
the
Option
2
technology
would
remove
additional
pollutants
at
costs
in
the
middle
of
the
range
EPA
has
traditionally
determined
are
reasonable,
the
costs
of
the
additional
removals
of
toxic
pollutants
are
substantially
greater.
EPA
has
now
determined
that,
in
the
circumstances
of
this
rulemaking,
where
a
substantial
portion
of
a
subcategory
is
already
subject
to
effluent
limitations
guidelines
that
achieve
significant
removal,
it
should
not
promulgate
BPT
limitations
under
consideration
here
because
the
limitations
would
achieve
additional
toxic
removals
at
a
cost
($
1,000/
PE
in
1981$)
substantially
greater
than
that
EPA
has
typically
imposed
for
BAT
technology
in
other
industries
(
generally
less
than
$
200/
PE
in
1981$).
EPA
also
considered
transferring
limitations
from
existing
Metal
Finishing
effluent
guidelines
(
40
CFR
part
433)
to
the
General
Metals
subcategory.
The
technology
basis
for
part
433
includes
the
following:
(
1)

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00017
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25702
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
Segregation
of
wastewater
streams;
(
2)
preliminary
treatment
steps
as
necessary
(
including
oils
removal
using
chemical
emulsion
breaking
and
oil­
water
separation,
alkaline
chlorination
for
cyanide
destruction,
reduction
of
hexavalent
chromium,
and
chelation
breaking);
(
3)
chemical
precipitation
using
sodium
hydroxide;
(
4)
sedimentation
using
a
clarifier;
and
(
5)
sludge
removal
(
i.
e.,
gravity
thickening
and
filter
press).
See
section
9
of
the
TDD
for
today's
final
rule
for
additional
technical
details
on
the
part
433
technology
basis.
Approximately
99%
of
the
existing
direct
dischargers
in
the
General
Metals
subcategory
are
currently
covered
by
existing
Metal
Finishing
effluent
guidelines.
The
remaining
1%
(
an
estimated
three
facilities
nationwide
based
on
the
survey
weight
associated
with
one
surveyed
facility)
are
currently
permitted
to
discharge
metal­
bearing
wastewaters
but
are
not
covered
by
existing
Metal
Finishing
effluent
guidelines.
EPA's
review
of
discharge
monitoring
data
and
unit
operations
for
this
surveyed
non­
433
General
Metals
facility
(
with
a
survey
weight
of
approximately
three)
indicates
that
this
facility
is
subject
to
permit
limitations
established
on
a
BPJ
basis
that
are
equivalent
or
more
stringent
than
part
433
limitations.
Transferring
limitations
from
existing
Metal
Finishing
effluent
guidelines
would
likely
result
in
no
additional
pollutant
load
reductions.
Therefore,
based
on
the
lack
of
additional
pollutant
removals
that
are
estimated,
EPA
is
not
promulgating
BPT
limitations
transferred
from
existing
Metal
Finishing
effluent
limitations
guidelines
for
the
General
Metals
subcategory.
EPA
is
not
revising
or
establishing
BPT
limitations
for
any
facilities
in
this
subcategory.
Direct
dischargers
in
the
General
Metals
subcategory
will
remain
regulated
by
permit
limits
and
part
433,
as
applicable.

2.
Best
Conventional
Pollutant
Control
Technology
(
BCT)
In
deciding
whether
to
adopt
more
stringent
limitations
for
BCT
than
BPT,
EPA
considers
whether
there
are
technologies
that
achieve
greater
removals
of
conventional
pollutants
than
adopted
for
BPT,
and
whether
those
technologies
are
cost­
reasonable
under
the
standards
established
by
the
CWA.
EPA
generally
refers
to
the
decision
criteria
as
the
``
BCT
cost
test.''
For
a
more
detailed
description
of
the
BCT
cost
test
and
details
of
EPA's
analysis,
see
Chapter
4
of
the
EEBA.
As
EPA
is
not
establishing
any
BPT
limitations
for
the
General
Metals
subcategory,
EPA
did
not
evaluate
any
technologies
for
the
final
rule
that
can
achieve
greater
removals
of
conventional
pollutants.
Consequently,
EPA
is
not
establishing
BCT
limitations
for
the
General
Metals
subcategory.

3.
Best
Available
Technology
Economically
Achievable
(
BAT)
EPA
proposed
to
establish
BAT
limitations
for
existing
direct
dischargers
in
the
General
Metals
subcategory
based
on
the
Option
2
technology.
As
previously
noted,
EPA
has
decided
not
to
establish
BPT
limitations
based
on
Option
2
technology.
The
same
reasons
support
not
establishing
BAT
limitations
based
on
the
same
technology.
EPA
evaluated
the
cost
of
effluent
reductions,
pollutant
reductions,
and
the
economic
achievability
of
compliance
with
BAT
limitations
based
on
the
Option
2
technology.
Based
on
the
revisions
and
corrections
to
the
EPA
Cost
&
Loadings
Model
discussed
in
the
NODA
and
in
section
IV.
B.
1
of
today's
final
rule,
EPA
determined
that
the
costs
of
Option
2
are
disproportionate
to
the
toxic
pollutant
reductions
(
measured
in
pound­
equivalents
(
PE)).
The
cost
of
achieving
the
effluent
reduction
(
in
1981$)
for
Option
2
for
direct
dischargers
in
the
General
Metals
subcategory
is
over
$
1,000/
PE
removed
(
see
the
EEBA
and
DCN
37900,
section
26.0,
for
a
discussion
of
the
costeffectiveness
analysis).
The
costs
associated
with
this
technology
are,
as
previously
noted,
substantially
greater
than
the
level
EPA
has
traditionally
determined
are
associated
with
available
toxic
pollutant
control
technology.
EPA
has
determined
that
Option
2
technology
is
not
the
best
available
technology
economically
achievable
for
existing
direct
dischargers
in
the
General
Metals
subcategory.
EPA
is
not
revising
or
establishing
BAT
limitations
for
this
subcategory
based
Option
2
technology.
EPA
also
considered
transferring
BAT
limitations
from
existing
Metal
Finishing
effluent
guidelines
(
40
CFR
433.14)
to
the
General
Metals
subcategory.
EPA's
reviewed
existing
General
Metals
facilities
and
found
that
all
are
currently
achieving
part
433
BAT
limitations.
Transferring
BAT
limitations
from
existing
Metal
Finishing
effluent
guidelines
would
likely
result
in
no
additional
pollutant
load
reductions
and
minimal
incremental
compliance
costs
(
see
section
VI.
A.
1).
Therefore,
based
on
the
lack
of
additional
pollutant
removals
that
are
estimated,
EPA
is
not
promulgating
BAT
limitations
transferred
from
existing
Metal
Finishing
effluent
limitations
guidelines
for
the
General
Metals
subcategory.
EPA
is
not
revising
or
establishing
BAT
limitations
for
any
facilities
in
this
subcategory.
Direct
dischargers
in
the
General
Metals
subcategory
will
remain
regulated
by
permit
limits
and
part
433,
as
applicable.

4.
New
Source
Performance
Standards
(
NSPS)
EPA
proposed
NSPS
for
the
General
Metals
subcategory
based
on
Option
4
technology.
Option
4
technology
is
similar
to
Option
2
(
including
Option
2
flow
control
and
pollution
prevention)
but
includes
oils
removal
using
ultrafiltration
and
solids
separation
by
a
microfilter
(
instead
of
a
clarifier).
Commentors
stated
that
EPA
had
undercosted
the
Option
4
technology
and
that
the
compliance
costs
would
be
a
barrier
to
entry
for
new
facilities.
In
addition,
commentors
questioned
the
completeness
of
EPA's
database
on
microfiltration,
noting
that
EPA
transferred
standards
for
several
pollutants
from
the
Option
2
technology,
based
on
lack
of
data.
EPA
reviewed
its
database
for
the
Option
4
technology
and
agrees
that
its
microfiltration
database
is
insufficient
to
support
a
determination
that
the
Option
4
limitations
are
technically
achievable.
EPA
also
evaluated
setting
General
Metals
NSPS
based
on
the
Option
2
technology
and
assessed
the
financial
burden
to
new
General
Metals
direct
dischargers.
Specifically,
EPA's
``
barrier
to
entry''
analysis
identified
whether
General
Metals
NSPS
based
on
the
Option
2
technology
would
pose
sufficient
financial
burden
as
to
constitute
a
material
barrier
to
entry
of
new
General
Metals
establishments
into
the
MP&
M
point
source
category.
Additionally,
EPA
reviewed
its
database
for
establishing
General
Metals
NSPS
based
on
the
Option
2
technology
as
commentors
indicated
the
proposed
standards
were
not
technically
achievable.
In
response
to
these
comments,
EPA
reviewed
all
the
information
currently
available
on
General
Metals
facilities
employing
the
Option
2
technology
basis.
This
review
demonstrated
that
process
wastewaters
at
General
Metals
facilities
contain
a
wide
variety
of
metals
in
significant
concentrations.
Commentors
stated
that
single
stage
precipitation
and
solids
separation
step
may
not
achieve
sufficient
removals
for
wastewaters
that
contain
significant
concentrations
of
a
wide
variety
of
metals
 
especially
if
the
metals
preferentially
precipitate
at
disparate
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00018
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25703
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
pH
ranges.
Consequently,
to
address
concerns
raised
by
commentors,
EPA
also
costed
new
sources
to
operate
two
separate
chemical
precipitation
and
solids
separation
steps
in
series.
Twostage
chemical
precipitation
and
solids
separation
allows
General
Metals
facilities
with
multiple
metals
to
control
metal
discharges
to
concentrations
lower
than
single­
stage
chemical
precipitation
and
solids
separation
over
a
wider
pH
range.
Applying
this
revised
costing
approach,
EPA
projects
a
barrier
to
entry
for
General
Metals
NSPS
based
on
the
Option
2
technology
as
14%
of
General
Metals
direct
dischargers
have
after­
tax
compliance
costs
between
1
to
3%
of
revenue,
22%
have
after­
tax
compliance
costs
between
3
to
5%
of
revenue,
and
2%
have
after­
tax
compliance
costs
greater
than
5%
of
revenue.
Consequently,
based
on
the
compliance
costs
of
the
modified
Option
2
technology
EPA
is
today
rejecting
Option
2
technology
as
the
basis
for
NSPS
in
the
General
Metals
subcategory.
See
section
11
of
the
TDD
for
a
description
of
how
these
new
source
compliance
costs
were
developed
and
Chapter
9
of
the
EEBA
for
a
description
of
the
framework
EPA
used
for
the
barrier
to
entry
analysis
and
general
discussion
of
the
results.
EPA
also
considered
transferring
NSPS
from
existing
Metal
Finishing
effluent
guidelines
(
40
CFR
433.16)
to
the
General
Metals
subcategory.
EPA
reviewed
existing
General
Metals
direct
dischargers
and
found
that
all
are
currently
either
covered
by
or
have
permits
based
on
the
Metal
Finishing
limitations
at
40
CFR
part
433.
EPA
has
no
basis
to
conclude
that
new
General
Metals
facilities
would
have
less
stringent
requirements
than
existing
facilities,
particularly
since,
in
the
absence
of
promulgated
NSPS,
it
is
likely
that
permit
writers
would
consult
the
part
433
requirements
to
establish
BPJ
limits.
In
addition,
those
new
facilities
which
meet
the
applicability
criteria
for
part
433
will
be
subject
to
the
NSPS
for
that
category.
Therefore,
transferring
standards
from
these
existing
Metal
Finishing
effluent
limitations
guidelines
would
likely
result
in
no
additional
pollutant
load
reductions.
Therefore,
based
on
the
lack
of
additional
pollutant
removals
that
are
estimated,
EPA
is
not
promulgating
NSPS
for
the
General
Metals
subcategory.
EPA
is
not
revising
or
establishing
NSPS
for
any
facilities
in
this
subcategory.
Direct
dischargers
in
the
General
Metals
subcategory
will
remain
regulated
by
permit
limits
and
part
433,
as
applicable.
5.
Pretreatment
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
(
PSES)

EPA
proposed
to
establish
PSES
for
existing
indirect
dischargers
in
the
General
Metals
subcategory
based
on
the
Option
2
technology
(
i.
e.,
the
same
technology
basis
that
EPA
considered
for
BPT/
BCT/
BAT
for
this
subcategory)
with
a
``
low­
flow''
exclusion
of
1
million
gallons
per
year
(
MGY)
to
reduce
economic
impacts
on
small
businesses
and
administrative
burden
for
control
authorities.
Based
on
the
revisions
and
corrections
to
the
EPA
Cost
&
Loadings
Model
discussed
in
the
NODA
and
in
section
IV.
B.
1
of
today's
final
rule,
EPA
rejected
promulgating
PSES
for
existing
indirect
dischargers
in
the
General
Metals
subcategory
based
on
the
Option
2
technology
for
the
following
reasons:
(
1)
Many
General
Metals
indirect
dischargers
are
currently
regulated
by
existing
effluent
guidelines
(
parts
413
or
433
or
both,
as
applicable);
(
2)
EPA
estimates
that
compliance
with
PSES
based
on
the
Option
2
technology
will
result
in
the
closure
of
approximately
4%
of
the
existing
indirect
dischargers
in
this
subcategory;
and
(
3)
EPA
determined
that
the
incremental
toxic
pollutant
reductions
are
very
expensive
per
pound
removed
(
the
cost­
effectiveness
value
(
in
1981$)
for
Option
2
for
indirect
dischargers
in
the
General
Metals
subcategory
is
$
432/
PE).
This
suggests
to
EPA
that
the
identified
technology
is
not
truly
``
available''
to
this
industry
because
it
would
remove
a
relatively
small
number
of
additional
toxic
pounds
at
a
cost
significantly
greater
than
that
EPA
has
typically
determined
is
appropriate
for
other
industries.
EPA
has
determined
that
Option
2
technology
is
not
the
best
available
technology
economically
achievable
for
existing
indirect
dischargers
in
the
General
Metals
subcategory.
Therefore,
EPA
is
not
establishing
PSES
for
this
subcategory
based
on
the
Option
2
technology.
As
discussed
in
the
June
2002
NODA
(
see
67
FR
38798),
EPA
also
considered
a
number
of
alternative
options
whose
economic
impacts
would
be
less
costly
than
Option
2
technology.
These
options
potentially
have
compliance
costs
more
closely
aligned
with
toxic
pollutant
reductions.
EPA
considered
the
following
alternative
options
for
today's
final
rule:
Option
A:
No
change
in
current
regulation;
Option
B:
Option
2
with
a
higher
lowflow
exclusion;
Option
C:
Upgrading
facilities
currently
covered
by
part
413
to
the
PSES
of
part
433;
and
Option
D:
Upgrading
all
facilities
covered
by
part
413,
and
those
facilities
covered
by
``
local
limits
only''
that
discharge
greater
than
a
specified
wastewater
flow
(
e.
g.,
1,
3,
or
6.25
MGY)
of
process
wastewater
to
the
part
433
pretreatment
standards
for
existing
sources.
Note
that
facilities
regulated
by
``
local
limits
only''
are
also
regulated
by
the
General
Pretreatment
Regulations
(
40
CFR
part
403).
As
discussed
in
section
IV.
B.
1
of
today's
final
rule,
based
on
comments,
EPA
has
revised
its
methodology
for
estimating
compliance
costs
and
pollutant
loadings
for
Option
2,
higher
low­
flow
exclusions
(
Option
B);
and
the
``
upgrade''
options
(
Options
C
and
D)
previously
described.
Using
information
from
this
revised
analysis,
EPA
concludes
that
all
of
these
alternative
options
(
Options
B,
C,
and
D)
are
either
not
available
or
not
economically
achievable.
EPA
rejected
Options
B,
C,
and
D
as:
(
1)
Greater
than
10%
of
existing
indirect
dischargers
not
covered
by
part
433
close
at
the
upgrade
option;
or
(
2)
toxic
removals
of
the
upgrade
options
are
quite
expensive
(
costeffectiveness
values
(
in
1981$)
in
excess
of
$
420/
PE),
suggesting
that
these
options
are
not
truly
available
technologies
for
this
industry
segment.
EPA
consequently
determined
that
none
of
the
treatment
options
represented
best
available
technology
economically
achievable.
Therefore,
EPA
is
not
revising
or
establishing
PSES
for
existing
indirect
dischargers
in
the
General
Metals
subcategory
(
Option
A).
Wastewater
discharges
to
POTWs
from
facilities
in
this
subcategory
will
remain
regulated
by
local
limits,
general
pretreatment
standards
(
part
403),
and
parts
413
and/
or
433,
as
applicable.
EPA
also
notes
that
facilities
regulated
by
parts
413
and/
or
433
PSES
must
comply
with
part
433
PSNS
if
the
changes
to
their
facilities
are
determined
to
make
them
new
sources.

6.
Pretreatment
Standards
for
New
Sources
(
PSNS)

In
2001,
EPA
proposed
pretreatment
standards
for
new
sources
based
on
the
Option
4
technology
basis.
Option
4
technology
is
similar
to
Option
2
(
including
Option
2
flow
control
and
pollution
prevention)
but
includes
oils
removal
using
ultrafiltration
and
solids
separation
by
a
microfilter
(
instead
of
a
clarifier).
As
explained
in
section
VI.
A.
4,
EPA
concluded
its
database
is
insufficient
to
support
a
determination
that
the
Option
4
standards
are
technically
achievable.
As
a
result,
for
the
final
rule
EPA
considered
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00019
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25704
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
establishing
PSNS
in
the
General
Metals
subcategory
based
on
the
Option
2
technology
(
i.
e.,
the
same
technology
basis
that
was
considered
for
BPT/
BCT/
BAT
for
this
subcategory)
along
with
the
same
``
low­
flow''
exemption
of
1
MGY
considered
for
existing
sources.
For
today's
final
rule
EPA
evaluated
setting
General
Metals
PSNS
based
on
the
Option
2
technology
and
assessed
the
financial
burden
to
new
General
Metals
indirect
dischargers.
Specifically,
EPA's
``
barrier
to
entry''
analysis
identified
whether
General
Metals
PSNS
based
on
the
Option
2
technology
would
pose
sufficient
financial
burden
on
new
General
Metals
facilities
to
constitute
a
material
barrier
to
entry
into
the
MP&
M
point
source
category.
EPA
projects
a
barrier
to
entry
for
General
Metals
PSNS
based
on
the
Option
2
technology
as
14%
of
General
Metals
indirect
dischargers
have
aftertax
compliance
costs
between
1
to
3%
of
revenue
and
20%
have
after­
tax
compliance
costs
between
3
to
5%
of
revenue.
Consequently,
EPA
is
today
rejecting
Option
2
technology
as
the
basis
for
PSNS
in
the
General
Metals
subcategory.
EPA
has
selected
``
no
further
regulation''
for
new
General
Metals
indirect
dischargers
and
is
not
revising
PSNS
for
new
General
Metals
indirect
dischargers.
Wastewater
discharges
to
POTWs
from
facilities
in
this
subcategory
will
remain
regulated
by
local
limits,
general
pretreatment
standards
(
part
403),
and
part
433,
as
applicable.
See
section
11
of
the
TDD
for
a
description
of
how
these
new
source
compliance
costs
were
developed
and
Chapter
9
of
the
EEBA
for
a
description
of
the
framework
EPA
used
for
the
barrier
to
entry
analysis
and
general
discussion
of
the
results.

B.
Metal
Finishing
Job
Shops
Subcategory
EPA
is
not
revising
any
limitations
or
standards
for
facilities
that
would
have
been
subject
to
this
subcategory.
Such
facilities
will
continue
to
be
regulated
by
the
General
Pretreatment
Standards
(
part
403),
local
limits,
permit
limits,
and
parts
413
and/
or
433,
as
applicable.

1.
BPT/
BCT/
BAT
EPA
proposed
to
establish
BPT/
BCT/
BAT
for
existing
direct
dischargers
in
the
MFJS
subcategory
based
on
the
Option
2
technology
(
see
section
VI.
A
for
a
description
of
Option
2).
EPA
evaluated
the
cost
of
effluent
reductions,
pollutant
reductions,
and
the
economic
achievability
of
compliance
with
BPT/
BCT/
BAT
limitations
based
on
the
Option
2
technology.
Based
on
the
revisions
and
corrections
to
the
EPA
Cost
&
Loadings
Model
discussed
in
the
NODA
and
in
section
IV.
B.
1
of
today's
final
rule,
EPA
determined
that
the
compliance
costs
of
the
Option
2
technology
are
not
economically
achievable.
EPA
estimates
that
compliance
with
BPT/
BCT/
BAT
limitations
based
on
the
Option
2
technology
will
result
in
the
closure
of
50%
of
the
existing
direct
dischargers
in
this
subcategory
(
12
of
24
existing
MFJS
direct
dischargers).
Consequently,
EPA
concludes
that
for
existing
direct
dischargers
in
the
MFJS
subcategory,
Option
2
is
not
the
best
practicable
control
technology,
best
conventional
pollutant
control
technology,
or
best
available
technology
economically
achievable.
EPA
has
decided
not
to
establish
new
BPT,
BCT,
or
BAT
limitations
for
existing
MFJS
direct
dischargers
based
on
the
Option
2
technology,
which
will
remain
subject
to
part
433.

2.
New
Source
Performance
Standards
(
NSPS)
EPA
proposed
to
establish
NSPS
for
new
direct
dischargers
in
the
MFJS
subcategory
based
on
the
Option
4
technology.
Option
4
technology
is
similar
to
Option
2
(
including
Option
2
flow
control
and
pollution
prevention)
but
includes
oils
removal
using
ultrafiltration
and
solids
separation
by
a
microfilter
(
instead
of
a
clarifier).
As
explained
in
section
VI.
A.
4,
EPA
concluded
its
database
is
insufficient
to
support
a
determination
that
the
Option
4
standards
are
technically
achievable.
Consequently,
EPA
rejected
Option
4
technology
as
the
basis
for
NSPS
in
the
MFJS
subcategory.
For
today's
final
rule
EPA
evaluated
setting
MFJS
NSPS
based
on
the
Option
2
technology
and
assessed
the
financial
burden
to
new
MFJS
direct
dischargers.
Specifically,
EPA's
``
barrier
to
entry''
analysis
identified
whether
MFJS
NSPS
based
on
the
Option
2
technology
would
pose
sufficient
financial
burden
so
as
to
constitute
a
material
barrier
to
entry
into
the
MP&
M
point
source
category.
Additionally,
EPA
reviewed
its
database
for
establishing
MFJS
NSPS
based
on
the
Option
2
technology
as
commentors
indicated
the
proposed
standards
were
not
technically
achievable.
In
response
to
these
comments,
EPA
reviewed
all
the
information
currently
available
on
MFJS
facilities
employing
the
Option
2
technology
basis.
This
review
demonstrated
that
process
wastewaters
at
MFJS
facilities
contain
a
wide
variety
of
metals
in
significant
concentrations.
Commentors
stated
that
single
stage
precipitation
and
solids
separation
may
not
achieve
sufficient
removals
for
wastewaters
that
contain
significant
concentrations
of
a
wide
variety
of
metals
 
especially
if
the
metals
preferentially
precipitate
at
disparate
pH
ranges.
Consequently,
to
address
concerns
raised
by
commentors,
EPA
also
costed
new
sources
to
operate
two
separate
chemical
precipitation
and
solids
separation
steps
in
series.
Twostage
chemical
precipitation
and
solids
separation
allows
MFJS
facilities
with
multiple
metals
to
control
metal
discharges
to
concentrations
lower
than
single­
stage
chemical
precipitation
and
solids
separation
over
a
wider
pH
range.
Applying
this
revised
costing
approach,
EPA
projects
a
barrier
to
entry
for
MFJS
NSPS
based
on
the
Option
2
technology
as
all
MFJS
direct
dischargers
have
new
source
compliance
costs
that
are
greater
than
5%
of
revenue.
Consequently,
EPA
is
today
rejecting
Option
2
technology
as
the
basis
for
NSPS
in
the
MFJS
subcategory,
and
is
not
revising
NSPS
for
new
MFJS
direct
dischargers.
Wastewater
discharges
from
these
facilities
in
this
subcategory
will
remain
regulated
by
local
limits
and
part
433
NSPS
as
applicable.
See
section
11
of
the
TDD
for
a
description
of
how
these
new
source
compliance
costs
were
developed
and
Chapter
9
of
the
EEBA
for
a
description
of
the
framework
EPA
used
for
the
barrier
to
entry
analysis
and
general
discussion
of
the
results.

3.
Pretreatment
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
(
PSES)
EPA
proposed
to
establish
PSES
for
existing
indirect
dischargers
in
the
MFJS
subcategory
based
on
the
Option
2
technology.
Based
on
the
revisions
and
corrections
to
the
EPA
Cost
&
Loadings
Model
discussed
in
the
NODA
and
in
section
IV.
B.
1
of
today's
final
rule,
EPA
determined
that
the
costs
of
Option
2
are
not
economically
achievable
for
existing
indirect
dischargers
in
the
MFJS
subcategory.
EPA
estimates
that
compliance
with
PSES
based
on
the
Option
2
technology
will
result
in
the
closure
of
46%
of
the
existing
indirect
dischargers
in
this
subcategory
(
589
of
1,270
existing
MFJS
indirect
dischargers),
which
EPA
considers
to
be
too
high.
EPA
has
determined
that
Option
2
technology
is
not
the
best
available
technology
economically
achievable
for
existing
indirect
dischargers
in
the
MFJS
subcategory.
Therefore,
EPA
is
not
establishing
PSES
for
this
subcategory
based
on
the
Option
2
technology.
As
discussed
in
the
January
2001
proposal
(
see
66
FR
551)
and
June
2002
NODA
(
see
67
FR
38801),
EPA
also
considered
a
number
of
alternative
options
whose
economic
impacts
would
be
less
costly
than
Option
2
technology.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00020
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25705
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
These
options
potentially
have
compliance
costs
more
closely
aligned
with
toxic
pollutant
reductions.
EPA
considered
the
following
alternative
options
for
today's
final
rule:
Option
A:
No
change
in
current
regulation;
Option
B:
Option
2
with
a
low­
flow
exclusion;
and
Option
C:
Upgrading
facilities
currently
covered
by
part
413
to
the
PSES
of
part
433.
Option
D:
Pollution
Prevention
Option.
All
facilities
in
the
MFJS
subcategory
are
currently
subject
to
part
413,
part
433
or
both.
As
discussed
in
section
IV.
B.
1
of
today's
final
rule,
based
on
comments,
EPA
has
revised
its
methodology
for
estimating
compliance
costs
and
pollutant
loadings
for
Option
2,
lowflow
exclusions
(
Option
B),
and
the
``
upgrade''
option
(
Option
C)
previously
described.
Using
information
from
this
revised
analysis,
EPA
concludes
that
neither
of
these
alternative
options
(
Options
B
or
C)
are
economically
achievable.
EPA
rejected
Options
B
and
C
as
greater
than
10%
of
existing
indirect
dischargers
not
covered
by
part
433
close
at
the
upgrade
option.
EPA
also
solicited
comment
in
the
January
2001
proposal
on
a
pollution
prevention
alternative
for
indirect
dischargers
in
this
subcategory
(
Option
D).
Commentors
supported
option
D
and
stated
that
the
pollution
prevention
practices
identified
by
EPA
in
the
January
2001
proposal
represent
environmentally
sound
practices
for
the
metal
finishing
industry.
The
commentors
also
stated
that
Option
D
should,
however,
be
implemented
on
a
voluntary
basis
similar
to
the
National
Metal
Finishing
Strategic
Goals
Program
(
see
66
FR
511).
Control
authorities
also
commented
that
Option
D
may
increase
their
administrative
burden
because
of
additional
review
of
facility
operations
and
compliance
with
the
approved
pollution
prevention
plan,
and
enforcement
of
Option
D
may
be
more
difficult
than
other
options
considered.
EPA
is
not
promulgating
Option
D
for
facilities
in
the
MFJS
subcategory
for
the
final
rule
due
to
the
increased
administrative
burden
on
pretreatment
control
authorities
and
potential
problems
enforcing
Option
D.
Section
15
of
the
TDD
describes
many
of
the
pollution
prevention
practices
that
were
considered
for
Option
D.
These
pollution
prevention
practices
may
be
useful
in
helping
facilities
lower
operating
costs,
improve
environmental
performance,
and
foster
other
important
benefits.
EPA
is
not
establishing
PSES
for
existing
indirect
dischargers
in
the
MFJS
subcategory.
Wastewater
discharges
to
POTWs
from
facilities
in
this
subcategory
will
remain
regulated
by
general
pretreatment
standards
(
part
403),
and
parts
413
and/
or
433,
as
applicable.
EPA
also
notes
that
facilities
regulated
by
parts
413
and/
or
433
PSES
must
comply
with
part
433
PSNS
if
the
changes
to
their
facilities
are
determined
to
make
them
new
sources.

4.
Pretreatment
Standards
for
New
Sources
(
PSNS)
EPA
proposed
to
establish
PSNS
for
indirect
dischargers
in
the
MFJS
subcategory
based
on
the
Option
4
technology.
Option
4
technology
is
similar
to
Option
2
(
including
Option
2
flow
control
and
pollution
prevention)
but
includes
oils
removal
using
ultrafiltration
and
solids
separation
by
a
microfilter
(
instead
of
a
clarifier).
As
explained
in
section
VI.
A.
4,
EPA
concluded
its
database
is
insufficient
to
support
a
determination
that
the
Option
4
standards
are
technically
achievable.
Consequently,
EPA
is
today
rejecting
Option
4
technology
as
the
basis
for
PSNS
in
the
MFJS
subcategory.
For
today's
final
rule
EPA
evaluated
setting
MFJS
PSNS
based
on
the
Option
2
technology
and
assessed
the
financial
burden
to
new
MFJS
indirect
dischargers.
Specifically,
EPA's
`
barrier
to
entry'
analysis
identified
whether
MFJS
PSNS
based
on
the
Option
2
technology
would
pose
sufficient
financial
burden
on
new
MFJS
facilities
to
constitute
a
material
barrier
to
entry
into
the
MP&
M
point
source
category.
EPA
projects
a
barrier
to
entry
for
MFJS
PSNS
based
on
the
Option
2
technology
as
8%
of
MFJS
indirect
dischargers
have
after­
tax
compliance
costs
between
1
 
3%
of
revenue,
5%
have
after­
tax
compliance
costs
between
3
 
5%
of
revenue,
and
6%
have
after­
tax
compliance
costs
greater
than
5%
of
revenue.
Consequently,
EPA
is
today
rejecting
Option
2
technology
as
the
basis
for
PSNS
in
the
MFJS
subcategory,
and
is
not
revising
PSNS
for
new
MFJS
indirect
dischargers.
Wastewater
discharges
to
POTWs
from
facilities
in
this
subcategory
will
remain
regulated
by
local
limits,
general
pretreatment
standards
(
part
403),
and
part
433,
as
applicable.
See
section
11
of
the
TDD
for
a
description
of
how
these
new
source
compliance
costs
were
developed
and
Chapter
9
of
the
EEBA
for
a
description
of
the
framework
EPA
used
for
the
barrier
to
entry
analysis
and
general
discussion
of
the
results.

C.
Printed
Wiring
Board
Subcategory
EPA
is
not
revising
any
limitations
or
standards
for
facilities
that
would
have
been
subject
to
this
subcategory.
Such
facilities
will
continue
to
be
regulated
by
the
General
Pretreatment
Standards
(
part
403),
local
limits,
permit
limits,
and
parts
413
and/
or
433,
as
applicable.

1.
BPT/
BCT/
BAT
EPA
proposed
to
establish
BPT/
BCT/
BAT
for
direct
dischargers
in
the
PWB
subcategory
based
on
the
Option
2
technology
(
see
section
VI.
A
for
a
description
of
Option
2).
EPA
evaluated
the
cost
of
effluent
reductions,
pollutant
reductions,
and
the
economic
achievability
of
compliance
with
BPT/
BCT/
BAT
limitations
based
on
the
Option
2
technology.
Based
on
revisions
and
corrections
to
the
EPA
Cost
&
Loadings
Model
discussed
in
the
NODA
and
in
section
IV.
B.
1
of
today's
final
rule,
EPA
has
concluded
that
revision
of
the
national
regulation
is
not
warranted
for
this
subcategory.
Based
on
MP&
M
survey
information,
EPA
estimates
that
compliance
with
BPT/
BCT/
BAT
limitations
based
on
the
Option
2
technology
results
in
no
closures
of
the
existing
eight
direct
dischargers
in
the
PWB
subcategory.
However,
EPA
decided
not
to
establish
BPT/
BAT
limitations
based
on
the
Option
2
technology
for
the
PWB
subcategory
for
the
following
reasons:
(
1)
EPA
identified
only
eight
existing
PWB
direct
dischargers
and
all
of
these
PWB
direct
dischargers
are
currently
regulated
by
existing
effluent
guidelines
(
part
433);
and
(
2)
the
costs
of
Option
2
are
disproportionate
to
the
estimated
toxic
pollutant
reductions.
EPA
estimates
compliance
cost
of
$
0.3
million
(
2001$)
with
only
186
toxic
pound­
equivalents
(
PE)
being
removed.
This
equates
to
a
cost­
effectiveness
value
(
in
1981$)
of
approximately
$
900/
PE.
EPA
concludes
that
for
existing
direct
dischargers
in
the
PWB
subcategory,
Option
2
is
not
the
best
practicable
control
technology,
best
conventional
pollutant
control
technology,
or
best
available
technology
economically
achievable.
EPA
has
decided
not
to
establish
new
BPT,
BCT,
or
BAT
limitations
for
existing
PWB
direct
dischargers
based
on
the
Option
2
technology,
which
will
remain
subject
to
part
433.

2.
New
Source
Performance
Standards
(
NSPS)
EPA
proposed
to
establish
NSPS
for
new
direct
dischargers
in
the
PWB
subcategory
based
on
the
Option
4
technology.
Option
4
technology
is
similar
to
Option
2
(
including
Option
2
flow
control
and
pollution
prevention)
but
includes
oils
removal
using
ultrafiltration
and
solids
separation
by
a
microfilter
(
instead
of
a
clarifier).
As
explained
in
section
VI.
A.
4,
EPA
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00021
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25706
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
concluded
its
database
is
insufficient
to
support
a
determination
that
the
Option
4
standards
are
technically
achievable.
Consequently,
EPA
is
today
rejecting
Option
4
technology
as
the
basis
for
NSPS
in
the
PWB
subcategory.
For
today's
final
rule
EPA
evaluated
setting
PWB
NSPS
based
on
the
Option
2
technology.
EPA
reviewed
its
database
for
establishing
PWB
NSPS
based
on
the
Option
2
technology
as
commentors
indicated
the
proposed
standards
were
not
technically
achievable.
In
response
to
these
comments,
EPA
reviewed
all
the
information
currently
available
on
PWB
facilities
employing
the
Option
2
technology
basis.
EPA
now
concludes
that
the
PWBs
Option
2
database
can
only
be
used
to
establish
limitations
for
copper,
nickel,
and
tin.
In
order
to
assess
the
difference
between
current
NSPS
requirements
(
from
part
433)
for
PWB
facilities
and
those
under
consideration
here,
EPA
estimated
the
incremental
quantities
of
copper,
nickel,
and
tin
that
would
be
reduced
if
a
new
PWB
facility
were
required
to
meet
NSPS
based
on
the
Option
2
technology
rather
than
NSPS
based
on
433.
EPA
analysis
shows
minimal
amounts
of
pollutant
reductions
based
on
more
stringent
requirements
on
copper,
nickel,
and
tin.
Consequently,
EPA
is
today
rejecting
Option
2
technology
as
the
basis
for
NSPS
in
the
PWB
subcategory
based
on
the
small
incremental
quantity
of
toxic
pollutants
that
would
be
reduced
in
relation
to
existing
requirements.
EPA
is
not
establishing
NSPS
for
new
PWB
direct
dischargers
and
is
not
revising
existing
NSPS
for
new
PWB
direct
dischargers.
Wastewater
discharges
from
these
facilities
in
this
subcategory
will
remain
regulated
by
permit
limits
and
part
433
as
applicable.
See
section
11
of
the
TDD
for
a
description
of
how
these
new
source
compliance
costs
were
developed
and
Chapter
9
of
the
EEBA
for
a
description
of
the
framework
EPA
used
for
the
barrier
to
entry
analysis
and
general
discussion
of
the
results.

3.
Pretreatment
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
(
PSES)
EPA
proposed
to
establish
PSES
for
existing
indirect
dischargers
in
the
PWB
subcategory
based
on
the
Option
2
technology.
Based
on
the
revisions
and
corrections
to
the
EPA
Cost
&
Loadings
Model
discussed
in
the
NODA
and
in
section
IV.
B.
1
of
today's
final
rule,
EPA
rejected
promulgating
PSES
for
existing
indirect
dischargers
in
the
PWB
subcategory
based
on
the
Option
2
technology
for
the
following
reasons:
(
1)
All
PWB
indirect
dischargers
are
currently
regulated
by
existing
effluent
guidelines
(
parts
413
or
433
or
both,
as
applicable);
(
2)
EPA
estimates
that
compliance
with
PSES
based
on
the
Option
2
technology
will
result
in
the
closure
of
6.5%
of
the
existing
indirect
dischargers
in
this
subcategory
(
55
of
840
existing
PWB
indirect
dischargers);
and
(
3)
EPA
determined
that
the
toxic
pollutant
reductions
are
very
expensive
per
pound
removed
(
the
costeffectiveness
value
(
in
1981$)
is
$
455/
PE).
EPA
has
determined
that
Option
2
technology
is
not
the
best
available
technology
economically
achievable
for
existing
indirect
dischargers
in
the
PWB
subcategory,
therefore
is
not
establishing
PWB
PSES
based
on
the
Option
2
technology.
As
discussed
in
the
June
2002
NODA
(
see
67
FR
38802),
EPA
also
considered
a
number
of
alternative
options
whose
economic
impacts
would
be
less
costly
than
Option
2
technology.
These
options
potentially
have
compliance
costs
more
closely
aligned
with
toxic
pollutant
reductions.
EPA
considered
the
following
alternative
options
for
today's
final
rule:

Option
A:
No
change
in
current
regulation;
Option
B:
Option
2
with
a
higher
lowflow
exclusion;
and
Option
C:
Upgrading
facilities
currently
covered
by
part
413
to
the
PSES
of
part
433
EPA
notes
that
all
facilities
in
the
PWB
subcategory
are
currently
subject
to
part
413,
part
433
or
both.
As
discussed
in
section
IV.
B.
1
of
today's
final
rule,
based
on
comments,
EPA
has
revised
its
methodology
for
estimating
compliance
costs
and
pollutant
loadings
for
Option
2,
higher
low­
flow
exclusions
(
Option
B);
and
the
``
upgrade''
option
(
Options
C)
previously
described.
Using
information
from
this
revised
analysis,
EPA
rejected
Options
B
and
C
as:
(
1)
Greater
than
10%
of
existing
indirect
dischargers
not
covered
by
part
433
close
at
the
upgrade
option;
or
(
2)
the
incremental
compliance
costs
of
the
upgrade
options
were
too
great
in
terms
of
toxic
removals
(
cost­
effectiveness
values
(
in
1981$)
in
excess
of
$
833/
PE).
Therefore
EPA
is
not
revising
PSES
for
existing
indirect
dischargers
in
the
PWB
subcategory.
Wastewater
discharges
to
POTWs
from
facilities
in
this
subcategory
will
remain
regulated
by
general
pretreatment
standards
(
part
403)
and
parts
413
and/
or
433,
as
applicable.
EPA
also
notes
that
facilities
regulated
by
parts
413
and/
or
433
PSES
must
comply
with
part
433
PSNS
if
the
changes
to
their
facilities
are
determined
to
make
them
new
sources.
4.
Pretreatment
Standards
for
New
Sources
(
PSNS)
EPA
proposed
to
establish
PSNS
for
indirect
dischargers
in
the
PWB
subcategory
based
on
the
Option
4
technology.
Option
4
technology
is
similar
to
Option
2
(
including
Option
2
flow
control
and
pollution
prevention)
but
includes
oils
removal
using
ultrafiltration
and
solids
separation
by
a
microfilter
(
instead
of
a
clarifier).
As
explained
in
section
VI.
A.
4,
EPA
concluded
its
database
is
insufficient
to
support
a
determination
that
the
Option
4
standards
are
technically
achievable.
Consequently,
EPA
is
today
rejecting
Option
4
technology
as
the
basis
for
PSNS
in
the
PWB
subcategory.
For
today's
final
rule
EPA
evaluated
setting
PWB
PSNS
based
on
the
Option
2
technology
and
assessed
the
financial
burden
to
new
PWB
indirect
dischargers.
Specifically,
EPA's
`
barrier
to
entry'
analysis
identified
whether
PWB
PSNS
based
on
the
Option
2
technology
would
pose
sufficient
financial
burden
on
new
PWB
facilities
to
constitute
a
material
barrier
to
entry
into
the
MP&
M
point
source
category.
EPA
projects
a
barrier
to
entry
for
PWB
PSNS
based
on
the
Option
2
technology
as
3%
of
PWB
indirect
dischargers
have
after­
tax
compliance
costs
between
1
to
3%
of
revenue
and
4%
have
after­
tax
compliance
costs
greater
than
5%
of
revenue.
Consequently,
EPA
is
today
rejecting
Option
2
technology
as
the
basis
for
PSNS
in
the
PWB
subcategory.
EPA
has
selected
``
no
further
regulation''
for
new
PWB
indirect
dischargers
and
is
not
revising
PSNS
for
new
PWB
indirect
dischargers.
Wastewater
discharges
to
POTWs
from
facilities
in
this
subcategory
will
remain
regulated
by
local
limits,
general
pretreatment
standards
(
part
403),
and
part
433,
as
applicable.
See
section
11
of
the
TDD
for
a
description
of
how
these
new
source
compliance
costs
were
developed
and
Chapter
9
of
the
EEBA
for
a
description
of
the
framework
EPA
used
for
the
barrier
to
entry
analysis
and
general
discussion
of
the
results.

D.
Non­
Chromium
Anodizing
Subcategory
EPA
is
not
revising
limitations
or
standards
for
any
facilities
that
would
have
been
subject
to
this
subcategory.
Such
facilities
will
continue
to
be
regulated
by
the
General
Pretreatment
Standards
(
part
403),
local
limits,
permit
limits,
and
parts
413
and/
or
433,
as
applicable.

1.
BPT/
BCT/
BAT
As
previously
discussed,
after
publication
of
the
June
2002
NODA
EPA
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00022
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25707
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
conducted
another
review
of
all
NCA
facilities
in
the
MP&
M
questionnaire
database
to
determine
the
destination
of
discharged
wastewater
(
i.
e.,
either
directly
to
surface
waters
or
indirectly
to
POTWs
or
both)
and
the
applicability
of
the
final
rule
to
discharged
wastewaters.
As
a
result
of
this
review,
EPA
did
not
identify
any
NCA
direct
discharging
facilities
or
NCA
facilities
that
do
not
discharge
wastewater
(
i.
e.,
zero
discharge
or
contract
haulers)
or
do
not
use
process
water
(
dry
facilities)
in
its
rulemaking
record.
All
of
the
NCA
facilities
in
EPA's
database
are
indirect
dischargers.
Therefore,
EPA
cannot
evaluate
treatment
systems
at
direct
dischargers.
As
a
result,
EPA
transferred
cost
and
pollutant
loading
data
from
the
best
performing
indirect
facilities
in
order
to
evaluate
direct
discharging
limitations
in
this
subcategory.
In
2001,
EPA
proposed
to
establish
BPT/
BCT/
BAT
limitations
for
direct
dischargers
in
the
NCA
subcategory
based
on
the
Option
2
technology.
EPA
evaluated
the
cost
of
effluent
reductions,
quantity
of
pollutant
reductions,
and
the
economic
achievability
of
compliance
with
BPT/
BCT/
BAT
limitations
based
on
the
Option
2
technology.
Based
on
the
revisions
and
corrections
to
the
EPA
Cost
&
Loadings
Model
discussed
in
the
NODA
and
in
section
IV.
B.
1
of
today's
final
rule,
the
costs
of
the
Option
2
technology
were
disproportionate
to
the
projected
toxic
pollutants
reductions
(
cost­
effectiveness
values
(
in
1981$)
in
excess
of
$
1,925/
PE).
EPA
decided
not
to
establish
BPT/
BCT/
BAT
limitations
based
on
the
Option
2
technology
for
the
NCA
subcategory
for
following
reasons:
(
1)
EPA
identified
no
NCA
direct
dischargers;
and
(
2)
the
costs
of
Option
2
are
disproportionate
to
the
estimated
toxic
pollutant
reductions
(
i.
e.,
$
1,925/
PE).
EPA
concludes
that
for
existing
direct
dischargers
in
the
NCA
subcategory,
Option
2
is
not
the
best
practicable
control
technology,
best
conventional
pollutant
control
technology,
or
best
available
technology
economically
achievable.
EPA
has
decided
not
to
establish
new
BPT,
BCT,
or
BAT
limitations
for
existing
NCA
direct
dischargers
based
on
the
Option
2
technology.
EPA
identified
no
NCA
direct
dischargers
through
its
survey
efforts.
However,
if
such
facilities
do
exist,
they
would
be
subject
to
part
433.

2.
New
Source
Performance
Standards
(
NSPS)
EPA
proposed
to
establish
NSPS
for
direct
dischargers
in
the
NCA
subcategory
based
on
the
Option
2
technology.
For
today's
final
rule
EPA
evaluated
setting
NCA
NSPS
based
on
the
Option
2
technology
and
assessed
the
financial
burden
to
new
NCA
direct
dischargers.
Specifically,
EPA's
`
barrier
to
entry'
analysis
identified
whether
NCA
NSPS
based
on
the
Option
2
technology
would
pose
sufficient
financial
burden
on
new
NCA
facilities
to
constitute
a
material
barrier
to
entry
into
the
MP&
M
point
source
category.
EPA
projects
a
barrier
to
entry
for
NCA
NSPS
based
on
the
Option
2
technology
as
approximately
26%
of
NCA
direct
dischargers
have
new
source
compliance
costs
that
are
between
3%
and
5%
of
revenue.
Consequently,
EPA
is
today
rejecting
Option
2
technology
as
the
basis
for
NSPS
in
the
NCA
subcategory.
EPA
has
selected
``
no
further
regulation''
for
new
NCA
direct
dischargers
and
is
not
revising
NSPS
for
new
NCA
direct
dischargers,
which
will
remain
subject
to
part
433.
See
section
11
of
the
TDD
for
a
description
of
how
these
new
source
compliance
costs
were
developed
and
Chapter
9
of
the
EEBA
for
a
description
of
the
framework
EPA
used
for
the
barrier
to
entry
analysis
and
general
discussion
of
the
results.

3.
Pretreatment
Standards
for
Existing
and
New
Sources
(
PSES/
PSNS)

EPA
proposed
``
no
further
regulation''
for
existing
and
new
indirect
dischargers
in
the
NCA
subcategory.
EPA
based
this
decision
on
the
economic
impacts
to
indirect
dischargers
associated
with
Option
2
and
the
small
quantity
of
toxic
pollutants
discharged
by
facilities
in
this
subcategory,
even
after
a
economically­
achievable
flow
cutoff
is
applied
(
see
66
FR
467).
For
the
reasons
set
out
in
the
2001
proposal,
EPA
has
decided
not
to
establish
new
regulations
and
is
not
establishing
PSES
or
PSNS
in
the
NCA
subcategory.
These
facilities
remain
subject
to
parts
413
or
433,
or
both,
as
applicable.
EPA
also
notes
that
facilities
regulated
by
parts
413
and/
or
433
PSES
must
comply
with
part
433
PSNS
if
the
changes
to
their
facilities
are
determined
to
make
them
new
sources.

E.
Steel
Forming
&
Finishing
Subcategory
EPA
is
not
revising
limitations
or
standards
for
any
facilities
that
would
have
been
subject
to
this
subcategory.
Such
facilities
will
continue
to
be
regulated
by
the
General
Pretreatment
Standards
(
part
403),
local
limits,
permit
limits,
and
Iron
&
Steel
effluent
limitations
guidelines
(
part
420)
as
applicable.
1.
BPT/
BCT/
BAT
EPA
proposed
to
establish
BPT/
BCT/
BAT
for
existing
direct
dischargers
in
the
SFF
subcategory
in
this
part
(
40
CFR
part
438)
based
on
the
Option
2
technology
(
see
section
VI.
A
for
a
description
of
Option
2).
For
the
final
rule,
EPA
evaluated
the
cost
of
effluent
reductions,
pollutant
reductions,
and
the
economic
achievability
of
compliance
with
BPT/
BCT/
BAT
limitations
based
on
the
Option
2
technology.
Based
on
the
revisions
and
corrections
to
the
EPA
Cost
&
Loadings
Model
discussed
in
the
NODA
and
in
section
IV.
B.
1
of
today's
final
rule,
EPA
determined
that
the
compliance
costs
of
Option
2
are
not
economically
achievable.
EPA
estimates
that
compliance
with
BPT/
BCT/
BAT
limitations
based
on
the
Option
2
technology
will
result
in
the
closure
of
17%
of
the
existing
direct
dischargers
in
this
subcategory
(
7
of
41
existing
SFF
direct
dischargers).
EPA
concludes
that
for
existing
direct
dischargers
in
the
SFF
subcategory,
Option
2
is
not
the
best
practicable
control
technology,
best
conventional
pollutant
control
technology,
or
best
available
technology
economically
achievable,
and
therefore,
EPA
is
not
establishing
new
BPT,
BCT,
or
BAT
limitations
for
existing
SFF
direct
dischargers
based
on
the
Option
2
technology.
These
facilities
will
remain
subject
to
part
420.

2.
New
Source
Performance
Standards
(
NSPS)

EPA
proposed
to
establish
NSPS
for
new
direct
dischargers
in
the
SFF
subcategory
based
on
the
Option
4
technology.
Option
4
technology
is
similar
to
Option
2
(
including
Option
2
flow
control
and
pollution
prevention)
but
includes
oils
removal
using
ultrafiltration
and
solids
separation
by
a
microfilter
(
instead
of
a
clarifier).
As
explained
in
section
VI.
A.
4,
EPA
concluded
its
database
is
insufficient
to
support
a
determination
that
the
Option
4
standards
are
technically
achievable.
Consequently,
EPA
is
today
rejecting
Option
4
technology
as
the
basis
for
NSPS
in
the
SFF
subcategory.
EPA
has
selected
``
no
further
regulation''
for
new
SFF
direct
dischargers
and
is
not
revising
NSPS
for
new
SFF
direct
dischargers,
which
will
remain
subject
to
part
420.

3.
Pretreatment
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
(
PSES)

EPA
proposed
to
establish
PSES
for
existing
indirect
dischargers
in
the
SFF
subcategory
based
on
the
Option
2
technology.
Based
on
the
revisions
and
corrections
to
the
EPA
Cost
&
Loadings
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00023
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25708
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
Model
discussed
in
the
NODA
and
in
section
IV.
B.
1
of
today's
final
rule,
EPA
estimates
that
compliance
with
PSES
based
on
the
Option
2
technology
will
result
in
the
closure
of
9%
of
the
existing
indirect
dischargers
in
this
subcategory
(
10
of
112
existing
SFF
indirect
dischargers).
Option
2
technology
is
not
economically
achievable.
EPA
has
determined
that
Option
2
technology
is
not
the
best
available
technology
economically
achievable
for
existing
indirect
dischargers
in
the
SFF
subcategory,
and
therefore
EPA
is
not
revising
PSES
for
this
subcategory
based
on
the
Option
2
technology.
Wastewater
discharges
to
POTWs
from
these
facilities
will
remain
regulated
by
general
pretreatment
standards
(
part
403)
and
part
420.

4.
Pretreatment
Standards
for
New
Sources
(
PSNS)
EPA
proposed
to
establish
PSNS
for
indirect
dischargers
in
the
SFF
subcategory
based
on
the
Option
4
technology.
Option
4
technology
is
similar
to
Option
2
(
including
Option
2
flow
control
and
pollution
prevention)
but
includes
oils
removal
using
ultrafiltration
and
solids
separation
by
a
microfilter
(
instead
of
a
clarifier).
As
explained
in
section
VI.
A.
4,
EPA
concluded
its
database
is
insufficient
to
support
a
determination
that
the
Option
4
standards
are
technically
achievable.
Consequently,
EPA
is
today
rejecting
Option
4
technology
as
the
basis
for
PSNS
in
the
SFF
subcategory.
EPA
has
selected
``
no
further
regulation''
for
new
SFF
indirect
dischargers
and
is
not
revising
PSNS
for
new
SFF
indirect
dischargers.
These
facilities
will
remain
subject
to
part
420.

F.
Oily
Wastes
Subcategory
EPA
is
promulgating
limitations
and
standards
for
existing
and
new
direct
dischargers
in
the
Oily
Wastes
subcategory
based
on
the
proposed
Option
6
technology
(
see
section
VI.
F.
1).
EPA
is
not
promulgating
pretreatment
standards
for
existing
or
new
indirect
dischargers
in
this
subcategory.

1.
Best
Practicable
Control
Technology
(
BPT)
EPA
is
establishing
BPT
pH
limitations
and
daily
maximum
limitations
for
two
pollutants,
oil
and
grease
as
hexane
extractable
material
(
O&
G
(
as
HEM))
and
total
suspended
solids
(
TSS),
for
direct
dischargers
in
the
Oily
Wastes
subcategory
based
on
the
proposed
technology
option
(
Option
6).
Option
6
technology
includes
the
following
treatment
measures:
(
1)
inprocess
flow
control
and
pollution
prevention;
and
(
2)
chemical
emulsion
breaking
followed
by
oil
water
separation
(
see
section
9
of
the
TDD
for
today's
final
rule
for
additional
details
on
the
Option
6
technology).
The
Agency
concluded
that
the
Option
6
treatment
technology
represents
the
best
practicable
control
technology
currently
available
and
should
be
the
basis
for
the
BPT
Oily
Wastes
limitations
for
the
following
reasons.
First,
this
technology
is
available
technology
readily
applicable
to
all
facilities
in
the
Oily
Wastes
subcategory.
Approximately
42%
of
the
direct
discharging
facilities
in
the
Oily
Wastes
subcategory
currently
employ
the
Option
6
technology.
Second,
the
cost
of
compliance
with
these
limitations
in
relation
to
the
effluent
reduction
benefits
is
not
wholly
disproportionate.
None
of
these
wastewater
discharges
are
currently
subject
to
national
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
the
final
rule
will
control
wastewater
discharges
from
a
significant
number
of
facilities
(
2,382
facilities).
EPA
estimates
that
compliance
with
BPT
limitations
based
on
Option
6
technology
will
result
in
no
closures
of
the
existing
direct
dischargers
in
the
Oily
Wastes
subcategory.
Moreover,
the
adoption
of
this
level
of
control
will
represent
a
significant
reduction
in
pollutants
discharged
into
the
environment
by
facilities
in
this
subcategory.
For
facilities
in
the
Oily
Wastes
subcategory
at
Option
6,
EPA
estimates
an
annual
compliance
cost
of
$
13.8
million
(
pre­
tax,
2001$)
and
480,325
pounds
of
conventional
pollutants
removed
from
current
discharges
into
the
Nation's
waters
at
a
cost
of
$
28.73/
pound­
pollutant
removed
(
2001$)
(
see
Table
VII
 
1).
EPA
has,
therefore,
determined
the
total
cost
of
effluent
reductions
employing
the
Option
6
technology
are
reasonable
in
relation
to
the
effluent
reduction
benefits.
(
In
estimating
the
pounds
of
pollutant
removed
by
implementing
Option
6
technology
for
direct
dischargers
in
the
Oily
Wastes
subcategory,
EPA
used
the
sum
of
O&
G
(
measured
as
HEM)
and
TSS
pounds
removed
to
avoid
any
significant
double
counting
of
pollutants).
The
2001
proposal
also
contains
detailed
discussions
explaining
why
EPA
rejected
BPT
limitations
based
on
other
BPT
technology
options
(
see
66
FR
457).
The
information
in
the
record
for
today's
final
rule
provides
no
basis
for
EPA
to
change
this
conclusion.
In
the
2001proposal,
in
addition
to
pH,
O&
G
(
as
HEM),
and
TSS,
EPA
also
proposed
to
regulate
sulfide.
In
today's
final
rule,
EPA
has
not
established
a
sulfide
limitation
because
it
may
serve
as
a
treatment
chemical
(
see
TDD).
EPA
also
proposed
three
alternatives
to
control
discharges
of
toxic
organics
in
MP&
M
process
wastewaters:
(
1)
Meet
a
numerical
limit
for
the
total
sum
of
a
list
of
specified
organic
pollutants
(
similar
to
the
Total
Toxic
Organic
(
TTO)
parameter
used
in
the
Metal
Finishing
Effluent
Limitations
Guidelines);
(
2)
meet
a
numerical
limit
for
Total
Organic
Carbon
(
TOC)
as
an
indicator
parameter;
or
(
3)
develop
and
certify
the
implementation
of
an
organic
chemicals
management
plan.
EPA
evaluated
the
analytical
wastewater
and
treatment
technology
data
from
OWS
facilities
and
concluded
it
should
not
establish
a
separate
indicator
parameter
or
control
mechanism
for
toxic
organics.
Optimizing
the
separation
of
oil
and
grease
from
wastewater
using
the
Option
6
technology
will
similarly
optimize
the
removal
of
toxic
organic
pollutants
amenable
to
this
treatment
technology.
Consequently,
EPA
is
effectively
controlling
toxic
organics
and
other
priority
and
non­
conventional
pollutant
discharges
in
OWS
process
wastewaters
by
regulating
O&
G
(
as
HEM).
In
its
analyses,
EPA
estimated
that
facilities
will
monitor
once
per
month
for
O&
G
(
as
HEM)
and
TSS.
EPA
expects
that
12
data
points
for
each
pollutant
per
year
will
yield
a
meaningful
basis
for
establishing
compliance
with
the
promulgated
limitations
through
longterm
trends
and
short­
term
variability
in
O&
G
(
as
HEM)
and
TSS
pollutant
discharge
loading
patterns.
Although
EPA
is
not
changing
the
technology
basis
from
that
proposed,
EPA
is
revising
all
of
the
proposed
Oily
Wastes
subcategory
BPT
limitations.
This
is
a
result
of
a
recalculation
of
the
limitations
after
EPA
revised
the
data
sets
used
to
calculate
the
promulgated
limitations
to
reflect
changes
including
corrections
and
additional
data
(
see
67
FR
38754).

2.
Best
Conventional
Pollutant
Control
Technology
(
BCT)
In
deciding
whether
to
adopt
more
stringent
limitations
for
BCT
than
BPT,
EPA
considered
whether
there
are
technologies
that
achieve
greater
removals
of
conventional
pollutants
than
adopted
for
BPT,
and
whether
those
technologies
are
cost­
reasonable
under
the
standards
established
by
the
CWA.
EPA
generally
refers
to
the
decision
criteria
as
the
``
BCT
cost
test.''
EPA
is
promulgating
effluent
limitations
for
conventional
parameters
(
e.
g.,
pH,
TSS,
O&
G)
equivalent
to
BPT
for
this
subcategory
because
it
identified
no
technologies
that
can
achieve
greater
removals
of
conventional
pollutants
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00024
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25709
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
than
the
selected
BPT
technology
basis
that
also
pass
the
BCT
cost
test.
EPA
evaluated
the
addition
of
ultrafiltration
technology
to
the
BPT
technology
basis
as
a
means
to
obtain
further
O&
G
reductions.
However,
this
technology
option
failed
the
BCT
cost
test.
For
a
more
detailed
description
of
the
BCT
cost
test
and
details
on
EPA's
analysis,
see
Chapter
4
of
the
EEBA.

3.
Best
Available
Technology
Economically
Achievable
(
BAT)
EPA
proposed
to
control
toxic
and
non­
conventional
pollutants
by
establishing
BAT
limitations
based
on
Option
6
technology.
EPA
has
now
decided
not
to
establish
BAT
toxic
and
non­
conventional
limitations
based
on
the
Option
6
technology.
As
described
in
section
VI.
F.
1,
the
BPT
technology
basis
is
readily
available,
and
the
limitations
are
cost
reasonable.
However
the
additional
costs
associated
with
compliance
with
Option
6­
generated
BAT
limitations
are
not
warranted.
EPA
has
determined
that
these
costs
 
primarily
monitoring
costs
 
are
not
warranted
in
view
of
the
small
quantity
of
additional
effluent
reduction
(
if
any)
the
BAT
limitations
would
produce.
As
explained
above,
EPA
has
determined
that,
the
BPT
limitation
on
O&
G
(
measured
as
HEM)
will
effectively
control
toxic
and
non­
conventional
discharges
in
OWS
process
wastewaters.
EPA
has
not
identified
any
more
stringent
economically­
achievable
treatment
technology
option
beyond
BPT
technology
(
Option
6)
which
it
considered
to
represent
BAT
level
of
control
applicable
to
Oily
Wastes
subcategory
facilities.
For
the
reasons
explained
above,
EPA
has
concluded
that
it
should
not
establish
BAT
limitations
for
specific
pollutant
parameters
for
Oily
Waste
operations.
EPA
notes
that
permit
writers
retain
the
authority
to
establish,
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
under
section
301(
b)(
1)(
C)
of
the
CWA,
toxic
effluent
limitations
that
are
necessary
to
meet
State
water
quality
standards.

4.
New
Source
Performance
Standards
(
NSPS)
EPA
is
promulgating
NSPS
that
would
control
pH
and
the
same
conventional
pollutants
controlled
at
the
BPT
and
BCT
levels.
The
selected
technology
basis
for
NSPS
for
this
subcategory
for
today's
final
rule
is
Option
6.
This
is
unchanged
from
the
proposal.
EPA
projects
no
barrier
to
entry
for
new
source
direct
dischargers
associated
with
Option
6
as:
(
1)
Option
6
technology
is
currently
used
at
existing
direct
dischargers
(
i.
e.,
Option
6
technology
is
technically
available);
and
(
2)
there
is
no
barrier
to
entry
for
new
sources.
EPA
evaluated
the
economic
impacts
for
existing
direct
dischargers
associated
with
compliance
with
limitations
based
on
Option
6
and
found
Option
6
to
be
economically
achievable
(
no
closures
projected).
EPA
expects
compliance
costs
to
be
lower
for
new
sources
as
new
sources
can
use
Option
6
technology
without
incurring
retrofitting
costs
(
as
is
required
for
some
existing
sources).
Additionally,
EPA
projects
no
barrier
to
entry
for
OWS
NSPS
based
on
the
Option
6
technology
as
approximately
97%
of
OWS
direct
dischargers
have
after­
tax
compliance
costs
less
than
1%
of
revenue
and
3%
have
after­
tax
compliance
costs
between
1
to
3%
of
revenue.
Consequently,
EPA
selected
Option
6
technology
as
the
basis
for
NSPS
in
the
OWS.
See
section
11
of
the
TDD
for
a
description
of
how
these
new
source
compliance
costs
were
developed
and
Chapter
9
of
the
EEBA
for
a
description
of
the
framework
EPA
used
for
the
barrier
to
entry
analysis
and
general
discussion
of
the
results.
In
addition,
EPA
also
evaluated
and
rejected
more
stringent
technology
options
for
OWS
NSPS
(
i.
e.,
Options
8
and
10).
EPA
reviewed
its
database
for
the
Option
8
and
10
technologies
and
found
that
the
database
for
Option
8
and
10
technologies
is
insufficient
(
i.
e.,
no
available
data)
or
the
costs
are
not
commensurate
with
the
pollutant
removals
(
see
66
FR
457).
Since
EPA's
database
did
not
contain
Option
10
treatability
data
from
oily
subcategory
facilities,
EPA
considered
transferring
limitations
for
Option
10
from
the
Shipbuilding
Dry
Docks
or
Railroad
Line
Maintenance
subcategories.
EPA
ultimately
rejected
this
approach,
however,
because
influent
wastewaters
in
the
Shipbuilding
Dry
Docks
or
Railroad
Line
Maintenance
subcategories
are
generally
less
concentrated
and
contain
less
pollutants
than
wastewaters
discharged
by
OWS
facilities.

5.
Pretreatment
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
(
PSES)
EPA
proposed
to
establish
PSES
for
existing
indirect
dischargers
in
the
Oily
Wastes
subcategory
based
on
the
Option
6
technology
(
i.
e.,
the
same
technology
basis
that
is
being
promulgated
for
BPT/
BCT/
NSPS
for
this
subcategory)
with
a
``
low­
flow''
exclusion
of
2
MGY
to
reduce
economic
impacts
on
small
businesses
and
administrative
burden
for
control
authorities.
Based
on
the
revisions
and
corrections
to
the
EPA
Cost
&
Loadings
Model
discussed
in
the
NODA
and
in
section
IV.
B.
1
of
today's
final
rule,
and
previously
discussed,
EPA
determined
that
the
toxic
pollutant
reductions
are
very
expensive
in
dollars
per
toxic
pounds
removed.
The
costeffectiveness
value
(
in
1981$)
for
Option
6
for
indirect
dischargers
in
the
Oily
Wastes
subcategory
is
in
excess
of
$
3,500/
PE
removed.
This
suggests
that
the
technology
is
not
truly
``
available.''
EPA
has
determined
that
Option
6
technology
with
a
2
MGY
low­
flow
cutoff
is
not
the
best
available
technology
economically
achievable
for
existing
indirect
dischargers
in
the
OWS.
Therefore,
EPA
is
not
establishing
PSES
for
this
subcategory
based
on
Option
6
technology
with
a
2
MGY
lowflow
cutoff.
As
discussed
in
the
June
2002
NODA
(
see
67
FR
38804),
EPA
also
considered
alternative
options
for
which
economic
impacts
could
be
less
costly
than
Option
6
technology
with
a
2
MGY
low­
flow
cutoff.
These
options
potentially
have
compliance
costs
more
closely
align
with
toxic
pollutant
reductions.
EPA
considered
the
following
alternative
options
for
today's
final
rule:
Option
A:
No
regulation;
Option
B:
Option
6
with
a
higher
lowflow
exclusion;
As
discussed
in
section
IV.
B.
1
of
today's
final
rule,
based
on
comments,
EPA
has
revised
its
methodology
for
estimating
compliance
costs
and
pollutant
loadings
for
Option
6,
and
higher
low­
flow
exclusions
(
Option
B)
previously
described.
Using
information
from
this
revised
analysis,
EPA
concludes
that
none
of
the
alternative
low­
flow
exclusions
(
even
as
high
as
6.25
MGY)
represented
``
available
technology''
because
the
costs
associated
with
these
alternatives
were
not
commensurate
with
the
projected
toxic
pollutants
reductions.
Therefore,
EPA
is
not
establishing
PSES
for
existing
indirect
dischargers
in
the
Oily
Wastes
subcategory
(
Option
A).
Since
EPA
did
not
identify
another
technology
basis
that
was
more
cost­
effective,
EPA
is
not
promulgating
PSES
for
existing
indirect
dischargers
in
the
Oily
Wastes
subcategory.
These
facilities
remain
subject
to
the
General
Pretreatment
regulations
(
40
CFR
part
403)
and
local
limits,
as
applicable.

6.
Pretreatment
Standards
for
New
Sources
(
PSNS)

EPA
proposed
to
establish
PSNS
for
indirect
dischargers
in
the
Oily
Wastes
subcategory
based
on
the
Option
6
technology
(
i.
e.,
the
same
technology
basis
that
is
being
promulgated
for
NSPS
for
this
subcategory)
with
a
``
lowflow
exclusion
of
2MGY
to
reduce
economic
impacts
on
small
businesses
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00025
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25710
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
and
reduce
administrative
burden
to
POTWs.
For
today's
final
rule
EPA
evaluated
setting
OWS
PSNS
based
on
Option
6
technology
and
assessed
the
financial
burden
of
OWS
PSNS
based
on
Option
6
technology
on
new
OWS
indirect
dischargers.
Specifically,
EPA's
`
barrier
to
entry'
analysis
identified
whether
OWS
PSNS
based
on
Option
6
technology
would
pose
sufficient
financial
burden
on
new
OWS
facilities
to
constitute
a
material
barrier
to
entry
into
the
MP&
M
point
source
category.
EPA
projects
a
barrier
to
entry
for
OWS
PSNS
based
on
Option
6
technology
as
approximately
as
1%
of
OWS
indirect
dischargers
have
after­
tax
compliance
costs
between
1
to
3%
of
revenue
and
5%
have
after­
tax
compliance
costs
between
3
to
5%
of
revenue.
Consequently,
EPA
is
today
rejecting
Option
6
technology
as
the
basis
for
PSNS
in
the
OWS.
EPA
has
selected
``
no
further
regulation''
for
new
OWS
indirect
dischargers
and
is
not
revising
PSNS
for
new
OWS
indirect
dischargers.
Wastewater
discharges
to
POTWs
from
facilities
in
this
subcategory
will
remain
regulated
by
local
limits
and
general
pretreatment
standards
(
part
403),
as
applicable.
See
section
11
of
the
TDD
for
a
description
of
how
these
new
source
compliance
costs
were
developed
and
Chapter
9
of
the
EEBA
for
a
description
of
the
framework
EPA
used
for
the
barrier
to
entry
analysis
and
general
discussion
of
the
results.

G.
Railroad
Line
Maintenance
Subcategory
EPA
is
not
establishing
limitations
or
standards
for
any
facilities
that
would
have
been
subject
to
this
subcategory.
Permit
writers
and
control
authorities
will
establish
controls
using
BPJ
to
regulate
wastewater
discharges
from
these
facilities.

1.
Best
Practicable
Control
Technology
(
BPT)
For
today's
final
rule
EPA
evaluated
setting
BPT
limitations
for
two
pollutants,
TSS
and
O&
G
(
as
HEM),
for
direct
dischargers
in
the
RRLM
subcategory
based
on
a
different
technology
basis
from
that
proposed
in
2001.
EPA
proposed
Option
10
technology
(
see
section
VI.
H.
1
for
a
description)
as
the
technology
basis
for
BPT.
However,
as
discussed
in
the
NODA,
EPA
considered
promulgating
limitations
for
the
final
rule
based
on
the
Option
6
technology
for
the
RRLM
subcategory
(
see
67
FR
38804).
Option
6
technology
includes
the
following:
(
1)
in­
process
flow
control
and
pollution
prevention;
and
(
2)
chemical
emulsion
breaking
followed
by
oil
water
separation
(
see
section
9
of
the
TDD
for
today's
final
rule
for
additional
details
on
the
Option
6
technology).
For
the
RRLM
subcategory,
EPA
changed
the
technology
basis
considered
for
the
final
rule
and
eliminated
consideration
of
regulating
BOD5
based
on
comments
and
data
submitted
by
the
American
Association
of
Railroads
(
AAR).
This
organization
is
a
trade
association
which
currently
represents
all
facilities
in
this
subcategory.
As
discussed
in
the
NODA
(
see
67
FR
38755),
for
each
RRLM
direct
discharging
facility
known
to
them,
AAR
provided
current
permit
limits,
treatment­
in­
place,
and
summarized
information
on
each
facility's
measured
monthly
average
and
daily
maximum
values.
AAR
also
provided
a
year's
worth
of
long­
term
monitoring
data
for
each
facility
(
see
section
15.1
of
the
public
record
for
the
AAR
surveys).
This
data
shows
that,
contrary
to
EPA's
initial
findings
in
the
2001
proposal,
most
RRLM
direct
dischargers
treat
their
wastewater
by
chemical
emulsion
breaking/
oil
water
separation
(
Option
6).
Based
on
this
updated
information,
EPA
is
today
rejecting
Option
10
as
the
technology
basis
for
BPT.
The
2001
proposal
also
contains
detailed
discussions
on
why
EPA
rejected
BPT
limitations
based
on
other
BPT
technology
options
(
see
66
FR
451).
The
information
in
the
record
for
today's
final
rule
provides
no
basis
for
EPA
to
change
this
conclusion.
As
previously
discussed,
after
publication
of
the
June
2002
NODA
EPA
also
conducted
another
review
of
all
RRLM
facilities
in
the
MP&
M
questionnaire
database
to
determine
the
destination
of
discharged
wastewater
(
i.
e.,
either
directly
to
surface
waters
or
indirectly
to
POTWs
or
both)
and
the
applicability
of
the
final
rule
to
discharged
wastewaters.
As
a
result
of
this
review,
EPA
determined
its
questionnaire
database
did
not
accurately
represent
direct
dischargers
in
this
subcategory.
Consequently,
for
today's
final
rule
EPA
used
the
information
supplied
by
AAR
as
a
basis
for
its
analyses
and
conclusions
on
direct
dischargers
in
this
subcategory.
AAR
provided
information
on
27
facilities.
EPA
reviewed
the
information
on
each
of
these
facilities
to
ensure
they
were
direct
dischargers,
discharged
wastewaters
resulting
from
operations
subject
to
this
final
rule,
and
discharged
``
process''
wastewaters
as
defined
by
the
final
rule.
As
a
result
of
this
review,
EPA
concluded
18
of
the
facilities
for
which
AAR
provided
information
do
not
directly
discharge
wastewaters
exclusively
from
oily
operations
(
see
section
V.
A).
Therefore,
EPA's
final
database
consists
of
9
direct
discharging
RRLM
facilities.
EPA
considered
promulgating
BPT
limitations
for
these
9
direct
discharging
RRLM
facilities
based
on
the
Option
6
technology.
The
Agency
made
the
following
conclusions
during
its
evaluation
of
Option
6
for
this
subcategory.
First,
this
technology
is
readily
applicable
to
all
facilities
in
the
RRLM
subcategory.
All
direct
discharging
facilities
in
the
RRLM
subcategory
currently
employ
wastewater
treatment
equivalent
or
better
than
chemical
emulsion
breaking/
oil
water
separation
(
Option
6).
Second,
EPA
estimates
that
compliance
with
BPT
limitations
based
on
Option
6
technology
will
result
in
no
closures
of
the
existing
direct
dischargers
in
the
RRLM
subcategory.
Moreover,
none
of
the
facilities
identified
by
AAR
are
small
businesses
as
defined
by
the
Small
Business
Administration
(
SBA).
Third,
most
of
the
RRLM
facilities
identified
by
AAR
have
NPDES
daily
maximum
permit
limitations
for
O&
G
(
as
HEM)
and
TSS
as
15
and
45
mg/
L,
respectively.
Based
on
AAR
survey
information,
EPA
concludes
that
these
O&
G
(
as
HEM)
and
TSS
daily
maximum
limits
represent
the
average
of
the
best
performances
of
facilities
utilizing
Option
6
technology.
EPA
evaluated
the
compliance
costs
and
load
reductions
associated
with
establishing
BPT
daily
maximum
limitations
equivalent
to
15
and
45
mg/
L
for
O&
G
(
as
HEM)
and
TSS,
respectively.
EPA
concluded
that
all
of
the
facilities
identified
by
AAR
currently
meet
a
daily
maximum
oil
and
grease
limit
of
15
mg/
L
and
most
currently
monitor
once
per
month.
Therefore,
EPA
estimates
no
pollutant
load
reductions
and
minimal
incremental
annualized
compliance
costs
for
the
monitoring
associated
with
a
BPT
daily
maximum
limitation
equivalent
to
15
mg/
L
for
O&
G
(
as
HEM).
For
TSS,
with
the
exception
of
one
facility,
all
RRLM
facilities
identified
by
AAR
currently
meet
a
daily
maximum
limit
of
45
mg/
L.
For
this
one
facility,
EPA
estimates
the
TSS
pollutant
loadings
reductions
associated
with
a
BPT
daily
maximum
limitation
equivalent
to
45
mg/
L
to
be
less
than
1
pound
of
TSS
per
day.
Given
the
fact
that
the
few
facilities
in
this
subcategory
are
already
essentially
achieving
the
limitations
under
consideration,
EPA
has
determined
that
additional
national
regulation
is
not
warranted.
As
a
result
of
this
analysis,
EPA
concludes
that
it
is
more
appropriate
to
address
permits
limitations
for
this
industry
on
a
caseby
case
basis
and
that
additional
national
regulation
of
direct
discharges
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00026
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25711
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
in
the
RRLM
subcategory
at
this
time
is
unwarranted.

2.
Best
Conventional
Pollutant
Control
Technology
(
BCT)
In
deciding
whether
to
adopt
more
stringent
limitations
for
BCT
than
BPT,
EPA
considers
whether
there
are
technologies
that
achieve
greater
removals
of
conventional
pollutants
than
adopted
for
BPT,
and
whether
those
technologies
are
cost­
reasonable
under
the
standards
established
by
the
CWA.
EPA
generally
refers
to
the
decision
criteria
as
the
``
BCT
cost
test.''
For
a
more
detailed
description
of
the
BCT
cost
test
and
details
of
EPA's
analysis,
see
Chapter
4
of
the
EEBA.
For
the
reasons
discussed
above,
EPA
is
not
establishing
BCT
limitations
for
the
RRLM
subcategory.

3.
Best
Available
Technology
Economically
Achievable
(
BAT)
As
proposed,
EPA
is
not
establishing
BAT
regulations
for
the
RRLM
subcategory.
EPA
did
not
propose
BAT
regulations
because
the
Agency
concluded
that
facilities
in
this
subcategory
discharge
very
few
pounds
of
toxic
pollutants.
EPA
estimates
that
six
facilities
discharge
34
PE
per
year
to
surface
waters,
or
about
6
PE
per
year
per
facility.
The
Agency
based
the
loadings
calculations
on
EPA
sampling
data,
which
found
very
few
priority
toxic
pollutants
at
treatable
levels
in
raw
wastewater.
EPA
has
received
no
data
or
information
during
the
rulemaking
that
contradicts
these
conclusions.
Therefore,
nationallyapplicable
regulations
for
toxic
and
nonconventional
pollutants
are
unnecessary
at
this
time
and
direct
dischargers
will
remain
subject
to
permit
limitations
for
toxic
and
nonconventional
pollutants
established
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
using
BPJ.

4.
New
Source
Performance
Standards
(
NSPS)
EPA
proposed
setting
NSPS
based
on
Option
10
technology
for
this
subcategory.
For
today's
final
rule
EPA
considered
setting
RRLM
NSPS
based
on
Option
10
technology
and
assessed
the
financial
burden
of
RRLM
NSPS
based
on
Option
10
technology
on
new
RRLM
direct
dischargers.
Specifically,
EPA's
``
barrier
to
entry''
analysis
identified
whether
RRLM
NSPS
based
on
Option
10
technology
would
pose
sufficient
financial
burden
as
to
constitute
a
material
barrier
to
entry
into
the
MP&
M
point
source
category.
EPA
projects
no
barrier
to
entry
for
RRLM
NSPS
based
on
Option
10
technology
as:
(
1)
Option
10
technology
is
currently
used
at
existing
RRLM
direct
dischargers
(
i.
e.,
Option
10
technology
is
technically
available);
and
(
2)
all
RRLM
direct
dischargers
have
new
source
compliance
costs
that
are
less
than
1%
of
revenue.
However,
EPA
is
not
promulgating
RRLM
NSPS
based
on
the
Option
10
technology
as
EPA
concludes
that
it
is
more
appropriate
to
address
limitations
for
this
industry
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
and
that
national
regulation
of
direct
discharges
in
the
RRLM
subcategory
at
this
time
is
unwarranted.
See
section
11
of
the
TDD
for
a
description
of
how
these
new
source
compliance
costs
were
developed
and
Chapter
9
of
the
EEBA
for
a
description
of
the
framework
EPA
used
for
the
barrier
to
entry
analysis
and
general
discussion
of
the
results.

5.
Pretreatment
Standards
for
Existing
and
New
Sources
(
PSES/
PSNS)
EPA
proposed
not
to
establish
pretreatment
standards
for
existing
and
new
indirect
dischargers
in
the
RRLM
subcategory
based
on
the
small
quantity
of
toxic
pollutants
discharged
to
the
environment
(
after
POTW
treatment)
by
facilities
in
this
subcategory
(
i.
e.,
approximately
2
PE
removed
annually
per
facility
(
see
66
FR
470
 
471)).
For
the
same
reasons
set
out
in
the
2001
proposal,
EPA
is
not
promulgating
pretreatment
standards
for
existing
or
new
indirect
dischargers
in
this
subcategory.
These
facilities
remain
subject
to
the
General
Pretreatment
regulations
(
40
CFR
part
403)
and
local
limits.

H.
Shipbuilding
Dry
Dock
Subcategory
EPA
is
not
establishing
limitations
or
standards
for
any
facilities
that
would
have
been
subject
to
this
subcategory.
Permit
writers
and
control
authorities
will
establish
controls
using
BPJ
to
regulate
wastewater
discharges
from
these
facilities.

1.
BPT/
BCT/
BAT/
NSPS
At
the
time
of
the
2001
proposal,
EPA
identified
6
direct
discharging
shipbuilding
dry
dock
facilities
with
multiple
discharges.
Based
on
the
information
in
the
database
at
that
time,
discharges
from
these
facilities
contained
minimal
concentrations
of
toxic
organic
and
metals
pollutants
(<
9
PE/
facility),
but
substantial
quantities
of
conventional
pollutants,
particularly
oil
and
grease.
Consequently,
EPA
proposed
to
establish
BPT
limitations
and
NSPS
for
only
two
pollutants,
TSS
and
O&
G
(
as
HEM),
for
direct
dischargers
in
the
SDD
subcategory
based
on
Option
10
technology.
This
technology
includes
the
following:
(
1)
in­
process
flow
control
and
pollution
prevention;
and
(
2)
oil­
water
separation
by
chemical
emulsion
breaking
and
oilwater
separation
by
dissolved
air
flotation
(
see
section
9
of
the
TDD
for
today's
final
rule
for
additional
details
on
the
Option
10
technology).
EPA
proposed
this
technology
basis
because
some
existing
SDD
facilities
use
this
technology
and
it
projected
significant
reductions
in
conventional
pollutants
and
determined
these
reductions
were
cost
reasonable.
Following
proposal,
EPA
received
comments
and
supporting
data
indicating
that
its
estimates
of
current
pollutant
discharges
from
this
subcategory
were
overestimated.
In
particular,
commentors
claimed
that
current
discharges
of
oil
and
grease
were
minimal
and
that
national
regulation
was
not
warranted
for
this
subcategory.
For
today's
final
rule,
EPA
incorporated
the
additional
information
provided
by
commentors
into
its
analysis.
EPA
continues
to
conclude
that
there
are
six
direct
discharging
shipbuilding
dry
dock
facilities.
However,
EPA
now
concludes
that
direct
discharges
from
these
facilities
generally
contain
minimal
levels
of
all
pollutants.
In
particular,
EPA's
database
indicates
that
regulation
of
oil
and
grease
in
direct
discharges
from
shipbuilding
dry
docks
is
unwarranted
because
current
oil
and
grease
discharges
from
these
facilities
are
not
detectable
(<
5
mg/
L)
or
nearly
not
detectable.
EPA
has
similarly
determined
that
it
should
not
establish
nationally
applicable
limitations
and
standards
for
TSS
because
TSS
discharges
are,
on
average,
minimal.
The
data
show
that
TSS
discharges
may
increase
episodically,
particularly
when
the
dry
dock
is
performing
abrasive
blasting
operations
cleaning.
However,
EPA
has
concluded
that
these
episodic
discharges
from
six
facilities
do
not
warrant
national
regulation.
Therefore,
nationally­
applicable
regulations
for
new
and
existing
SDD
direct
dischargers
are
unnecessary
at
this
time
and
these
facilities
will
remain
subject
to
permit
limitations
established
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
using
BPJ.

2.
Pretreatment
Standards
for
Existing
and
New
Sources
(
PSES/
PSNS)
EPA
proposed
not
to
establish
pretreatment
standards
for
existing
and
new
indirect
dischargers
in
the
SDD
subcategory
based
on
the
small
number
of
facilities
in
this
subcategory
and
on
the
small
quantity
of
toxic
pollutants
removed
by
the
technology
options
evaluated
by
EPA
at
proposal
(
i.
e.,
less
than
26
PE
removed
annually
per
facility
(
see
66
FR
471)).
For
the
same
reasons
set
out
in
the
2001
proposal,

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00027
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25712
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
EPA
is
not
promulgating
pretreatment
standards
for
existing
or
new
indirect
dischargers
in
this
subcategory.
These
facilities
remain
subject
to
the
General
Pretreatment
regulations
(
40
CFR
part
403)
and
local
limits.

VII.
Pollutant
Reduction
and
Compliance
Cost
Estimates
A.
Pollutant
Reductions
Presented
in
this
section
are
the
pollutant
reductions
obtainable
through
the
application
of
Option
6
technology
that
form
the
basis
of
the
effluent
limitations
guidelines
for
the
Oily
Wastes
subcategory
promulgated
today.
This
section
summarizes
these
estimated
reductions.
Section
12
of
the
TDD
includes
the
estimated
pollutant
reductions
for
options
considered
but
not
promulgated,
and
discusses
the
loadings
determination
methodology
in
detail.
Today's
final
rule
does
not
establish
PSES
for
any
dischargers
to
POTWs
in
the
MP&
M
point
source
category.
Therefore,
EPA
does
not
project
any
pollutant
reductions
from
POTWs
as
a
result
of
today's
rule.
The
following
pollutant
reductions
are
related
to
direct
dischargers
in
the
Oily
Wastes
subcategory.

1.
Conventional
Pollutant
Reductions
The
Agency
estimates
that
this
regulation
will
reduce
discharges
of
TSS
and
O&
G
(
as
HEM)
by
approximately
500,000
pounds
per
year
(
see
Table
VII
 
1).

TABLE
VII
 
1.
 
REDUCTION
IN
DIRECT
DISCHARGE
OF
CONVENTIONAL
POLLUTANTS
AFTER
IMPLEMENTATION
OF
BPT/
BCT
REGULATIONS
PROMULGATED
TODAY
Subcategory
Oil
and
grease
pounds/
year
Total
suspended
solids
pounds/
year
Oil
and
grease
and
total
suspended
solids
pounds/
year
Oily
Wastes
..........................................................................................................................
396,079
84,246
480,325
2.
Priority
and
Non­
conventional
Pollutant
Reductions
The
Agency
did
not
estimate
the
reductions
in
priority
and
nonconventional
metals
and
organic
pollutants
because
the
Agency
did
not
have
sufficient
COD
or
other
nonconventional
data
to
estimate
baseline
pollutant
discharges.
The
Agency
does
expect
some
non­
conventional
pollutant
removals
at
OWS
facilities
complying
with
limitations
and
standards
based
on
Option
6
technology.
B.
Regulatory
Costs
Presented
in
this
section
are
the
regulatory
costs
EPA
projects
through
the
application
of
Option
6
technology
that
form
the
basis
of
the
effluent
limitations
guidelines
for
the
Oily
Wastes
subcategory
promulgated
today.
This
section
summarizes
these
estimated
costs.
Section
11
of
the
TDD
includes
the
estimated
regulatory
costs
for
options
considered
but
not
promulgated,
and
discusses
the
costing
methodology
in
detail.
This
preamble,
TDD,
and
EEBA
express
all
cost
estimates
in
this
section
in
terms
of
2001
dollars.
The
cost
components
reported
in
this
section
represent
estimates
of
the
investment
cost
of
purchasing
and
installing
equipment,
the
annual
operating
and
maintenance
costs
associated
with
that
equipment,
additional
land
requirement
costs
associated
with
new
equipment,
and
additional
costs
for
discharge
monitoring.

1.
Direct
Discharge
Facilities
Table
VII
 
2
shows
the
costs
EPA
estimated
for
existing
direct
dischargers
in
the
Oily
Wastes
subcategory
to
comply
with
the
BPT/
BCT
limitations
promulgated
today.

TABLE
VII
 
2.
 
ESTIMATED
COSTS
FOR
BPT/
BCT
Subcategory
Number
of
facilities
Total
capital
and
land
costs
(
2001$,
millions)
Annual
O&
M
costs
(
2001$,
millions)
Annualized
compliance
costs
(
2001$,
millions)

Oily
Wastes
........................................................................................
2,382
6.5
13.1
13.8
2.
Indirect
Discharge
Facilities
Because
today's
final
rule
does
not
establish
PSES
for
any
dischargers
in
the
MP&
M
industry,
EPA
has
not
projected
compliance
costs
for
facilities
that
discharge
indirectly
to
POTWs.

VIII.
Economic
Analyses
A.
Introduction
and
Overview
This
section
of
the
preamble
presents
EPA's
estimates
of
the
private
and
social
costs
of
the
regulation,
and
the
expected
economic
impacts
of
compliance
with
the
regulation.
Measures
of
economic
impact
include
facility
closures
and
associated
losses
in
employment,
firmlevel
impacts,
impacts
on
governmentowned
facilities,
local
community
impacts,
and
international
trade.
An
analysis
of
impacts
on
small
businesses
supports
EPA's
compliance
with
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA)
as
amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
(
SBREFA).
Section
XII.
C
of
this
preamble
discusses
RFA/
SBREFA
issues.
EPA's
complete
assessment
of
costs
and
economic
impacts
including
results
for
the
alternative
regulatory
options
can
be
found
in
``
Economic,
Environmental,
&
Benefit
Analysis
of
the
Final
Metal
Products
&
Machinery
Rule''
(
hereafter
referred
to
as
the
``
EEBA'').
EPA
based
its
regulatory
decisions
for
the
final
MP&
M
rule
in
part
on
the
findings
from
the
facility
impact
analyses
reported
in
the
EEBA
and
discussed
in
this
section.
The
economic
impact
analyses
assess
how
facilities
will
be
affected
financially
by
the
final
MP&
M
rule.
Key
outputs
of
the
facility
impact
analysis
include
expected
facility
closures
in
the
MP&
M
industries,
associated
losses
in
employment,
and
the
number
of
facilities
experiencing
financial
stress
short
of
closure
(``
moderate
impacts'').
The
findings
from
the
facility
impact
analysis
also
provide
the
basis
for
the
following
analyses:

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00028
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25713
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
 
A
firm­
level
analysis,
which
assesses
the
impact
on
the
financial
performance
and
condition
of
firms
owning
MP&
M
facilities;
 
An
analysis
of
impacts
on
government­
owned
facilities,
which
assesses
the
impact
on
the
financial
performance
and
condition
of
government
entities
that
own
and
operate
at
least
one
MP&
M
site;
 
An
employment
effects
analysis,
which
assesses
the
increase
in
employment
associated
with
compliance
activities,
the
loss
of
employment
due
to
facility
closures,
and
the
net
effect
on
overall
employment;
 
A
community
impact
analysis,
which
assesses
the
potential
impact
of
employment
changes
in
communities
where
MP&
M
facilities
are
located;
and
 
A
foreign
trade
analysis,
which
assesses
the
effect
of
the
regulation
on
the
U.
S.
balance
of
trade.
EPA
performed
economic
impact
analyses
for
three
groups
of
facilities,
using
different
methodologies
to
evaluate
impacts
on
each
group.
The
three
groups
are:
 
Privately­
owned
MP&
M
Facilities,
including
privately­
owned
facilities
that
do
not
perform
railroad
line
maintenance
and
are
not
owned
by
governments.
This
major
category
includes
privately­
owned
businesses
in
a
wide
range
of
sectors
or
industries,
including
the
segment
of
facilities
that
manufacture
and
rebuild
railroad
equipment.
 
Railroad
line
maintenance
facilities
that
maintain
and
repair
railroad
track,
equipment
and
vehicles.
 
Government­
owned
MP&
M
facilities
operated
by
municipalities,
State
agencies
and
other
public
sector
entities
such
as
State
universities
and
Federal
facilities.
Many
of
these
facilities
repair,
rebuild,
and
maintain
buses,
trucks,
cars,
utility
vehicles
(
e.
g.,
snow
plows
and
street
cleaners),
and
light
machinery.
The
facility
impact
analysis
starts
with
compliance
cost
estimates
from
the
EPA
engineering
analysis
and
then
calculates
how
these
compliance
costs
would
affect
the
financial
condition
of
MP&
M
facilities.
EPA
made
several
changes
to
the
facility
impact
methodology
between
proposal
(
see
66
FR
424)
and
final
regulation.
The
NODA
(
see
67
FR
38752)
and
section
IV.
B.
3
of
this
preamble
document
these
changes,
which
to
a
large
degree
address
comments
on
the
proposal
impact
methodology.
The
major
changes
to
the
economic
impact
analyses
include:
(
1)
Using
sector­
specific
thresholds
for
the
moderate
impact
analysis
tests;
(
2)
using
a
single
financial
test,
based
on
net
present
value,
to
assess
the
potential
for
closures
(
this
test
excludes
consideration
of
liquidation
values
for
all
MP&
M
facilities,
including
the
219
facilities
that
reported
them
in
their
response
to
the
MP&
M
survey);
and
(
3)
using
estimated
baseline
capital
outlays
in
the
calculation
of
cash
flow
for
the
net
present
value
test.
Other
changes
to
the
economic
impact
methodology
include:
(
1)
Using
revised
cost
passthrough
coefficients;
(
2)
using
sectorspecific
price
indices
in
updating
survey
data;
and
(
3)
limiting
postcompliance
tax
shields
to
no
greater
than
reported
baseline
taxes.
In
conducting
the
facility
impact
analysis,
EPA
first
eliminated
from
the
analysis
those
facilities
showing
materially
inadequate
financial
performance
in
the
baseline,
that
is,
in
the
absence
of
the
rule.
EPA
judged
these
facilities,
which
are
referred
to
as
baseline
closures,
to
be
at
substantial
risk
of
financial
failure
regardless
of
any
financial
burdens
that
may
result
from
the
MP&
M
rule.
Second,
for
the
remaining
facilities,
EPA
evaluated
how
compliance
costs
would
likely
affect
facility
financial
health.
In
this
analysis
of
compliance
cost
impact,
EPA
accounted
for
potential
price
increases
that
may
help
facilities
cover
the
cost
of
compliance.
EPA
based
its
estimate
of
potential
price
increases
on
a
cost
passthrough
analysis
that
estimates
how
prices
might
change
in
response
to
regulation­
induced
production
cost
increases.
EPA
identified
a
facility
as
a
regulatory
closure
if
it
would
have
operated
under
baseline
conditions
but
would
fall
below
an
acceptable
financial
performance
level
under
the
new
regulatory
requirements.
EPA
also
identified
facilities
that
would
likely
incur
moderate
impacts
from
the
rule
but
that
are
not
expected
to
close
as
a
result
of
the
rule.
EPA
used
a
different
methodology
to
assess
moderate
impacts
for
each
of
three
types
of
MP&
M
facilities:
privately­
owned
MP&
M
facilities,
railroad
line
maintenance
facilities,
and
governmentowned
facilities.
EPA
established
thresholds
for
two
measures
of
financial
performance
 
interest
coverage
ratio
and
pre­
tax
return
on
assets
 
and
compared
the
facilities'
performance
before
and
after
compliance
under
each
regulatory
option
with
these
thresholds.
EPA
attributes
incremental
moderate
impacts
to
the
rule
if
both
financial
ratios
exceeded
threshold
values
in
the
baseline
(
i.
e.,
there
were
no
moderate
impacts
in
the
baseline),
but
at
least
one
financial
ratio
fell
below
the
threshold
value
in
the
post­
compliance
case.
EPA
refers
the
reader
to
the
full
EEBA
report
for
a
detailed
discussion
of
the
economic
impact
methodology
used
for
each
of
these
types
of
MP&
M
facilities.

B.
Economic
Costs
of
Technology
Options
by
Subcategory
The
TDD
for
the
final
rule
presents
EPA's
engineering
estimates
of
costs
that
will
be
incurred
by
facilities
to
comply
with
the
final
regulation,
and
the
costs
for
other
regulatory
options.
EPA
adjusted
the
engineering
costs
from
1996
to
2001
dollars
using
the
Engineering
News­
Record
Construction
Cost
Index
(
CCI),
and
adjusted
the
costs
to
reflect
the
effect
of
taxes
using
a
combined
Federal/
State
corporate
income
tax
rate
of
39
percent.
EPA
calculated
the
annual
equivalent
of
capital
and
other
one­
time
costs
by
annualizing
costs
at
a
seven
percent
discount
rate
over
an
estimated
15­
year
equipment
life.
The
compliance
costs
of
the
rule
are
the
costs
incurred
by
those
facilities
that
EPA
estimates
will
continue
to
operate
in
compliance
with
the
rule.
Aggregate
compliance
costs
presented
in
this
section
differ
from
the
costs
presented
in
sections
VI
and
VII
because
they
exclude
costs
for
facilities
that
are
baseline
closures
or
that
close
due
to
regulatory
requirements
(
see
section
VIII.
D
for
estimates
of
baseline
and
postcompliance
closures).
Therefore,
they
represent
only
the
compliance
outlays
of
facilities
that
are
estimated
to
continue
operations.
Section
VIII.
I
presents
EPA's
estimates
of
social
costs,
which
include
costs
for
regulatory
closures.
Table
VIII
 
1
shows
the
total
annualized
compliance
costs
by
subcategory
for
the
2,382
OWS
direct
dischargers
that
are:
(
1)
Subject
to
requirements;
(
2)
make
the
necessary
investments
to
meet
the
requirements;
and
(
3)
continue
operating
under
the
regulation.
Facilities
in
all
other
subcategories
are
excluded
from
the
final
rule
and
have
no
incremental
compliance
costs.
Total
annualized
costs
are
the
sum
of
the
annual
operating
and
maintenance
costs
and
the
annualized
equivalent
of
capital
and
other
one­
time
costs.
Annualized
pre­
tax
compliance
costs
in
2001
dollars
are
estimated
at
$
13.8
million
per
year
for
the
final
rule.

TABLE
VIII
 
1.
 
TOTAL
ANNUALIZED
FACILITY*
COMPLIANCE
COSTS
FOR
THE
OILY
WASTES
SUBCATEGORY
[
pre­
tax,
million
$
2001]

Subcategory
Final
rule
Oily
Wastes
......................................
$
13.8
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00029
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25714
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
TABLE
VIII
 
1.
 
TOTAL
ANNUALIZED
FACILITY*
COMPLIANCE
COSTS
FOR
THE
OILY
WASTES
SUBCATEGORY
 
Continued
[
pre­
tax,
million
$
2001]

Subcategory
Final
rule
All
Categories:
Number
of
Facilities
Operating
in
the
Baseline**
..........
2,382
*
This
table
includes
facility
compliance
costs
only.
Section
VIII.
I
discusses
the
social
costs
of
the
rule.
The
estimates
in
this
table
exclude
baseline
and
regulatory
closures.
**
This
estimate
can
be
found
in
section
VIII.
B.
C.
Facility
Level
Economic
Impacts
of
the
Final
Rule
by
Subcategory
1.
Baseline
Closure
Analysis
Table
VIII
 
2
summarizes
the
estimated
baseline
closures
for
direct
dischargers.
Based
on
its
evaluation,
EPA
determined
that
3,593
facilities
(
or
8.2
percent)
of
the
estimated
43,858
discharging
facilities
are
baseline
closures.
The
3,593
baseline
closures
include
3,511
indirect
dischargers
(
97.7
percent)
and
98
direct
dischargers
(
2.7
percent).
The
total
number
of
facilities
classified
as
indirect
and
direct
dischargers
does
not
equal
the
total
number
of
dischargers.
Some
facilities
operate
in
more
than
one
subcategory
and
have
an
indirect
and
direct
discharging
operation
within
the
same
facility.
The
facilities
estimated
to
close
in
the
baseline
analysis
are
at
substantial
risk
of
financial
failure
independent
of
the
regulation.
These
facilities
were
excluded
from
the
postcompliance
analysis
of
regulatory
impacts.
Data
on
facility
start­
ups
and
closures
from
the
Census
Statistics
of
U.
S.
Businesses
indicate
that
between
6
and
12
percent
of
facilities
in
the
major
metal
products
manufacturing
industries
close
in
any
given
year.
Therefore,
EPA's
analysis
of
baseline
closures
is
consistent
with
this
data.

TABLE
VIII
 
2.
 
SUMMARY
OF
BASELINE
CLOSURES
Subcategory
Total
number
of
dischargers
Number
of
baseline
closures
Percent
of
baseline
closures
%
Operating
in
baseline
General
Metals
......................................................................................................
11,364
880
7.7
10,484
Metal
Finishing
Job
Shops
....................................................................................
1,542
50
3.2
1,491
Non­
Chromium
Anodizer
.......................................................................................
122
29
23.8
93
Oily
Wastes
............................................................................................................
29,185
2,409
8.3
26,776
Printed
Wiring
Boards
............................................................................................
848
239
28.2
609
Railroad
Line
Maintenance
....................................................................................
826
0
0.0
831
Shipbuilding
Dry
Dock
...........................................................................................
14
0
0.0
14
All
Subcategories*
.................................................................................................
43,858
3,593
8.2
40,265
*
Note:
The
reported
total
of
facilities
over
all
subcategories
does
not
equal
the
sum
of
facilities
by
subcategory
because
some
facilities
operate
in
more
than
one
subcategory
and
have
an
indirect
and
direct
discharging
operation
within
the
same
facility.

2.
Facilities
Subject
to
Regulatory
Requirements
Of
the
estimated
40,265
discharging
facilities
open
in
the
baseline,
EPA
estimates
that
37,880
facilities
(
or
94
percent)
will
not
be
subject
to
the
rule's
requirements
due
to
subcategory
exclusions.
The
subcategory
exclusions
exempt
37,652
indirect
dischargers
in
all
subcategories
and
259
direct
dischargers
in
seven
subcategories
from
the
final
rule.

TABLE
VIII
 
3.
 
SUMMARY
FACILITIES
SUBJECT
TO
FINAL
RULE
Subcategory
Operating
in
baseline
Number
of
facilities
excluded
Percent
of
facilities
excluded
Number
of
facilities
subject
to
final
rule
General
Metals
............................................................................................
10,484
10,484
100.0
0
Metal
Finishing
Job
Shops
..........................................................................
1,491
1,491
100.0
0
Non­
Chromium
Anodizer
.............................................................................
93
93
100.0
0
Oily
Wastes
..................................................................................................
26,776
24,394
91.1
2,382
Printed
Wiring
Boards
..................................................................................
609
609
100.0
0
Railroad
Line
Maintenance
..........................................................................
829
829
100.0
0
Shipbuilding
Dry
Dock
.................................................................................
14
14
100.0
0
All
Subcategories*
.......................................................................................
40,265
37,883
94.0
2,382
*
Note:
The
reported
total
of
facilities
over
all
subcategories
does
not
equal
the
sum
of
facilities
by
subcategory
because
some
facilities
operate
in
more
than
one
subcategory
and
have
an
indirect
and
direct
discharging
operation
within
the
same
facility.

3.
Post­
Compliance
Impact
Analysis
EPA
estimates
that
none
of
the
direct
discharging
facilities
operating
in
the
baseline
regulation
will
close
as
a
result
of
the
MP&
M
rule.
With
no
predicted
facility
closures,
EPA
expects
no
employment
losses
from
the
rule.
EPA
also
expects
that
none
of
the
2,382
direct
discharging
facilities
operating
in
the
baseline
and
subject
to
regulatory
requirements
will
experience
moderate
financial
impacts
due
to
the
rule.
Chapter
5
of
the
EEBA
includes
impact
analysis
results
for
alternative
regulatory
options
that
EPA
considered
in
developing
the
final
rule.

4.
Summary
of
Facility
Impacts
Table
VIII
 
4
summarizes
the
results
of
the
economic
impact
analysis
for
the
final
rule.
EPA
estimates
that
no
facilities
will
close
or
experience
moderate
financial
impacts.
The
table
presents
the
annualized
compliance
cost
on
both
a
pre­
tax
and
after­
tax
basis.
The
after­
tax
value
represents
the
cost
that
privately­
owned
firms
would
incur
in
complying
with
the
regulation
because
some
of
the
costs
are
borne
by
the
general
tax­
paying
public
through
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00030
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25715
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
the
tax
deduction
permitted
on
privately­
owned
firms'
compliance
outlays.
EPA's
after­
tax
analyses
(
1)
use
a
combined
Federal/
State
tax
rate
of
39
percent,
and
(
2)
limit
tax
offsets
to
compliance
costs
to
not
exceed
facilitylevel
tax
payments
as
reported
in
facility
questionnaire
responses.

TABLE
VIII
 
4.
 
FACILITY
IMPACTS
FOR
ALL
FACILITIES
Number
of
Facilities
Operating
in
Baseline
........................................
40,265
Number
of
facilities
excluded
from
regulatory
requirements
................
37,883
Number
of
facilities
operating
subject
to
regulatory
requirements
.....
2,382
Number
of
Closures
(
Severe
Impacts
............................................
0
Percent
Closing
(%)
.........................
0.0
Number
of
Additional
Facilities
with
Moderate
Impacts
.........................
0
Percent
with
Moderate
Impacts
(%)
0.0
Annualized
Compliance
Costs
(
pretax
million
$
2001)
.........................
$
13.8
Annualized
Compliance
Costs
(
after
tax,
million
$
2001)
.........................
$
11.9
D.
Firm
Level
Impacts
EPA
examined
the
impacts
of
the
final
rule
on
firms
that
own
MP&
M
facilities,
as
well
as
on
the
financial
condition
of
the
facilities
themselves.
A
firm
that
owns
multiple
MP&
M
facilities
could
experience
adverse
financial
impacts
at
the
firm
level
if
its
facilities
are
among
those
that
incur
significant
impacts
at
the
facility
level.
EPA
also
uses
the
firmlevel
analysis
to
compare
impacts
on
small
versus
large
firms,
as
required
by
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
and
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act.
Section
XII.
C
of
this
preamble
discusses
RFA/
SBREFA
issues.
EPA
compared
compliance
costs
with
revenue
at
the
firm
level
as
a
measure
of
the
relative
burden
of
compliance
costs.
EPA
applied
this
analysis
only
to
MP&
M
facilities
owned
by
privatelyowned
entities.
(
Section
VIII.
E
discusses
impacts
on
governments
that
own
MP&
M
facilities.)
EPA
estimated
firmlevel
compliance
costs
by
summing
costs
for
all
facilities
owned
by
the
same
firm
that
responded
to
the
survey
plus
estimated
compliance
costs
for
additional
facilities
for
which
respondents
submitted
information.
The
Agency
was
not
able
to
estimate
precisely
at
the
national
level
the
number
of
firms
that
own
MP&
M
facilities,
because
the
sample
weights
based
on
the
survey
design
represent
numbers
of
facilities
rather
than
firms.
Most
privately­
owned
MP&
M
facilities
that
remain
open
in
the
baseline
are
single­
facility
firms,
however.
These
firms
can
be
analyzed
using
the
survey
weights.
In
addition,
278
survey
respondents
report
being
owned
by
a
firm
that
owns
more
than
one
MP&
M
facility.
For
the
firm­
level
analysis,
EPA
assigned
these
facilities,
and
their
owning
firms,
a
sample
weight
of
one,
since
it
is
not
known
how
many
firms
these
278
sample
facilities
represent.
Chapter
9
of
the
EEBA
presents
EPA's
analysis
of
firm­
level
impacts.
Table
VIII
 
5
shows
the
results
of
the
firm­
level
analysis.
The
results
represent
a
total
of
26,750
MP&
M
firms
(
26,472
+
278),
owning
37,424
facilities
(
26,472
owned
by
single­
facility
firms
plus
10,953
owned
by
multi­
facility
firms).

TABLE
VIII
 
5.
 
FIRM
LEVEL
AFTER
TAX
ANNUAL
COMPLIANCE
COSTS
AS
A
PERCENT
OF
ANNUAL
REVENUES
FOR
PRIVATELY­
OWNED
BUSINESSES:
SELECTED
REGULATORY
OPTION
Number
of
firms
in
the
analysis*
Number
and
percent
with
after
tax
annual
compliance
costs/
annual
revenues
equal
to:

Less
than
1%
1
to
3%
Over
3%

Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
26,750
......................................................................................................
26,750
100.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
*
Single­
site
firms
whose
only
MP&
M
facilities
close
in
the
baseline
are
excluded
from
the
firm
count.
To
be
conservative,
EPA
included
compliance
costs
for
facilities
that
are
owned
by
multi­
site
firms
but
predicted
to
be
baseline
closures
in
the
facility
impact
analysis.

EPA's
analysis
shows
that
none
of
the
firms
in
the
analysis
incur
after­
tax
compliance
costs
equal
to
one
percent
or
more
of
annual
revenues.
All
firms
incur
compliance
costs
less
than
one
percent
of
annual
revenues.
This
analysis
is
likely
to
overstate
costs
at
the
firm
level
because
it
does
not
account
for
actions
a
multi­
facility
firm
might
take
to
reduce
its
compliance
costs
under
the
regulation.
These
include
consolidating
and/
or
transferring
functions
among
facilities
to
consolidate
wet
processes
and
take
advantage
of
scale
economies
in
wastewater
treatment.
In
some
instances,
such
compliance
responses
may
result
in
loss
of
employment
in
some
facilities
and
possible
increases
in
employment
in
others.
As
discussed
in
Chapter
5
of
the
EEBA
report,
EPA
is
unable
to
account
for
and
analyze
the
full
range
of
possible
compliance
actions
that
a
firm
may
consider
and
implement
in
response
to
regulation.

E.
Impacts
on
Government­
Owned
Facilities
EPA
surveyed
government­
owned
MP&
M
facilities
to
assess
the
cost
of
the
regulation
on
these
facilities
and
the
government
entities
that
own
them
(
see
66
FR
437).
A
government
is
judged
to
experience
major
budgetary
impacts
if
it
has:
(
1)
One
or
more
facilities
with
compliance
costs
exceeding
one
percent
of
the
baseline
cost
of
service;
(
2)
total
debt
service
costs
(
including
costs
to
finance
MP&
M
capital
costs
entirely
with
debt)
exceeding
25
percent
of
baseline
revenue;
and
(
3)
postcompliance
total
annualized
pollution
control
costs
per
household
exceeding
one
percent
of
median
household
income.
EPA
discusses
the
methodology
for
assessing
impacts
on
governmentowned
facilities
in
more
detail
in
Chapter
7
of
the
EEBA
report
(
this
methodology
and
the
impact
thresholds
were
also
used
to
support
EPA's
analysis
under
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act,
discussed
at
section
XII.
D
of
this
preamble).
Table
VIII
 
6
provides
national
estimates
of
the
number
of
MP&
M
facilities
operated
by
governments
that
are
potentially
subject
to
the
regulation,
by
type
and
size
of
government.
Table
VIII
 
7
summarizes
the
status
of
government­
owned
facilities,
their
compliance
costs
and
measures
of
impacts
on
government
that
own
MP&
M
facilities.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00031
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25716
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
TABLE
VIII
 
6.
 
NUMBER
OF
GOVERNMENT­
OWNED
FACILITIES
BY
TYPE
AND
SIZE
OF
GOVERNMENT
ENTITY
Size
of
government
Municipal
government
State
government
County
government
Regional
governmental
authority
Total
Large
Governments
(
population
>
50,000)
...........................
618
377
781
46
1,823
Small
Governments
(
population
<=
50,000)
........................
1,750
....................
212
........................................
1,962
All
Governments
..................................................................
2,368
377
993
46
3,785
TABLE
VIII
 
7.
 
NUMBER
OF
REGULATED
GOVERNMENT­
OWNED
FACILITIES,
COMPLIANCE
COSTS
AND
BUDGETARY
IMPACTS
BY
REGULATORY
OPTION
Total
Number
of
Government­
Owned
Facilities
............................................................................................................................
3,785
Number
of
Facilities
exempted
by
subcategory
exclusions
..........................................................................................................
3,327
Number
of
Facilities
subject
to
regulation
.....................................................................................................................................
458
Compliance
costs
($
2001
million)
.................................................................................................................................................
$
8.99
Number
of
Facilities
with
compliance
costs
>
one
percent
of
baseline
cost
of
service*
..............................................................
162
Number
of
Governments
failing
the
``
impact
on
taxpayers''
criterion**
.........................................................................................
0
Number
of
Governments
failing
the
``
impacts
on
government
debt''
criterion
***
.........................................................................
0
Number
of
Governments
failing
all
three
impacts
criteria*
...........................................................................................................
0
*
Annualized
compliance
costs
as
a
percent
of
total
facility
costs
and
expenditures,
including
operating,
overhead
and
debt
service
costs
and
expenses.
**
Based
on
comparison
of
compliance
costs
for
all
facilities
owned
by
the
government
to
the
income
of
households
that
are
served
by
the
relevant
government.
A
government
is
judged
to
experience
impacts
if
the
regulation
results
in
a
ratio
of
total
annualized
pollution
control
costs
per
household
to
median
household
income
that
exceeds
one
percent,
post­
compliance.
Includes
existing
pollution
control
costs
plus
the
compliance
costs
due
to
the
MP&
M
rule.
***
Based
on
comparison
of
total
debt
service
costs
(
including
costs
to
finance
MP&
M
capital
costs
entirely
with
debt)
with
baseline
government
revenue.
A
government
is
judged
to
experience
impacts
if
the
rule
causes
its
total
debt
service
payments
to
exceed
25%
of
baseline
revenue.
*
A
government
is
judged
to
experience
major
budgetary
impacts
if
it
has
one
or
more
facilities
with
costs
of
compliance
above
1%
of
baseline
cost
of
service
and
fails
both
the
taxpayers
impact
and
government
debt
impact
tests.

Under
the
final
rule,
an
estimated
162
government­
owned
facilities
(
4.3
percent
of
the
total)
would
incur
costs
exceeding
one
percent
of
their
baseline
cost
of
service.
The
residual
95.7
percent
of
government­
owned
facilities
incur
no
costs
or
incur
costs
so
low
as
to
be
readily
absorbed
within
existing
budgets.
None
of
the
governments
incur
costs
that
cause
them
to
exceed
the
thresholds
for
impacts
on
taxpayers
or
for
government
debt
burden.
EPA
therefore
concludes
that
the
regulation
will
not
impose
major
budgetary
burdens
on
any
of
the
governments
that
own
MP&
M
facilities.

F.
Community
Level
Impacts
EPA
considered
the
potential
impacts
of
changes
in
employment
due
to
the
regulation
on
the
communities
where
MP&
M
facilities
are
located.
EPA
does
not
expect
any
adverse
community
employment
effects
because
it
anticipates
no
rule­
driven
facility
closures
and
accordingly
no
job
losses
from
the
rule.

G.
Foreign
Trade
Impacts
The
foreign
trade
impacts
analysis
allocates
the
value
of
changes
in
output,
for
each
facility
that
is
projected
to
close,
to
exports,
imports
or
domestic
sales,
based
on
the
dominant
source
of
competition
in
each
market
as
reported
in
the
surveys.
EPA
does
not
expect
any
material
foreign
trade
impacts
as
a
result
of
the
final
rule
because
no
facility
closures
are
expected.
See
Chapter
8
in
the
EEBA
for
a
more
detailed
discussion
of
the
foreign
trade
impact
analysis
and
the
resulting
impacts
of
the
alternative
regulatory
options
on
foreign
trade.

H.
Administrative
Costs
EPA
also
assessed
the
costs
incurred
by
governments
to
administer
the
rule.
The
final
rule
only
regulates
direct
dischargers;
therefore,
EPA
does
not
expect
increases
in
administrative
costs
because
the
National
Pollution
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
permit
program
requires
that
these
facilities
already
hold
permits.
However,
EPA
did
estimate
costs
to
POTWs
for
alternative
options
that
would
have
regulated
indirect
dischargers.
See
Chapter
7
in
the
EEBA
for
a
discussion
of
these
estimates.

I.
Social
Costs
1.
Components
of
Social
Costs
The
social
costs
of
regulatory
actions
are
the
opportunity
costs
to
society
of
employing
scarce
resources
in
pollution
control
activity.
The
largest
component
of
economic
costs
to
society
is
the
cost
incurred
by
MP&
M
facilities
for
the
labor,
equipment,
material,
and
other
economic
resources
needed
to
comply
with
the
regulation.
EPA
accounts
for
these
costs
on
a
pre­
tax
basis.
Social
costs
may
also
include
lost
producers'
and
consumers'
surplus
that
result
when
the
quantity
of
goods
and
services
produced
decreases
as
a
result
of
the
rule.
Lost
producers'
surplus
is
measured
as
the
difference
between
revenues
earned
and
the
cost
of
production
for
the
lost
production.
Lost
consumers'
surplus
is
the
difference
between
the
price
paid
by
consumers
for
the
lost
production
and
the
maximum
amount
they
would
have
been
willing
to
pay
for
those
goods
and
services.
To
accurately
calculate
lost
producers'
and
consumers'
surplus
requires
knowledge
of
the
characteristics
of
market
supply
and
demand
for
each
affected
industry.
EPA
instead
calculated
an
upper­
bound
estimate
of
social
compliance
costs
using
the
simplifying
assumption
that
all
facilities
continue
operating
in
compliance
with
the
rule,
and
pay
the
associated
compliance
costs
(
i.
e.,
assuming
that
there
are
no
regulationrelated
closures.)
This
framework
provides
an
upper­
bound
estimate
of
social
costs,
because,
for
facilities
predicted
to
close,
continuing
to
operate
and
to
incur
compliance
costs
is
more
costly
than
closing
the
facility
with
associated
lost
producers'
and
consumers'
surplus.
For
the
final
regulation,
EPA
estimated
that
no
facilities
would
close
because
of
the
rule.
As
a
result,
the
potential
effect
of
consumers'
and
producers'
surplus
should
not
be
of
consequence
in
assessing
social
costs.
In
addition
to
the
resource
costs
to
society
associated
with
compliance,
the
estimated
social
cost
also
includes
two
other
elements:
the
cost
to
local
governments
of
implementing
the
rule
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00032
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25717
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
and
the
cost
of
any
unemployment
that
may
result
from
the
regulation.
The
government
administration
costs
include
the
costs
to
POTWs
of
permitting
and
compliance
monitoring
and
enforcement
activities.
The
unemployment­
related
costs
include
the
cost
of
administering
unemployment
programs
for
workers
who
would
lose
employment,
and
an
estimate
of
the
amount
that
workers
would
be
willing
to
pay
to
avoid
involuntary
unemployment.

2.
Resource
Cost
of
Compliance
The
resource
costs
of
compliance
are
the
value
of
society's
productive
resources
 
including
labor,
equipment,
and
materials
 
consumed
to
achieve
the
reductions
in
effluent
discharges
required
by
the
final
rule.
On
the
basis
of
a
7
percent
discount
rate,
EPA
estimates
the
annualized
cost
of
compliance
at
$
13.8
million
(
2001$).
This
value
exceeds
the
cost
that
privately­
owned
firms
would
incur
in
complying
with
the
regulation
because:
(
1)
Some
of
the
costs
are
borne
by
the
general
tax­
paying
public
through
the
tax
deduction
permitted
on
privatelyowned
firms'
compliance
outlays
and
(
2)
some
costs
are
passed
onto
consumers
in
the
form
of
price
increases.
Although
these
two
categories
of
cost
are
not
part
of
the
financial
burden
on
regulated
industries,
they
are
part
of
the
regulation's
overall
cost
to
society.
EPA
also
estimated
the
annualized
cost
of
compliance
using
a
3
percent
discount
rate
and,
in
conjunction,
an
assumed
3
percent
opportunity
cost
of
capital
to
society.
At
the
3
percent
discount
rate,
EPA
estimates
the
annualized
cost
of
compliance
at
$
13.7
million
(
2001$).
3.
Cost
of
Administering
the
Regulation
As
discussed
in
section
VIII.
I
of
this
preamble,
since
the
final
rule
only
regulates
direct
dischargers,
EPA
does
not
expect
increases
in
administrative
costs
because
all
direct
dischargers
already
hold
permits.

4.
Social
Cost
of
Unemployment
The
loss
of
jobs
associated
with
any
facility
closures
would
represent
a
social
cost
of
the
regulation.
However,
from
its
facility
impact
analysis,
EPA
estimates
that
no
facilities
will
close
as
a
result
of
the
regulation.
Accordingly,
EPA
estimates
a
zero
cost
of
unemployment
for
the
final
regulation.
The
results
of
this
analysis
for
alternative
regulatory
options
where
closures
are
predicted
can
be
found
in
Chapter
6
of
the
EEBA.

5.
Total
Social
Costs
Summing
across
all
social
costs
results
in
a
total
annualized
social
cost
estimate
of
$
13.8
million
($
2001),
at
a
7
percent
discount
rate,
and
$
13.7
million,
at
a
3
percent
discount
rate,
as
shown
in
Table
VIII
 
8.

TABLE
VIII
 
8.
 
ANNUAL
SOCIAL
COSTS
OF
THE
REGULATION
[
Pre­
tax,
million
$
2001]

Social
cost
category
Annualized
@
3%
Annualized
@
7%

Resource
Value
of
Compliance
Costs
(
beforetax
.....................
$
13.7
$
13.8
Government
Administrative
Costs
.................
$
0
$
0
Social
Costs
of
Unemployment
.......
$
0
$
0
TABLE
VIII
 
8.
 
ANNUAL
SOCIAL
COSTS
OF
THE
REGULATION
 
Continued
[
Pre­
tax,
million
$
2001]

Social
cost
category
Annualized
@
3%
Annualized
@
7%

Total
Social
Costs
..........
$
13.7
$
13.8
J.
Cost
and
Removal
Comparison
Analysis
The
Agency
is
promulgating
BPT
limitations
for
the
Oily
Wastes
subcategory.
Among
the
factors
EPA
must
consider
when
promulgating
BPT
limitations,
section
304(
b)(
1)(
B)
of
the
CWA
directs
EPA
to
consider
the
total
incremental
compliance
costs
of
the
BPT
technology
in
relation
to
the
effluent
reductions
achieved
by
the
technology.
This
inquiry
does
not
limit
EPA's
broad
discretion
to
adopt
BPT
limitations
based
on
available
technology
unless
the
required
additional
reductions
are
wholly
out
of
proportion
to
the
costs
of
achieving
the
additional
effluent
reduction.
One
cost
and
removal
comparison
ratio
used
by
EPA
is
the
average
cost
per
pound
of
pollutant
removed
by
a
BPT
regulatory
option.
EPA
measures
the
cost
component
as
pre­
tax
total
annualized
costs
($
2001).
For
the
Oily
Wastes
subcategory,
EPA
measures
the
effluent
reduction
benefits
as
the
summation
of
O&
G
(
as
HEM)
and
TSS
to
avoid
significant
double
counting
of
pollutants.
EPA
analyses
show
that
OWS
facilities
largely
discharge
conventional
pollutants.
Table
VIII
 
9
shows
the
incremental
compliance
costs,
the
incremental
pollutant
reductions,
and
the
resulting
cost
and
removal
comparison
ratio.

TABLE
VIII
 
9.
 
COST
AND
REMOVAL
COMPARISON
FOR
THE
OILY
WASTES
SUBCATEGORY
[$
2001/
lb
pollutant
removed]

Subcategory
Annualized
cost
($
2001)
(
millions)
Annual
pounds
of
pollutant
removed
Cost
and
removal
comparison
($
2001/
lb
pollutant
removed)

Oily
Wastes
..............................................................................................................................................
13.8
480,325
28.73
K.
Cost­
Effectiveness
Analysis
In
the
development
of
best
available
technology
effluent
limitations
guidelines
for
removals
of
toxic
pollutants,
EPA
evaluates
the
relative
efficiency
of
alternative
regulatory
options
in
removing
toxic
pollutants
from
the
effluent
discharges
to
the
nation's
waters.
Because
EPA
is
today
not
promulgating
Oily
Wastes
subcategory
BAT
limitations
based
on
a
more
stringent
technology
than
BPT
technology,
EPA
is
not
providing
a
costeffectiveness
analysis
for
the
final
rule,
which
contains
only
BPT
limitations
(
see
section
VIII.
J
for
the
cost
and
removal
comparison
analysis).
EPA
did
perform
a
cost­
effectiveness
analysis
for
the
alternative
regulatory
options
that
would
have
regulated
indirect
dischargers;
the
results
of
this
analysis
are
reported
in
the
EEBA
and
DCN
37900,
section
26.0.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00033
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25718
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
IX.
Water
Quality
Analysis
and
Environmental
Benefits
A.
Introduction
and
Overview
This
section
presents
EPA's
estimates
of
the
national
environmental
benefits
of
the
final
MP&
M
effluent
guidelines.
The
benefits
occur
due
to
the
reduction
in
facility
discharges
described
in
section
VII.
The
methodologies
used
in
the
estimation
of
benefits
of
the
final
rule
are
largely
similar
to
those
used
for
estimating
benefits
of
the
proposed
rule
(
see
66
FR
424).
The
Notice
of
Data
Availability
(
see
67
FR
38752)
and
section
IV.
B
of
today's
final
rule
discuss
revisions
made
to
these
methodologies
after
the
publication
of
the
proposed
rule.
The
EEBA
provides
EPA's
complete
benefit
assessment
for
the
final
rule.
EPA
estimated
national
benefits
from
the
regulation
on
the
basis
of
sample
facility
data.
The
Agency
extrapolated
findings
from
the
sample
facility
analyses
to
the
national
level
using
two
alternative
extrapolation
methods:
(
1)
traditional
extrapolation
and
(
2)
poststratification
extrapolation.
Section
A.
2
of
today's
final
rule
and
Appendix
G
of
the
EEBA
discuss
the
extrapolation
methods
used
in
the
benefits
analysis
in
detail.
To
supplement
the
national
level
analysis
performed
for
the
final
MP&
M
regulation,
EPA
also
conducted
a
detailed
case
study
of
the
expected
State­
level
costs
and
benefits
of
the
MP&
M
rule
in
Ohio.
For
several
important
reasons,
EPA
judges
that
the
Ohio
case
study
is
more
robust
than
the
national
benefit
analyses
that
EPA
undertakes
in
support
of
effluent
guideline
development.
These
reasons
include:
(
1)
Use
of
more
detailed
data
on
MP&
M
facilities
than
is
possible
at
the
national
level;
(
2)
use
of
more
detailed
and
accurate
water
quality
data
than
are
usually
available;
(
3)
more
accurate
accounting
for
the
presence
and
effect
of
multiple
discharges
to
the
same
reach;
(
4)
inclusion
of
data
on
non­
MP&
M
discharges
in
the
baseline
and
post
compliance;
(
5)
use
of
a
firstorder
decay
model
to
estimate
in­
stream
concentrations
in
downstream
water
bodies;
and
(
6)
inclusion
of
an
additional
recreational
benefit
category
(
swimming)
in
the
analysis.
Sections
B
through
G
of
today's
final
rule
discuss
the
national
level
benefits
analyses;
section
H
presents
the
Ohio
case
study.
These
sections
include
results
only
for
the
final
rule;
however,
the
EEBA
presents
results
for
additional
options
evaluated.

1.
Benefit
Overview
Table
IX
 
1
summarizes
the
benefits
categories
associated
with
the
regulation
and
notes
which
categories
EPA
was
able
to
quantify
and
monetize.
The
benefits
include
three
broad
classes:
human
health,
ecological,
and
economic
productivity
benefits.
Within
these
three
broad
classes,
EPA
was
able
to
assess
benefits
with
varying
degrees
of
completeness
and
rigor.
Where
possible,
EPA
quantified
the
expected
effects
and
estimated
monetary
values.
Data
limitations
and
limited
understanding
of
how
society
values
certain
water
quality
changes
prevented
monetizing
some
benefit
categories.

TABLE
IX
 
1.
 
BENEFIT
CATEGORIES
ASSOCIATED
WITH
WATER
QUALITY
IMPROVEMENTS
RESULTING
FROM
THE
METAL
PRODUCTS
AND
MACHINERY
EFFLUENT
GUIDELINE
Benefit
Category
Quantified
and
monetized
Quantified
and
nonmonetized
Nonquantified
and
nonmonetized
Human
Health
Benefits:
Reduced
cancer
risk
due
to
ingestion
of
chemically­
contaminated
fish
and
unregulated
pollutants
in
drinking
water
...............................................................................................
X
Reduced
non­
cancer
adverse
health
effects
(
e.
g.,
reproductive,
immunological,
neurological
circulatory,
or
respiratory
toxicity)
due
to
ingestion
of
chemically­
contaminated
fish
and
unregulated
pollutants
in
drinking
water
.............................................................
X
Reduced
non­
cancer
adverse
health
effects
from
exposure
to
lead
from
consumption
of
chemically­
contaminated
fish
............................................................................................
X
Reduced
health
hazards
from
exposure
to
contaminants
in
waters
used
recreationally
(
e.
g.,
swimming)
................................................................................................................
X
Ecological
Benefits:
Reduced
risk
to
aquatic
life
..................................................................................................
X
Enhanced
water­
based
recreation,
including
fishing,
boating,
and
near­
water
(
wildlife
viewing)
activities
..............................................................................................................
X
Other
enhanced
water­
based
recreation,
such
as
swimming,
waterskiing,
and
white
water
rafting
......................................................................................................................
X
Increased
aesthetic
benefits,
such
as
enhancement
of
adjoining
site
amenities
(
e.
g.,
residing
working,
traveling,
and
owning
property
near
the
water)
.....................................
X
Non­
user
value
(
i.
e.,
existence,
option,
and
bequest
value)
...............................................
X
Reduced
contamination
of
sediments
..................................................................................
X
Economic
Productivity
Benefits:
a
Benefits
to
tourism
industries
from
increased
participation
in
water­
based
recreation
.......
X
Improved
commercial
fisheries
yields
..................................................................................
X
Reduced
water
treatment
costs
for
municipal
drinking
water,
irrigation
water,
and
industrial
process
and
cooling
water
.........................................................................................
X
a
The
final
rule
regulates
direct
dischargers
only.
Therefore
the
selected
option
does
not
affect
POTW
operation.
EPA,
however,
includes
this
benefit
category
when
analyzing
alternative
options
which
considered
the
regulation
of
indirect
dischargers
(
See
Chapter
19
of
the
EEBA
for
the
benefits
analysis
of
alternative
options).

2.
Extrapolation
Methods
EPA
traditionally
estimates
national
level
costs
and
benefits
by
extrapolating
analytic
results
from
sample
facilities
to
the
national
level
using
sample
facility
weights.
EPA's
traditional
sampling
approach
relies
on
information
about
the
economic
and
technical
characteristics
of
the
regulated
community.
Although
important
for
understanding
the
technical
requirements
and
costs
of
a
regulation,
this
sampling
approach
does
not
incorporate
information
that
could
significantly
affect
the
occurrence
and
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00034
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25719
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
distribution
of
regulatory
benefits,
such
as
characteristics
of
the
receiving
water
body
and
the
size
of
population
that
may
benefit
from
reduced
pollutant
discharges.
As
a
result,
the
traditional
sampling
approach
likely
yields
benefit
estimates
that
are
less
accurate
than
those
that
could
be
obtained
by
using
a
sampling
framework
that
accounts
for
such
benefit­
receptor
characteristics.
EPA
recognizes
that
using
a
traditional
extrapolation
method
to
estimate
national
level
benefits
may
lead
to
a
large
degree
of
uncertainty
in
benefits
estimates.
Therefore,
in
addition
to
the
traditional
extrapolation
method
used
in
the
proposed
rule
(
see
66
FR
424),
EPA
has
estimated
national
level
benefits
for
the
final
rule
using
an
alternative
extrapolation
method
as
discussed
in
the
NODA
(
see
67
FR
38752).
In
this
alternative
extrapolation
method,
post­
stratification
sample
weighting,
EPA
adjusted
the
original
sample
weights
using
two
variables
that
are
likely
to
affect
the
occurrence
and
size
of
benefits
associated
with
reduced
discharges
from
sample
MP&
M
facilities:
(
1)
receiving
water
body
type
and
size;
and
(
2)
the
size
of
the
population
residing
in
the
vicinity
of
the
sample
facility.
The
Agency
utilized
a
commonly
used
post­
stratification
method
calling
``
raking''
to
adjust
original
sample
weights
to
reflect
these
benefit
pathway
characteristics.
EPA
used
data
from
three
data
sources
 
EPA's
Permit
Compliance
System
database
(
PCS),
EPA's
Reach
File
1,
and
Census
Data
 
to
develop
the
adjusted
weights.
Because
of
data
limitations,
EPA
restricted
the
re­
weighting
effort
only
to
direct
dischargers
and
excluded
indirect
dischargers.
Therefore,
EPA
performed
this
alternative
analysis
for
only
the
selected
option.
EPA
used
the
alternative
benefit
estimate
to
validate
general
conclusions
that
EPA
drew
from
its
main
analysis
based
on
the
traditional
extrapolation
method.
Appendix
G
of
the
EEBA
provides
detailed
discussion
of
this
alternative
extrapolation
method.
In
the
NODA,
EPA
also
sought
public
comment
on
a
proposed
second
alternative
extrapolation
method.
In
this
extrapolation
method,
EPA
proposed
the
extrapolation
of
the
Ohio
case
study
results
to
the
national
level
based
on
three
key
factors
that
affect
the
occurrence
and
magnitude
of
benefits:
(
1)
The
estimated
change
in
MP&
M
pollutant
loadings;
(
2)
the
level
of
recreational
activities
on
the
reaches
affected
by
MP&
M
discharges;
and
(
3)
income
of
the
affected
population.
The
Agency
recognizes
that
this
method
is
not
rigorous
for
extrapolation
to
the
national
level.
Therefore,
EPA
used
this
method
only
as
a
sensitivity
analysis.
Sections
IX.
B
through
IX.
E
of
this
preamble
present
national
level
benefits
that
are
estimated
based
on
both
sample
facility
weights
used
in
the
engineering
and
economic
impact
analysis
(
traditional
extrapolation
method)
and
sample
facility
weights
adjusted
by
water
body
and
population
(
poststratification
extrapolation).
National
level
benefits
estimated
from
the
Ohio
case
study
analysis
are
not
presented
in
today's
final
rule.
These
estimates
can
be
found
in
Appendix
G
of
the
EEBA
report.

B.
Reduced
Human
Health
Risk
EPA
estimates
that
the
final
rule
will
prevent
discharge
of
18
pounds
per
year
of
carcinogens
and
119
pounds
per
year
of
lead.
Also,
the
final
rule
will
prevent
discharge
of
an
additional
6,900
pounds
of
76
pollutants
of
concern
that
are
known
to
cause
adverse
non­
cancer
human
health
effects.
These
reduced
pollutant
discharges
from
MP&
M
facilities
generate
human
health
benefits
in
a
number
of
ways.
The
most
important
human
health
benefits
stem
from
reduced
risk
of
illness
from
consumption
of
contaminated
fish,
shellfish,
and
water.
EPA
analyzed
the
following
measures
of
human
health­
related
benefits:
reduced
cancer
risk
from
fish
and
water
consumption;
reduced
risk
of
noncancer
adverse
health
effects
from
fish
and
water
consumption;
reduced
leadrelated
adverse
health
effects
in
children
and
adults;
and
reduced
occurrence
of
in­
waterway
pollutant
concentrations
in
excess
of
levels
of
concern.
The
levels
of
concern
include
human
health­
based
ambient
water
quality
criteria
(
AWQC)
or
documented
toxic
effect
levels
for
those
chemicals
not
covered
by
AWQC.
The
Agency
monetized
only
two
of
these
health
benefits:
(
1)
Changes
in
the
incidence
of
cancer
resulting
from
reduced
exposure
to
carcinogens
in
fish
and
drinking
water
and
(
2)
changes
in
adverse
noncancer
health
effects
in
children
and
adults
resulting
from
reduced
exposure
to
lead
in
fish.
EPA
monetized
human
health
benefits
by
estimating
the
change
in
the
expected
number
of
individuals
experiencing
adverse
human
health
effects
in
the
populations
exposed
to
MP&
M
discharges.
For
carcinogens
that
have
linear
dose­
response
relationships,
it
is
feasible
to
estimate
the
incremental
cancer
incidence
in
a
population
from
the
estimate
of
mean
individual
risk
for
the
population
and
the
number
of
individuals
in
the
population.
However,
for
health
effects
with
non­
linear
doseresponse
relationships
and
thresholds
(
e.
g.,
non­
cancer
health
effects),
estimating
population
risk
is
computationally
more
complex
and
was
not
proposed
(
see
Table
IX
 
1).
The
national­
level
analysis
of
human
health
benefits
finds
negligible
monetized
benefits
from
the
final
rule.
However,
because
of
significant
simplifications
in
the
national
level
analysis,
this
finding
should
be
recognized
as
potentially
having
substantial
error
and
should
therefore
be
interpreted
with
caution.
In
particular,
the
national­
level
analysis:
(
1)
Is
based
only
on
limited
information
on
MP&
M
facilities
at
the
national
level;
(
2)
accounts
in
only
a
very
limited
way
for
the
presence
and
effect
of
joint
discharges
on
the
same
reach;
(
3)
omits
data
on
non­
MP&
M
discharges
in
the
baseline
and
post
compliance;
and
(
4)
omits
consideration
of
the
downstream
effects
of
pollutant
discharges.
In
contrast
to
the
national­
level
analysis,
and
as
discussed
in
section
IX.
A.
of
today's
final
rule
and
Chapter
21
of
the
EEBA
report,
the
methods
and
data
used
for
the
Ohio
case
study
address
a
number
of
these
analytic
weaknesses.
This
more
site­
specific
and
detailed
analysis
finds
that
the
final
regulation
would
achieve
$
0.5
million
(
2001$)
in
health­
related
benefits
in
the
State
of
Ohio
alone.
EPA
estimates
that
this
analysis
provides
a
more
accurate,
albeit
lower­
bound,
estimate
of
healthrelated
benefits
than
indicated
by
the
simpler
national­
level
analysis.
Moreover,
given
(
1)
that
Ohio
represents
only
about
6
percent
of
the
total
MP&
M
facility
population
and
(
2)
that
a
substantial
share
of
the
total
MP&
M
facility
population
is
located
in
other
States
with
similar
water
body
and
population
characteristics
(
e.
g.,
the
States
of
Illinois,
Indiana,
Michigan,
Pennsylvania),
it
is
reasonable
to
expect
that
additional
human
health
benefits
would
be
estimated
for
the
remainder
of
the
country
if
EPA
were
able
to
apply
this
more
rigorous
approach
at
the
national
level.
Accordingly,
EPA
judges
that
the
final
rule's
human
health
benefits
are
higher
than
its
social
costs.

1.
Benefits
From
Reduced
Incidence
of
Cancer
EPA
assessed
changes
in
the
incidence
of
cancer
cases
from
consumption
of
MP&
M
pollutants
in
fish
tissue
and
drinking
water.
The
Agency
valued
changes
in
incidence
of
cancer
cases
using
a
willingness­
to­
pay
(
WTP)
of
$
6.5
million
(
2001$)
for
avoiding
premature
mortality.
This
estimate
of
the
value
of
a
statistical
life
saved
is
recommended
in
EPA's
Guidelines
for
Preparing
Economic
Analysis.
This
estimate
does
not
include
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00035
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25720
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
1
U.
S.
EPA,
1993,
``
Reference
Dose
(
RfD):
Description
and
Use
in
Health
Risk
Assessments,
Background
Document
1A,''
http://
www/
epa.
gov/
iris/
rfd.
htm.
2
``
Supplementary
Guidance
for
Conducting
Health
Risk
Assessment
of
Chemical
Mixtures.
Risk
Assessment
Forum
Technical
Panel,''
EPA/
630/
R
 
00/
002.
U.
S.
EPA,
August
2000.
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
nceawww1/
pdfs/
chem
mix/
chem
mix
08
2001.
pdf.
estimates
of
WTP
to
avoid
morbidity
prior
to
death.
EPA
estimated
aggregate
cancer
risk
from
contaminated
drinking
water
for
populations
served
by
drinking
water
intakes
on
water
bodies
to
which
MP&
M
facilities
discharge.
EPA
based
this
analysis
on
six
carcinogenic
pollutants
for
which
drinking
water
criteria
have
not
been
published.
This
analysis
excludes
seven
carcinogens
for
which
drinking
water
criteria
have
been
published.
EPA
assumed
that
public
drinking
water
treatment
systems
will
remove
these
seven
pollutants
from
the
public
water
supply.
To
the
extent
that
treatment
for
these
seven
pollutants
may
cause
incidental
removals
of
the
six
pollutants
without
criteria,
the
analysis
may
overstate
cancer­
related
benefits.
Calculated
in­
stream
concentrations
serve
as
a
basis
for
estimating
changes
in
cancer
risk
for
populations
served
by
affected
drinking
water
intakes.
EPA
estimates
that
baseline
MP&
M
discharges
from
in­
scope
facilities
are
associated
with
virtually
zero
annual
cancer
cases.
The
national­
level
analysis
finds
that
the
final
regulation
would
lead
to
a
marginal
reduction
in
these
cancer
cases
resulting
from
consumption
of
contaminated
drinking
water;
correspondingly,
monetary
benefits
estimated
from
reduced
consumption
of
contaminated
drinking
water
are
essentially
zero.
EPA
also
estimated
cancer
risk
from
the
consumption
of
contaminated
fish
for
recreational
and
subsistence
anglers
and
their
families.
EPA
based
this
analysis
on
thirteen
carcinogenic
pollutants
found
in
MP&
M
effluent
discharges.
Estimated
contaminant
concentrations
in
fish
tissue
are
a
function
of
predicted
in­
stream
pollutant
concentrations
and
pollutant
bioconcentration
factors.
EPA
used
data
on
numbers
of
licensed
fishermen
by
state
and
county,
presence
of
fish
consumption
advisories,
number
of
fishing
trips
per
person
per
year,
and
average
household
size
to
estimate
the
affected
population
of
recreational
and
subsistence
anglers
and
their
families.
The
analysis
uses
different
fish
consumption
rates
for
recreational
and
subsistence
anglers
to
estimate
the
change
in
cancer
risk
among
these
populations.
EPA
estimated
that
baseline
MP&
M
discharges
from
in­
scope
facilities
are
associated
with
0.03
annual
cancer
cases.
The
national­
level
analysis
shows
that
final
option
would
lead
to
a
marginal
reduction
in
cancer
cases
among
recreational
and
subsistence
angler
populations.
The
monetary
benefits
estimated
from
consumption
of
less
contaminated
fish
by
these
populations
are
essentially
negligible.
The
previous
findings
from
the
national
analysis
of
changes
in
cancer
risk
associated
with
the
final
rule
differ
from
the
Ohio
case
study
results.
Based
on
the
Ohio
case
study,
the
final
option
is
expected
to
eliminate
less
than
0.01
cancer
cases
annually
in
the
State
of
Ohio
(
see
section
IX.
H
of
today's
final
rule
for
a
detail).
This
reduction
translates
into
approximately
$
14,500
(
2001$)
in
annual
benefits
due
to
reduced
cancer
risk
from
consumption
of
contaminated
fish
tissue
and
drinking
water.
The
difference
in
the
findings
of
the
national­
and
Ohio
analyses
results
primarily
from
more
comprehensive
information
on
MP&
M
and
non­
MP&
M
facility
discharges
used
in
the
Ohio
case
study
analysis
(
see
section
IX.
A.
of
today's
final
rule
for
additional
details).
The
national­
level
analysis
accounts
only
for
the
pollutant
exposures
from
MP&
M
sample
facilities.
In
contrast,
the
Ohio
case
study
approach
accounts
for
a
broader
baseline
of
pollutant
exposure,
including
more
thorough
and
detailed
coverage
of
discharges
from
MP&
M
facilities
and
also
estimated
exposures
from
non­
MP&
M
sources.
As
a
result,
this
analysis
more
accurately
reflects
baseline
health
risk
conditions.

2.
Reductions
in
Non­
Cancer
Adverse
Human
Health
Effects
Other
Than
Those
Related
to
Lead
Exposure
The
final
rule
can
potentially
generate
non­
cancer
human
health
benefits
(
e.
g.,
reduction
in
systemic
effects,
reproductive
toxicity,
and
developmental
toxicity)
from
reduced
contamination
of
fish
tissue
and
drinking
water
sources.
The
common
approach
for
assessing
the
risk
of
noncancer
health
effects
from
the
ingestion
of
a
pollutant
is
to
calculate
a
hazard
quotient
by
dividing
an
individual's
oral
exposure
to
the
pollutant,
expressed
as
a
pollutant
dose
in
milligrams
per
kilogram
body
weight
per
day
(
mg/
kgday
by
the
pollutant's
oral
reference
dose
(
RfD).
An
RfD
is
defined
as
an
estimate
(
with
uncertainty
spanning
perhaps
an
order
of
magnitude)
of
a
daily
oral
exposure
that
likely
would
not
result
in
the
occurrence
of
adverse
health
effects
in
humans,
including
sensitive
individuals,
during
a
lifetime.
Toxicologists
typically
establish
an
RfD
by
applying
uncertainty
factors
to
the
lowest­
or
no­
observed­
adverse­
effect
level
for
the
critical
toxic
effect
of
a
pollutant.
1
A
hazard
quotient
less
than
one
means
that
the
pollutant
dose
to
which
an
individual
is
exposed
is
less
than
the
RfD,
and,
therefore,
presumed
to
be
without
appreciable
risk
of
adverse
human
health
effects.
A
hazard
quotient
greater
than
one
means
that
the
pollutant
dose
is
greater
than
the
RfD.
Further,
EPA
guidance
for
assessing
exposures
to
mixtures
of
pollutants
recommends
calculating
a
hazard
index
(
HI)
by
summing
the
individual
hazard
quotients
for
those
pollutants
in
the
mixture
that
affect
the
same
target
organ
or
system
(
e.
g.,
the
kidneys,
the
respiratory
system).
2
HI
values
are
interpreted
similarly
to
hazard
quotients;
values
below
one
are
generally
considered
to
suggest
that
exposures
are
not
likely
to
result
in
appreciable
risk
of
adverse
health
effects
during
a
lifetime,
and
values
above
one
are
generally
cause
for
concern,
although
an
HI
greater
than
one
does
not
necessarily
suggest
a
likelihood
of
adverse
effects.
To
evaluate
the
potential
benefits
of
reducing
the
in­
stream
concentrations
of
76
pollutants
that
cause
non­
cancer
health
effects,
EPA
estimated
target
organ­
specific
HIs
for
drinking
water
and
fish
ingestion
exposures
in
both
the
baseline
and
post­
compliance
scenarios.
Specifically,
EPA
calculated
targetorgan
specific
HIs
for
pollutants
predicted
in
each
MP&
M
discharge
reach,
such
that
one
HI
was
calculated
for
each
target
organ/
exposure
pathway
(
fish
consumption
and
drinking
water)/
reach
combination.
EPA
then
combined
estimates
of
the
numbers
of
individuals
in
the
exposed
populations
with
the
HIs
for
the
populations
to
determine
how
many
individuals
might
be
expected
to
realize
reduced
risk
of
non­
cancer
health
effects
in
the
post­
compliance
scenario.
This
analysis
was
limited
in
two
primary
ways.
First,
hazard
indices
estimated
in
this
analysis
may
understate
the
actual
potential
for
adverse
health
effects
because
possible
additional
sources
of
pollutants,
such
as
background
pollutants
and
MP&
M
pollutants
from
upstream
dischargers,
were
not
considered
in
the
analysis.
Second,
EPA
used
mean
individual
exposure
parameters
and
not
the
distribution
of
exposure
parameters
to
estimate
hazard
indices
for
the
populations
affected
by
MP&
M
discharges.
The
results
of
EPA's
analysis
suggest
that
hazard
indices
for
individuals
in
the
exposed
populations
may
decrease
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00036
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25721
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
after
facilities
comply
with
today's
rule.
Increases
in
the
percentage
of
exposed
populations
that
would
be
exposed
to
no
risk
of
non­
cancer
adverse
human
health
effects
due
to
the
MP&
M
discharges
occur
in
both
the
fish
and
drinking
water
analyses.
The
shift
to
lower
hazard
indices
should
be
considered
in
conjunction
with
the
finding
that
the
hazard
indices
for
incremental
exposures
to
pollutants
discharged
by
MP&
M
facilities
(
for
which
reference
doses
are
available)
are
less
than
one
in
the
baseline
analysis
for
the
entire
population
associated
with
sample
facilities.
Whether
the
incremental
shifts
in
hazard
indices
are
significant
in
reducing
absolute
risks
of
non­
cancer
adverse
human
health
effects
is
uncertain
and
will
depend
on
the
magnitude
of
contaminant
exposures
for
a
given
population
from
risk
sources
not
accounted
for
in
this
analysis.

3.
Benefits
From
Reduced
Exposure
to
Lead
EPA
performed
a
separate
analysis
of
benefits
from
reduced
exposure
to
lead.
This
analysis
differs
from
the
analysis
of
non­
cancer
adverse
human
health
effects
from
exposure
to
other
MP&
M
pollutants
because
it
is
based
on
doseresponse
functions
tied
to
specific
health
endpoints
to
which
monetary
values
can
be
applied.
Many
lead­
related
adverse
health
effects
are
relatively
common
and
are
chronic
in
nature.
These
effects
include,
but
are
not
limited
to,
hypertension,
coronary
heart
disease,
and
impaired
cognitive
function.
Lead
is
harmful
to
individuals
of
all
ages,
but
the
effects
of
lead
on
children
are
of
particular
concern.
Children's
rapid
rate
of
development
makes
them
more
susceptible
to
neurobehavioral
effects
from
lead
exposure.
The
neurobehavioral
effects
on
children
from
lead
exposure
include
hyperactivity,
behavioral
and
attention
difficulties,
delayed
mental
development,
and
motor
and
perceptual
skill
deficits.
This
analysis
assessed
benefits
of
reduced
lead
exposure
from
consumption
of
contaminated
fish
tissue
to
three
sensitive
populations:
(
1)
Preschool
age
children;
(
2)
pregnant
women;
and
(
3)
adult
men
and
women.
This
analysis
uses
blood­
lead
levels
as
a
biomarker
of
lead
exposure.
EPA
estimated
baseline
and
post­
compliance
blood
lead
levels
in
the
exposed
populations
and
then
used
changes
in
these
levels
to
estimate
benefits
in
the
form
of
avoided
health
damages.
EPA
assessed
neurobehavioral
effects
on
children
based
on
a
dose
response
relationship
for
IQ
decrements.
Avoided
neurological
and
cognitive
damages
are
expressed
as
changes
in
overall
IQ
levels,
including
reduced
incidence
of
extremely
low
IQ
scores
(<
70,
or
two
standard
deviations
below
the
mean)
and
reduced
incidence
of
blood­
lead
levels
above
20
µ
g/
dL.
The
analysis
uses
the
value
of
compensatory
education
that
an
individual
would
otherwise
need
and
the
impact
of
an
additional
IQ
point
on
individuals'
future
earnings
to
value
the
avoided
neurological
and
cognitive
damages.
The
national­
level
analyses
shows
that
implementation
of
the
final
option
would
not
result
in
any
changes
in
IQ
loss
across
all
exposed
children.
The
final
option
does
not
reduce
occurrences
of
extremely
low
IQ
scores
(<
70)
or
incidences
of
blood­
lead
levels
above
20
µ
g/
dL.
Prenatal
exposure
to
lead
is
an
important
route
of
exposure.
Fetal
exposure
to
lead
in
utero
due
to
maternal
blood­
lead
levels
may
result
in
several
adverse
health
effects,
including
decreased
gestational
age,
reduced
birth
weight,
late
fetal
death,
neurobehavioral
deficits
in
infants,
and
increased
infant
mortality.
To
assess
benefits
to
pregnant
women,
EPA
estimated
changes
in
the
risk
of
infant
mortality
due
to
changes
in
maternal
blood­
lead
levels
during
pregnancy.
The
national­
level
analysis
shows
that
the
final
option
does
not
result
in
changes
in
maternal
blood
lead
levels
during
pregnancy
and
as
a
result
does
not
reduce
neonatal
mortality.
The
national­
level
analysis
finds
no
benefits
to
children
from
reduced
exposure
to
lead.
However,
as
for
the
cancer
risk
analysis
previously
discussed,
these
findings
differ
from
the
more
comprehensive
analysis
used
in
the
Ohio
case
study.
Using
the
case
study
approach,
EPA
estimates
that
the
final
regulation
will
yield
annual
leadrelated
benefits
for
children
in
Ohio
of
$
422,113
(
2001$).
This
benefit
value
includes
three
components.
First,
reduced
lead
exposure
is
estimated
to
reduce
neonatal
mortality
by
0.024
cases
annually
with
an
annual
value
of
$
162,094
(
2001$).
Second,
reduced
lead
exposure
will
avoid
the
loss
of
an
estimated
26.96
IQ
points
among
preschool
children
in
Ohio,
which
translates
into
$
253,934
(
2001$)
per
year
in
benefits.
Third,
the
annually
avoided
costs
of
compensatory
education
from
incidence
of
IQ
below
70
and
blood­
lead
levels
above
20
µ
g/
dL
among
children
amounts
to
approximately
$
5,345
(
2001$).
Lead
exposure
has
been
shown
to
have
adverse
effects
on
the
health
of
adults
as
well
as
children.
The
health
effects
in
adults
that
EPA
quantified
all
derive
from
lead's
effects
on
blood
pressure.
Quantified
health
effects
include
increased
incidence
of
hypertension
(
estimated
for
males
only),
initial
coronary
heart
disease
(
CHD),
strokes
(
initial
cerebrovascular
accidents
and
atherothrombotic
brain
infarctions),
and
premature
mortality.
This
analysis
does
not
include
other
health
effects
associated
with
elevated
blood
pressure
and
other
adult
health
effects
of
lead,
including
nervous
system
disorders
in
adults,
anemia,
and
possible
cancer
effects.
EPA
used
cost
of
illness
estimates
(
i.
e.,
medical
costs
and
lost
work
time)
to
estimate
monetary
value
of
reduced
incidence
of
hypertension,
initial
CHD,
and
strokes.
EPA
then
used
the
value
of
a
statistical
life
saved
to
value
changes
in
risk
of
premature
mortality.
The
national
level
analysis
finds
that
the
final
rule
will
achieve
no
lead­
related
health
benefits
among
adults.
Again,
the
national
analysis
results
differ
from
the
Ohio
case
study
results.
Using
the
case
study
approach,
EPA
estimates
that
the
final
regulation
will
achieve
total
lead­
related
benefits
among
Ohio
adults
of
$
117,393
(
2001$).
This
value
includes
benefits
from
reduced
hypertension
among
adult
males:
a
reduction
of
an
estimated
9.4
cases
annually,
with
benefits
of
approximately
$
10,670
(
2001$).
In
addition,
reducing
the
incidence
of
initial
CHD,
strokes,
and
premature
mortality
among
adult
males
and
females
in
Ohio
would
result
in
estimated
benefits
of
$
963,
$
2,115,
and
$
103,645,
respectively.
Based
on
the
national­
level
benefits
analysis,
EPA
found
that
total
benefits
from
reduced
exposure
to
lead,
for
both
children
and
adults,
are
negligible
under
the
final
rule.
However,
based
on
the
Ohio
case
study
findings,
benefits
for
children
and
adults
from
reduced
lead­
related
health
effects
to
the
final
rule
are
estimated
to
total
approximately
$
0.5
million
(
2001$)
annually
in
the
State
of
Ohio
alone
(
see
section
H
of
today's
final
rule
for
detail).
As
in
the
cancer
risk
analysis,
the
difference
in
the
national
and
Ohio­
based
results
is
primarily
due
to
more
comprehensive
information
on
MP&
M
and
non­
MP&
M
facility
discharges
used
in
Ohio.

4.
Reduced
Exceedances
of
Health­
Based
AWQC
EPA
also
estimated
the
effect
of
MP&
M
facility
discharges
on
the
occurrence
of
pollutant
concentrations
in
affected
waterways
that
exceed
human
health­
based
AWQCs.
In
a
conceptual
sense,
this
analysis
and
its
findings
are
not
additive
to
the
preceding
analyses
of
change
in
cancer
or
lead­
related
health
risks
but
are
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00037
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25722
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
another
way
of
quantitatively
characterizing
the
same
possible
benefit
categories.
This
analysis
compares
the
estimated
baseline
and
post
compliance
in­
stream
pollutant
concentrations
in
affected
waterways
to
ambient
water
criteria
for
protection
of
human
health.
The
comparison
included
AWQC
for
protection
of
human
health
through
consumption
of
organisms
and
for
consumption
of
organisms
and
water.
Pollutant
concentrations
in
excess
of
these
values
indicate
potential
risks
to
human
health.
Table
IX
 
2
presents
results
of
this
analysis.

TABLE
IX
 
2.
 
ESTIMATED
MP&
M
DISCHARGE
REACHES
WITH
MP&
M
POLLUTANT
CONCENTRATIONS
IN
EXCESS
OF
AWQC
LIMITS
FOR
PROTECTION
OF
HUMAN
HEALTH
Regulatory
status
Number
of
reaches
with
MP&
M
pollutant
concentrations
exceeding
human
health­
based
AWQC
limits
Number
of
benefitting
reaches
For
consumption
of
water
and
organisms
For
consumption
of
organisms
only
All
AWQC
exceedances
eliminated
Number
of
AWQC
exceedances
reduced
For
consumption
of
water
and
organisms
For
consumption
of
organisms
only
For
consumption
of
water
and
organisms
For
consumption
of
organisms
only
Selected
Option:
Traditional
Extrapolation
Baseline
...........................................................................
78
21
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
Post­
Compliance
..............................................................
78
21
0
0
0
0
Selected
Option:
Post­
Stratification
Extrapolation
Baseline
...........................................................................
112
21
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
Post­
Compliance
..............................................................
112
21
0
0
0
0
Source:
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.

EPA
estimates
that
in­
stream
concentrations
of
4
pollutants
(
i.
e.,
arsenic,
iron,
manganese,
and
nnitrosodimethylamine
will
exceed
human
health
criteria
for
consumption
of
water
and
organisms
in
78
receiving
reaches
nationwide
as
the
result
of
baseline
MP&
M
pollutant
discharges.
EPA
estimates
that
there
are
human
health
AWQC
exceedances
caused
by
nnitrosodimethylamine
(
NDMA).
However
EPA
did
not
consider
NDMA
pollutant
reductions
in
its
national
benefits
analyses
because
of
the
low
number
of
detected
values
for
that
pollutant
(
See
Chapter
7
of
the
TDD).
EPA
estimates
that
the
final
rule
will
not
eliminate
the
occurrence
of
pollutant
concentrations
in
excess
of
human
health
criteria
for
consumption
of
water
and
organisms
and
for
consumption
of
organisms
on
any
of
the
reaches
on
which
baseline
discharges
are
estimated
to
cause
pollutant
concentrations
in
excess
of
AWQC
values.

5.
Uncertainties
and
Assumptions
of
the
Human
Health
Benefits
Analysis
Because
of
the
uncertainties
and
assumptions
of
EPA's
analysis,
the
estimates
of
benefits
presented
in
this
section
may
either
overstate
or
understate
the
benefits
to
recreational
fishers,
subsistence
fishers,
and
members
of
the
general
population
who
consume
drinking
water
obtained
from
intakes
located
downstream
of
MP&
M
discharges.
Some
of
the
major
uncertainties
and
assumptions
of
EPA's
analysis
include
the
following:
 
In
estimating
cancer
risks
and
evaluating
the
risk
of
non­
cancer
health
effects
other
than
those
related
to
lead
exposure,
EPA
did
not
consider
the
potential
for
interactions
between
pollutants.
EPA
estimated
cancer
risk
or
non­
cancer
hazard
attributable
to
each
pollutant
and
summed
the
pollutantspecific
estimates
as
appropriate
(
that
is,
EPA
summed
all
pollutant­
specific
cancer
risk
estimates
for
each
pathway
of
exposure,
and
summed
pollutantspecific
hazard
quotients
across
target
organs
for
each
pathway
of
exposure).
This
approach
does
not
account
for
the
possibility
that
pollutants
may
interact
synergistically
or
antagonistically
such
that
the
cancer
potency
or
non­
cancer
hazard
of
the
mixture
of
the
pollutants
is
more
or
less
than
that
calculated
from
the
cancer
potencies
or
RfDs
of
the
individual
pollutants.
 
Population
risk
for
cancer
is
based
on
mean
exposure.
Using
mean
exposure
parameters
for
non­
cancer
could
either
over­
or
under­
estimate
HI
exceedences.
 
EPA's
estimates
of
cancer
cases
were
calculated
using
cancer
potency
factors
that
are
upper
bound
estimates
of
cancer
potency,
potentially
leading
to
overestimation
of
cancer
risk.
 
The
analysis
benefits
from
reduced
incidence
of
cancer
did
not
account
for
a
cessation­
lag,
the
time
between
when
exposures
are
reduced
and
when
reduction
in
risk
occurs.
Ignoring
a
cessation
lag
may
lead
to
overestimation
of
cancer­
related
benefits.
 
EPA
assumed
that
the
number
of
subsistence
fishers
would
be
an
additional
5%
of
the
licensed
fishing
population.
This
could
be
either
an
overestimate
or
underestimate
of
the
actual
number
of
subsistence
fishers.
 
Hazard
indices
estimated
in
this
analysis
may
understate
actual
health
risk
because
possible
additional
sources
of
pollutants,
such
as
background
pollutants
and
MP&
M
pollutants
from
upstream
dischargers,
were
not
considered
in
the
analysis.
Additional
details
on
methodology
and
the
uncertainties
and
limitations
of
EPA's
analysis
of
human
health
risk
from
the
final
effluent
guidelines,
particularly
assumptions
related
to
exposure
parameters,
are
presented
in
Chapter
13
and
Chapter
14
of
the
EEBA
report.

C.
Improved
Ecological
Conditions
and
Recreational
Uses
EPA
expects
the
final
regulation
to
provide
ecological
benefits
by
improving
the
habitats
or
ecosystems
(
aquatic
and
terrestrial)
affected
by
the
MP&
M
industry's
effluent
discharges.
Benefits
associated
with
changes
in
aquatic
life
may
include
restoration
of
sensitive
species,
recovery
of
diseased
species,
changes
in
taste­
and
odorproducing
algae,
changes
in
dissolved
oxygen
(
DO),
increased
assimilative
capacity
of
affected
waterways,
and
improved
related
recreational
activities.
These
activities
include
swimming,

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00038
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25723
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
fishing,
boating
and
wildlife
observation
that
may
be
enhanced
when
risks
to
aquatic
life
are
reduced
and
where
perceivable
water
quality
efforts
associated
with
MP&
M
pollutants,
such
as
turbidity,
are
reduced.
Among
these
ecological
benefits,
EPA
was
able
to
estimate
dollar
values
for
improved
recreational
opportunities
and
for
nonuser
benefits.
EPA
expects
the
MP&
M
rule
to
improve
aquatic
species
habitats
by
reducing
concentrations
of
toxic
contaminants
such
as
aluminum,
cadmium,
copper,
lead,
mercury,
silver,
and
zinc
in
water.
These
improvements
may
enhance
the
quality
and
value
of
water­
based
recreation,
such
as
fishing,
swimming,
wildlife
viewing,
camping,
waterfowl
hunting,
and
boating.
The
benefits
from
improved
water­
based
recreation
would
be
seen
as
increases
in
the
increased
value
participants
derive
from
a
day
of
recreation
and
the
increased
number
of
days
that
consumers
of
water­
based
recreation
choose
to
visit
the
cleaner
waterways.
This
analysis
measures
the
economic
benefit
to
society
from
water
quality
improvements
based
on
the
increased
monetary
value
of
recreational
opportunities
resulting
from
those
improvements.
EPA
assessed
recreational
benefits
of
reduced
occurrence
of
pollutant
concentrations
exceeding
aquatic
life
and
human
health
AWQC
values.
EPA
estimates
that
baseline
in­
stream
concentrations
of
9
pollutants
(
i.
e.,
aluminum,
cadmium,
copper,
lead,
manganese,
mercury,
nickel,
silver,
and
zinc)
will
exceed
the
acute
and
chronic
criterion
for
aquatic
life
in
353
reaches
nationwide.
The
final
rule
eliminates
concentrations
in
excess
of
aquatic
lifebased
AWQCs
on
nine
of
these
reaches.
Section
IX.
4
of
this
preamble
presents
EPA's
analysis
of
the
effect
of
MP&
M
discharges
on
occurrence
of
pollutant
concentrations
in
affected
waterways
in
excess
of
human
health­
based
AWQCs.
The
analysis
of
recreational
benefits
combined
the
findings
from
the
aquatic
life
benefits
analysis
and
the
human
health
AWQC
exceedance
analysis
described
previously.
These
analyses
found
that
394
stream
reaches
exceed
chronic
or
acute
aquatic
life
AWQC
and/
or
human
health
AWQC
values
at
the
baseline
discharge
levels
(
see
Table
IX
 
3).
EPA
expects
the
final
rule
will
eliminate
exceedances
on
nine
of
these
discharge
reaches.

TABLE
IX
 
3.
 
ESTIMATED
MP&
M
DISCHARGE
REACHES
WITH
MP&
M
POLLUTANT
CONCENTRATIONS
IN
EXCESS
OF
AWQC
LIMITS
FOR
PROTECTION
OF
HUMAN
HEALTH
OR
AQUATIC
SPECIES
Regulatory
status
Number
of
reaches
with
MP&
M
pollutant
concentrations
exceeding
AWQC
limits
Number
of
benefitting
reaches
Aquatic
life
Human
health
Total
All
AWQC
exceedances
eliminated
AWQC
exceedances
reduced
Chronic
Acute
H2O
and
organisms
Organisms
only
Selected
Option:
Traditional
Extrapolation
Baseline
.................................................
353
18
78
21
394
N/
A
N/
A
Post­
Compliance
...................................
344
9
78
21
386
9
0
Selected
Option:
Post­
Stratification
Extrapolation
Baseline
.................................................
350
15
112
21
426
N/
A
N/
A
Post­
Compliance
...................................
344
9
112
21
420
6
0
Removing
water
quality
impairments
would
increase
services
provided
by
water
resources
to
recreational
users.
EPA
expects
potential
recreational
users
to
benefit
from
improved
recreational
opportunities,
including
an
increased
number
of
available
choices
of
recreational
sites.
For
example,
some
of
the
streams
that
were
not
usable
for
recreation
under
the
baseline
discharge
conditions
may
be
newly
included
in
the
site
choice
set
for
recreational
users
from
nearby
counties.
Streams
that
have
been
used
for
recreation
under
the
baseline
conditions
can
become
more
attractive
for
users
making
recreational
trips
more
enjoyable.
Individuals
may
also
take
trips
more
frequently
if
they
enjoy
their
recreational
activities
more.
EPA
attached
a
monetary
value
to
these
reduced
exceedances
based
on
increased
values
for
three
water­
based
recreation
activities
 
fishing,
boating,
and
wildlife
viewing
 
and
for
non­
user
values.
Because
most
benefitting
reaches
are
close
to
densely
populated
areas,
potential
recreational
users
may
also
benefit
from
lower
travel
costs
to
the
recreational
sites
in
the
vicinity
of
their
home
towns
that
were
not
previously
suitable
to
water­
based
recreation.
EPA
applied
a
benefits
transfer
approach
to
estimate
the
total
WTP,
including
both
use
and
non­
use
values,
for
improvements
in
surface
water
quality.
This
approach
builds
upon
a
review
and
analysis
of
the
surface
water
valuation
literature.
EPA
first
estimated
the
baseline
value
of
each
recreational
activity
(
i.
e.,
fishing,
boating,
and
wildlife
viewing)
corresponding
to
the
benefitting
reach
by
multiplying
the
estimated
annual
person­
days
per
reach
by
the
estimated
per­
day
values
of
water­
based
recreation.
The
baseline
per­
day
values
of
water­
based
recreation
are
based
on
studies
by
Walsh
et.
al
(
1992)
and
Bergstrom
and
Cordell
(
1991)
(
see
DCN
20444
and
DCN
20427,
section
8.5.2.4).
The
studies
provide
values
per
recreation
day
for
a
wide
range
of
waterbased
activities,
including
fishing,
boating,
wildlife
viewing,
waterfowl
hunting,
camping,
and
picnicking.
The
mean
values
per
recreational
fishing,
boating,
and
wildlife
viewing
day
used
in
this
analysis
are
$
42.12,
$
48.30
and
$
26.28
(
2001$)
respectively.
Applying
facility
weights
and
assuming
over
all
benefitting
reaches
provides
a
total
baseline
value
for
a
given
recreational
activity
for
MP&
M
reaches
expected
to
benefit
from
the
elimination
of
pollutant
concentrations
in
excess
of
AWQC
limits.
EPA
then
applied
the
percentage
change
in
the
recreational
value
of
water
resources
implied
by
surface
water
valuation
studies
to
estimate
changes
in
values
for
all
MP&
M
reaches
in
which
the
regulation
eliminates
AWQC
exceedances
by
one
or
more
MP&
M
pollutants.
The
Agency
selected
eight
of
the
most
comparable
studies
and
calculated
the
changes
in
recreation
values
from
water
quality
improvements
(
as
percentage
of
the
baseline)
implied
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00039
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25724
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
by
those
studies.
Sources
of
estimates
included
Lyke
(
1993),
Jakus
et
al.
(
1997),
Montgomery
and
Needleman
(
1997),
Paneuf
et
al.
(
1998),
Desvousges
et
al.
(
1987),
Lant
and
Roberts
(
1990),
Farber
and
Griner
(
2000),
and
Tudor
et
al.
(
2000)
(
see
section
8.5.2.4
of
the
rulemaking
record).
EPA's
reasoning
for
selecting
each
study
is
discussed
in
detail
in
Chapter
15
of
the
EEBA
report.
EPA
took
a
simple
mean
of
point
estimates
from
all
applicable
studies
to
derive
a
central
tendency
value
for
percentage
change
in
the
water
resource
values
due
to
water
quality
improvements.
These
studies
yielded
estimates
of
increased
recreational
value
from
water
quality
improvements
expected
from
reduced
MP&
M
discharges
of
12,
9,
and
18
percent
for
fishing,
boating,
and
wildlife­
viewing
respectively.
Using
all
possible
applicable
valuation
studies
in
developing
a
benefit
transfer
approach
to
valuing
changes
in
the
recreational
value
of
water
resources
from
reduced
MP&
M
discharges,
makes
unit
values
more
likely
to
be
nationally
representative,
and
avoids
the
potential
bias
inherent
in
using
a
single
study
to
make
estimates
at
the
national
level.
Table
IX
 
4
presents
the
estimated
national
recreational
benefits
of
the
final
rule
(
2001$).
See
EEBA
Chapter
15
for
estimated
recreational
benefits
for
alternative
regulatory
options.
The
estimated
increased
value
of
recreational
activities
to
users
of
waterbased
recreation
is
$
537,197,
$
202,691,
and
$
259,949
annually
for
fishing,
boating,
and
wildlife
viewing
respectively.
The
recreational
activities
considered
in
this
analysis
are
stochastically
independent;
EPA
calculated
the
total
user
value
of
enhanced
water­
based
recreation
opportunities
by
summing
over
the
three
recreation
categories.
The
estimated
increase
in
the
total
user
value
is
$
999,838
annually.
EPA
also
estimated
non­
market
nonuser
benefits.
These
non­
market
nonuser
benefits
are
not
associated
with
current
use
of
the
affected
ecosystem
or
habitat;
instead,
they
arise
from
the
value
society
places
on
improved
water
quality
independent
of
planned
uses
or
based
on
expected
future
use.
Past
studies
have
shown
that
non­
user
values
are
a
sizable
component
of
the
total
economic
value
of
water
resources.
EPA
estimated
average
changes
in
non­
user
value
to
equal
one­
half
of
the
recreational
use
benefits
(
see
Fisher,
A.
and
R.
Raucher,
1984;
DCN
20431,
section
8.5.2.4).
The
estimated
increase
in
non­
use
value
is
$
499,919
(
2001$).
A
recent
literature
review
finds
that
non­
use
benefits
are,
on
average,
1.9
to
2.5
times
all
use
values,
rather
than
0.5
times
recreational
benefits
alone
as
EPA
has
traditionally
assumed
for
its
nonuse
benefit
estimates
(
see
T.
Brown,
1993;
DCN
20426,
section
8.5.2.4).
EPA's
method
for
estimating
non­
use
benefits
from
water
quality
improvements
resulting
from
reduced
MP&
M
dischargers
is
therefore
likely
to
understate
the
true
value
of
non­
use
benefits.

TABLE
IX
 
4.
 
ESTIMATED
RECREATIONAL
AND
NON­
USE
BENEFITS
FROM
REDUCED
MP&
M
DISCHARGES
[
Thousands
of
2001$]

Benefit
type
Traditional
extrapolation
Post­
stratification
extrapolation
Recreational
Fishing
.........
$
537.20
$
349.98
Recreational
Boating
.........
$
202.69
$
132.05
Recreational
Wildlife
Viewing
................
$
259.95
$
169.36
Non­
Use
Benefits
(
1 
2
Recreational
Benefits
.............
$
499.92
$
325.70
Total
Recreational
Benefits
$
1,499.76
$
977.09
Note:
Categories
may
not
sum
to
totals
due
to
rounding
of
individual
estimates
for
presentation
purposes.

EPA
calculated
the
total
value
of
enhanced
water­
based
recreation
opportunities
by
summing
over
the
three
recreation
categories
and
non­
user
value.
The
resulting
increase
in
value
of
water
resources
to
consumers
of
waterbased
recreation
and
non­
users
is
$
1,449,756
(
2001$)
annually.
Findings
from
the
Ohio­
case
study
analysis
suggest
that
the
benefits
to
consumers
of
water­
based
recreation
may
be
substantially
underestimated
at
the
national
level.
EPA
estimates
recreational
and
non­
use
benefits
to
Ohio
residents
alone
are
$
376,400
(
2001$)
annually.
See
section
IX.
H
of
today's
final
rule
and
Chapter
21
of
the
EEBA
for
a
detailed
discussion
of
the
case
study
of
recreational
benefits
in
Ohio.
Given
that
the
in­
scope
MP&
M
facilities
located
in
the
State
of
Ohio
account
only
for
six
percent
of
the
total
number
of
in­
scope
facilities,
it
is
reasonable
to
expect
that
the
benefits
to
Ohio
residents
do
not
account
for
such
a
large
proportion
of
recreational
benefits
from
the
final
rule
nationwide.
In
addition
to
more
accurately
account
for
the
presence
and
effect
of
MP&
M
and
non­
MP&
M
dischargers
in
Ohio,
the
following
factors
are
likely
to
result
in
more
comprehensive
estimates
of
recreational
benefits
under
the
case
study
approach:
(
1)
Use
of
an
original
travel
cost
study
to
value
four
recreational
activities
affected
by
the
regulation:
fishing,
swimming,
boating,
and
wild
life
viewing;
(
2)
use
of
a
firstorder
decay
model
to
estimate
in­
stream
concentrations
in
downstream
water
bodies;
(
3)
ability
to
estimate
welfare
gain
to
recreational
users
from
reduced
discharges
of
nutrients
such
as
Total
Kjeldahl
Nitrogen
(
TKN).

D.
Effect
on
POTW
Operations
The
final
rule
only
regulates
direct
dischargers.
Therefore,
the
selected
option
does
not
affect
POTW
operation.
For
the
alternative
policy
options
that
consider
both
direct
and
indirect
dischargers,
EPA
evaluated
two
productivity
measures
associated
with
MP&
M
pollutants.
The
first
measure
is
the
reduction
in
pollutant
interference
at
publicly­
owned
treatment
works
(
POTWs).
The
second
measure
is
passthrough
of
pollutants
into
the
sludge,
which
limits
options
for
POTW
disposal
of
sewage
sludge.
These
analyses
are
presented
in
EEBA
Chapter
16.

E.
Summary
of
Benefits
Using
the
national­
level
analysis
approach,
EPA
estimates
total
benefits
for
the
five
monetized
categories
of
approximately
$
1,500,000
(
2001$)
annually
(
see
Table
IX
 
5).
EPA's
complete
benefit
assessment
can
be
found
in
EEBA
for
the
final
rule.
The
monetized
benefits
of
the
rule
likely
underestimates
the
total
benefits
of
the
rule
because
they
omit
various
sources
of
benefits
to
society
from
reduced
MP&
M
effluent
discharges.
Examples
of
benefit
categories
not
reflected
in
these
estimates
include
non­
cancer
health
benefits
other
than
benefits
from
reduced
exposure
to
lead;
other
waterdependent
recreational
benefits,
such
as
swimming
and
waterskiing
benefits
to
recreational
users
from
reduced
concentration
of
conventional
pollutants
and
nonconventional
pollutants
such
as
TKN;
and
reduced
cost
of
drinking
water
treatment
for
the
pollutants
with
drinking
water
criteria.
In
addition,
as
noted
in
the
prior
discussion,
although
the
national­
level
benefits
analysis
finds
negligible
benefits
from
reduced
health
risk,
the
more
rigorous
analytic
approach
used
for
the
Ohio
case
study
found
more
benefits
 
approximately
$
0.5
million.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00040
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25725
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
TABLE
IX
 
5.
 
ESTIMATED
BENEFITS
FROM
REDUCED
MP&
M
DISCHARGES
[
Annual
Benefits
 
Thousands
of
2001$]

Benefit
category
Traditional
extrapolation
Post­
stratification
extrapolation
1.
Reduced
Cancer
Risk:
Fish
Consumption
$
0.09
$
0.13
Water
Consumption
$
0
$
0
2.
Reduced
Risk
from
Exposure
to
Lead:
Children
....
$
0
$
0
Adults
.......
$
0
$
0
3.
Avoided
Sewage
Sludge
Disposal
Costs
a
N/
A
N/
A
4.
Enhanced
Fishing
.........
$
537.20
$
349.98
5.
Enhanced
Boating
.........
$
202.69
$
132.05
6.
Enhanced
Wildlife
Viewing
................
$
259.95
$
169.36
7.
Non­
Use
benefits
(
1 
2
of
Recreational
Use
Benefits)
.......
$
499.92
$
325.70
TABLE
IX
 
5.
 
ESTIMATED
BENEFITS
FROM
REDUCED
MP&
M
DISCHARGES
 
Continued
[
Annual
Benefits
 
Thousands
of
2001$]

Benefit
category
Traditional
extrapolation
Post­
stratification
extrapolation
Total
monetized
benefits
$
1,499.85
$
977.22
a
Not
applicable
to
the
final
rule.

F.
National
Cost­
Benefit
Comparison
The
comparison
of
costs
and
benefits
for
the
final
rule
is
inevitably
incomplete
because
EPA
cannot
value
all
of
the
benefits
resulting
from
the
final
rule
in
dollar
terms.
A
comparison
of
costs
and
benefits
is
thus
limited
by
the
lack
of
a
comprehensive
benefits
valuation
and
also
by
uncertainties
in
the
estimates.
Bearing
these
limitations
in
mind,
EPA
presents
a
summary
comparison
of
costs
and
benefits
for
the
final
rule
in
Table
IX
 
6.
The
estimated
social
cost
of
the
final
rule
is
$
13.8
million
annually
(
2001$).
The
total
benefits
that
can
be
valued
in
dollar
terms
in
the
categories
traditionally
analyzed
for
effluent
guidelines
range
from
around
$
977,000
to
$
1,500,000
annually
(
2001$),
based
on
the
alternative
extrapolation
methods.
As
previously
noted,
EPA
used
more
detailed
information
and
a
more
comprehensive
analytic
method
to
estimate
expected
benefits
of
the
final
rule
for
the
State
of
Ohio.
This
more
rigorous
analysis
was
undertaken
to
address
certain
issues
in
the
nationallevel
analysis
and
to
supplement
the
national­
level
analysis
performed
for
the
final
rule.
The
following
section
presents
this
analysis.
The
Ohio
case
study
showed
that
the
more
rigorous
analytic
approach
leads
to
a
different
conclusion
from
that
found
in
the
simpler,
national­
level
analysis
approach
 
in
particular,
that
the
estimated
State­
level
benefits
exceed
the
estimated
State­
level
cost.
As
previously
discussed,
given
(
1)
that
Ohio
accounts
for
only
about
6
percent
of
total
MP&
M
facilities,
and
(
2)
that
other
States
with
substantial
numbers
of
MP&
M
facilities
have
similar
population
and
water
body
characteristics
to
Ohio,
EPA
believes
that
use
of
the
more
rigorous
approach
nationally
would
yield
a
higher
estimate
of
national
benefits.
On
this
basis,
the
Agency
estimates
that
national
benefits
from
the
final
rule
may
be
comparable
to
its
social
costs.

TABLE
IX
 
6.
 
COST­
BENEFIT
COMPARISON
[
THOUSANDS
OF
2001$]

Category
Traditional
extrapolation
Post­
stratification
extrapolation*

Social
Cost
of
Regulation
............................................................................................................................
$
13,824.56
$
13,824.56
Monetized
Benefits
......................................................................................................................................
$
1,499.85
$
977.22
Net
Benefits
.................................................................................................................................................
(
¥
$
12,324.72)
(
¥
$
12,847.34)

*
Post­
Stratification
extrapolation
is
applied
to
benefits
estimates
only.

G.
Ohio
Case
Study
1.
Overview
The
Ohio
Case
Study
Report
presents
a
detailed
case
study
of
the
expected
State­
level
costs
and
benefits
of
the
MP&
M
rule
in
Ohio.
The
case
study
assesses
the
costs
and
benefits
of
the
final
rule
for
facilities
and
water
bodies
located
in
Ohio.
Ohio
is
among
the
ten
States
with
the
largest
numbers
of
MP&
M
facilities.
The
State
has
a
diverse
water
resource
base
and
a
more
extensive
water
quality
ecological
database
than
many
other
States.
EPA
gathered
data
on
MP&
M
facilities
and
on
Ohio's
baseline
water
quality
conditions
and
water­
based
recreation
activities
to
support
the
case
study
analysis.
These
data
characterize
current
water
quality
conditions,
water
quality
changes
expected
from
the
regulation,
and
the
expected
welfare
changes
from
water
quality
improvements
at
water
bodies
affected
by
MP&
M
discharges.
The
case
study
also
estimates
the
social
costs
of
the
final
rule
for
facilities
in
Ohio
and
compares
estimated
social
costs
and
benefits
for
the
State.
The
case
study
analysis
supplements
the
national
level
analysis
performed
for
the
final
MP&
M
regulation
in
two
important
ways.
First,
the
analysis
used
improved
data
and
methods
to
determine
MP&
M
pollutant
discharges
from
both
MP&
M
facilities
and
other
sources.
In
particular,
EPA
administered
1,600
screener
questionnaires
to
augment
information
on
the
Ohio's
MP&
M
facilities.
The
Agency
also
used
information
from
the
sampled
MP&
M
facilities
to
estimate
discharge
characteristics
of
non­
sampled
MP&
M
facilities,
as
described
in
Appendix
H
of
the
EEBA
report.
The
Agency
assigned
discharge
characteristics
to
all
non­
MP&
M
industrial
direct
discharges
based
on
the
information
provided
in
PCS.
Second,
the
analysis
used
an
original
travel
cost
study
to
value
four
recreational
uses
of
water
resources
affected
by
the
regulation:
swimming,
fishing,
boating,
and
near­
water
activities.
The
added
detail
provides
a
more
complete
and
reliable
analysis
of
water
quality
changes
from
reduced
MP&
M
discharges.
The
study
provides
more
complete
estimates
of
changes
in
human
welfare
resulting
from
reduced
health
risk,
enhanced
recreational
opportunities,
and
improved
economic
productivity.
EPA
estimated
human
health
benefits
from
reduced
MP&
M
dischargers
in
Ohio
using
similar
methodologies
to
those
used
for
the
national­
level
analysis.
Section
IX.
B
of
this
preamble
summarizes
these
methodologies.
Uncertainties
and
assumptions
of
EPA's
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00041
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25726
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
analysis
of
human
health
benefits
are
presented
in
section
IX.
B.
5.
Additional
details
on
methodology
and
the
uncertainties
and
limitations
of
EPA's
analysis
of
reduced
human
health
risk
from
the
final
effluent
guidelines
are
presented
in
Chapter
13
and
14
of
the
EEBA
report.
The
case
study
analysis
of
recreational
benefits
combines
water
quality
modeling
with
a
random
utility
model
(
RUM)
to
assess
how
changes
in
water
quality
from
the
regulation
will
affect
consumers'
valuation
of
water
resources.
The
RUM
analysis
addresses
a
wide
range
of
pollutant
types
and
effects,
including
water
quality
measures
not
often
addressed
in
past
recreational
benefits
studies.
In
particular,
the
model
supports
a
more
complete
analysis
of
recreational
benefits
from
reductions
in
nutrients
and
toxic
pollutants
(
i.
e.,
priority
pollutants
and
nonconventional
pollutants
with
toxic
effects).
EPA
subjected
this
study
to
a
formal
peer
review
by
experts
in
the
natural
resource
valuation
field.
The
peer
review
concluded
that
EPA
had
done
a
competent
job,
especially
given
the
available
data.
As
requested
by
the
Agency,
peer
reviewers
provided
suggestions
for
further
improvements
in
the
analysis.
Since
the
proposed
rule
analysis,
the
Agency
made
changes
to
the
Ohio
model
and
conducted
additional
sensitivity
analyses
suggested
by
the
reviewers.
The
peer
review
report
and
EPA's
response
to
peer
reviewers'
comments,
along
with
the
revised
model,
are
in
the
docket
for
the
rule.

2.
Benefits
for
Ohio
Case
Study
The
use
of
an
original
RUM
in
this
case
study
allows
the
Agency
to
address
limitations
inherent
in
benefits
transfer
used
in
the
analysis
of
recreational
benefits
at
the
national
level.
The
use
of
benefits
transfer
often
requires
additional
assumptions
because
water
quality
changes
evaluated
in
the
available
recreation
demand
studies
are
only
roughly
comparable
with
the
water
quality
measures
evaluated
for
a
particular
rule.
The
RUM
model
estimates
the
effects
of
the
specific
water
quality
characteristics
analyzed
for
the
final
MP&
M
regulation,
such
as
presence
of
AWQC
exceedances
and
concentrations
of
the
nonconventional
pollutant
Total
Kjeldahl
Nitrogen
(
TKN).
EPA
estimates
that
this
direct
link
between
the
water
quality
characteristics
analyzed
for
the
rule
and
the
characteristics
valued
in
the
RUM
analysis
reduces
uncertainty
in
benefit
estimates
and
makes
the
analysis
of
recreational
benefits
more
robust.
The
final
MP&
M
regulation
affects
a
broad
range
of
pollutants,
some
of
which
are
toxic
to
human
and
aquatic
life
but
are
not
directly
observable
(
i.
e.,
priority
and
non­
conventional
pollutants).
These
unobservable
toxic
pollutants
may
degrade
aquatic
habitats,
decrease
the
size
and
abundance
of
fish
and
other
aquatic
species,
increase
fish
deformities,
and
change
watershed
species
composition.
Changes
in
toxic
pollutant
concentrations
may
therefore
affect
recreationists'
valuation
of
water
resources,
even
if
consumers
are
unaware
of
changes
in
ambient
pollutant
concentrations.
The
study
used
data
from
the
National
Demand
Survey
for
Water­
Based
Recreation
(
NDS),
conducted
by
U.
S.
EPA
and
the
National
Forest
Service,
to
examine
the
effects
of
in­
stream
pollutant
concentrations
on
consumers'
decisions
to
visit
a
particular
water
body.
The
analysis
estimated
baseline
and
post­
compliance
water
quality
at
recreation
sites
actually
visited
by
the
surveyed
consumers
and
at
all
other
sites
within
the
consumers'
choice
set,
visited
or
not.
The
RUM
analysis
of
consumer
behavior
then
estimated
the
effect
of
ambient
water
quality
and
other
site
characteristics
on
the
total
number
of
trips
taken
for
different
water­
based
recreation
activities
and
the
allocation
of
these
trips
among
particular
recreational
sites.
The
RUM
analysis
is
a
travel
cost
model,
in
which
the
cost
to
travel
to
a
particular
recreational
site
represents
the
``
price''
of
a
visit.
EPA
modeled
two
consumer
decisions:
(
1)
How
many
water­
based
recreational
trips
to
take
during
the
recreational
season
(
the
trip
participation
model);
and
(
2)
which
recreation
site
to
choose
(
the
site
choice
model).
Combining
the
trip
frequency
model's
prediction
of
trips
under
the
baseline
and
post­
compliance
scenarios
and
the
site
choice
model's
per­
trip
welfare
measure
provides
a
measure
of
total
welfare.
EPA
calculated
each
individual's
seasonal
welfare
gain
for
each
recreation
activity
from
postcompliance
water
quality
changes,
and
then
used
Census
data
to
aggregate
the
estimated
welfare
change
to
the
State
level.
The
sum
of
estimated
welfare
changes
over
the
four
recreation
activities
yielded
estimates
of
total
welfare
gain.
EPA
estimated
other
components
of
benefits
in
Ohio
using
similar
methodologies
to
those
used
for
the
national­
level
analysis.
In
addition
to
the
RUM
study
of
recreational
benefits,
other
analytical
improvements
included
the
following:
(
1)
Use
of
more
detailed
data
on
MP&
M
facilities,
obtained
from
the
1,600
additional
surveys;
(
2)
use
of
data
on
non­
MP&
M
discharges
to
estimate
current
baseline
conditions
in
the
State;
and
(
3)
use
of
a
first­
order
decay
model
to
estimate
in­
stream
concentrations
in
the
Ohio
water
bodies
in
the
baseline
and
post­
compliance.
Appendix
H
of
the
EEBA
Report
describes
the
water
quality
model
used
in
this
analysis
and
the
approach
and
data
sources
used
to
estimate
total
pollutant
loadings
from
all
industrial
and
municipal
sources
to
Ohio's
water
bodies.
The
Agency
has
concluded
that
the
added
level
of
detail
results
in
more
robust
benefit
estimates.
Summing
the
monetary
values
over
all
benefit
categories
yields
total
monetized
benefits
of
$
930,400
(
2001$)
annually
for
the
final
rule,
as
shown
in
Table
IX
 
7.
Although
more
comprehensive
than
the
national
benefits
analysis,
the
case
study
benefit
estimates
still
omit
important
mechanisms
by
which
society
is
likely
to
benefit
from
the
final
rule.
Examples
of
benefit
categories
not
reflected
in
the
monetized
benefits
include
non­
cancer
health
benefits
(
other
than
lead­
related
benefits)
and
reduced
costs
of
drinking
water
treatment.

TABLE
IX
 
7.
 
ESTIMATED
BENEFITS
FROM
REDUCED
MP&
M
DISCHARGES
FROM
OHIO
FACILITIES
[
Annual
benefits
 
thousands
of
2001$]

Benefit
category
Selected
option
1.
Reduced
Cancer
Risk:
Fish
Consumption:
....................
$
14.5
Water
Consumption:
.................
$
0.00
2.
Reduced
Risk
from
Exposure
to
Lead:
Children:
....................................
$
422.11
Adults:
.......................................
$
117.39
3.
Avoided
Sewage
Sludge
Disposal
Costs
...............................
$
0.00
4.
Enhanced
Fishing
.....................
$
153.10
5.
Enhanced
Swimming
................
$
9.78
6.
Enhanced
Boating
....................
$
0.00
7.
Enhanced
Wildlife
Viewing
.......
$
88.05
8.
Non­
Use
benefits
(
1 
2
of
Recreational
Use
Benefits)
.............
$
125.47
Total
Monetized
Benefits
..........
$
930.4
3.
Social
Costs
for
Ohio
Case
Study
EPA
also
estimated
the
social
costs
of
the
final
rule
for
MP&
M
facilities
in
Ohio.
EPA
relied
on
the
results
of
the
national
analysis
to
predict
the
number
of
Ohio
facilities
that
would
close
in
the
baseline
and
due
to
the
final
rule.
The
MP&
M
regulations
will
not
affect
facilities
that
are
baseline
closures.
Predicting
the
number
of
regulatory
closures
is
necessary
to
estimate
the
costs
and
impacts
of
the
regulation
on
industry
and
water
quality.
The
screener
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00042
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25727
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
data
collected
for
Ohio
facilities
did
not
provide
financial
data
to
perform
facility
financial
impact
analyses,
as
was
done
in
the
national
analysis.
EPA
therefore
used
data
from
the
national
analysis
to
estimate
the
percentage
of
facilities
that
would
close
in
the
baseline
and
post­
compliance.
EPA
assumed
the
ratio
of
facilities
that
close
in
the
national
analysis
with
the
same
discharge
status,
subcategory,
and
flow
category
would
be
comparable
to
closures
for
facilities
in
Ohio.
For
example,
two
percent
of
direct
Oily
Waste
facilities
discharging
less
than
one
MGY
close
in
the
baseline
in
the
national
data
set.
EPA
developed
engineering
estimates
of
compliance
costs
for
each
Ohio
facility
and
annualized
costs
using
a
seven
percent
discount
rate
over
a
15­
year
period.
As
in
the
national
social
cost
analysis,
EPA
included
compliance
costs
for
facilities
that
close
due
to
the
rule
and
costs
for
facilities
that
continue
to
operate
subject
to
the
final
regulation.
Including
costs
for
regulatory
closures
in
effect
calculates
the
social
costs
of
compliance
that
would
be
incurred
if
every
facility
continued
to
operate
postregulation
In
fact,
some
facilities
may
find
it
more
economical
to
close,
and
calculating
costs
as
if
all
facilities
continue
operating
provides
an
upper
bound
estimate
of
social
costs.
EPA
used
the
same
methods
as
used
in
the
national
social
cost
analysis
to
estimate
other
components
of
social
costs
for
the
Ohio
case
study.
Section
VIII
of
this
preamble
and
Chapter
11
of
the
EEBA
describe
the
methods
used
to
estimate
government
administrative
costs
and
the
social
costs
of
unemployment.
Table
IX
 
8
shows
the
total
estimated
social
costs
of
the
final
rule
for
Ohio
facilities.

TABLE
IX
 
8.
 
ANNUAL
SOCIAL
COSTS
FOR
OHIO
FACILITIES:
PROPOSED
OPTION
[
Thousands
2001$,
costs
annualized
at
7%]

Component
of
social
costs
Selected
option
Resource
value
of
compliance
costs
..........................................
$
62.23
Government
administrative
costs
$
0.00
Social
cost
of
unemployment
.......
$
0.00
Total
social
cost
....................
$
62.23
4.
Comparison
of
Monetized
Benefits
and
Costs
for
Ohio
Case
Study
The
Ohio
case
study
shows
substantial
net
positive
benefits
associated
with
the
MP&
M
regulation.
EPA
estimates
the
social
cost
in
Ohio
of
the
final
regulation
to
be
$
62,232
annually
(
2001$).
The
sum
total
of
benefits
that
can
be
valued
in
dollar
terms
is
$
930,408
annually
(
2001$).
Comparing
the
midpoint
estimate
of
social
costs
($
62,232)
with
the
midpoint
estimate
of
monetizable
benefits
($
930,408)
results
in
a
net
social
benefit
of
$
868,178.
This
represents
a
partial
cost­
benefit
comparison
because
not
all
of
the
benefits
resulting
from
the
regulation
can
be
valued
in
dollar
terms
(
e.
g.,
changes
in
systemic
health
risk).
For
the
reasons
previously
discussed,
EPA
judges
that
the
analytic
approach
and
detailed
data
used
for
the
Ohio
case
study
provide
a
more
robust
and
accurate
benefits
estimate
than
the
data
and
approach
used
for
the
national­
level
analysis.

X.
Non­
Water
Quality
Environmental
Impacts
Sections
304(
b)
and
306
of
the
Act
require
EPA
to
consider
non­
water
quality
environmental
impacts
(
including
energy
requirements)
associated
with
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
standards.
In
accordance
with
these
requirements,
EPA
has
considered
the
potential
impact
of
today's
final
regulation
on
air
emissions,
solid
waste
generation,
and
energy
consumption.
While
it
is
difficult
to
balance
environmental
impacts
across
all
media
and
energy
use,
the
Agency
has
determined
that
the
benefits
associated
with
compliance
with
the
limitations
and
standards
justify
the
multi­
media
impacts
identified
in
this
section
(
see
section
IX
for
a
discussion
on
the
environmental
benefits
associated
with
this
regulation).
For
additional
information
on
non­
water
quality
impacts
associated
with
today's
regulation,
see
section
13
of
the
TDD.

A.
Air
Pollution
MP&
M
facilities
generate
wastewater
that
contain
organic
compounds.
These
organic
compounds
may
be
volatile
organic
compounds
(
VOCs),
which
contribute
to
the
formation
of
ambient
ozone,
or
hazardous
air
pollutants
(
HAPs)
listed
in
section
112(
b)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA).
These
wastewaters
often
pass
through
a
series
of
collection
and
treatment
units
that
are
open
to
the
atmosphere
and
allow
wastewater
containing
organic
compounds
to
contact
ambient
air.
Atmospheric
exposure
of
the
organic­
containing
wastewaters
may
result
in
the
release
of
VOCs
or
organic
HAPs
from
the
wastewater.
The
use
of
halogenated
hazardous
air
pollutant
solvent
(
methylene
chloride,
perchloroethylene,
trichloroethylene,
1,1,1
trichloroethane,
carbon
tetrachloride
and
chloroform)
for
cleaning
in
the
MP&
M
industry
can
create
hazardous
air
pollutant
emissions.
The
Agency
has
concluded
that
this
regulation
will
not
affect
the
use
of
halogenated
hazardous
air
pollutant
solvent
in
the
MP&
M
industry.
This
regulation
neither
requires
nor
discourages
the
use
of
aqueous
cleaners
in
lieu
of
halogenated
hazardous
air
pollutant
solvent.
Because
today's
final
rule
would
not
allow
any
less
stringent
control
of
VOCs
or
organic
HAPs
than
is
currently
in
place
at
MP&
M
facilities,
EPA
does
not
predict
any
net
increase
in
air
emissions
from
volatilization
of
organic
pollutants
due
to
today's
action.
As
such,
EPA
expects
no
adverse
air
impacts
are
expected
to
occur
as
a
result
of
today's
regulation.
The
Agency
notes
that
it
is
developing
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
(
NESHAPs)
under
section
112
of
the
CAA
to
address
air
emissions
of
HAPs.
Current
and
upcoming
NESHAPs
that
may
potentially
affect
HAP
emitting
activities
at
MP&
M
facilities
considered
during
the
development
of
this
rule
include:

 
Chromium
Emissions
from
Hard
and
Decorative
Chromium
Electroplating
and
Chromium
Anodizing
Tanks;

 
Halogenated
Solvent
Cleaning;

 
Aerospace
Manufacturing;

 
Shipbuilding
and
Ship
Repair
(
Surface
Coating);

 
Large
Appliances
(
Surface
Coating);

 
Metal
Furniture
(
Surface
Coating);

 
Automobile
and
Light­
Duty
Truck
Manufacturing
(
Surface
Coating);
and
 
Miscellaneous
Metal
Parts
and
Products
(
Surface
Coating).
Finally,
EPA
notes
that
the
energy
requirements
discussed
in
this
section
may
result
in
increased
emissions
of
combustion
byproducts
associated
with
energy
production.
Given
the
relatively
small
projected
increases
in
energy
use,
EPA
does
not
anticipate
that
this
effect
would
be
significant.

B.
Solid
Waste
As
shown
in
Table
X
 
1,
EPA
anticipates
that
waste
oil
generation
will
increase
as
a
result
of
today's
rule.
The
estimated
increase
of
waste
oil
generation
as
a
result
of
today's
rule
reflects
better
removal
of
oil
and
grease
by
the
selected
technology
than
is
currently
achieved.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00043
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25728
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
TABLE
X
 
1.
 
WASTE
OIL
GENERATION
FOR
OILY
WASTES
SUBCATEGORY
Option
Waste
Oil
Generated
(
million
gallons
year)

Baseline
(
or
current)
Technology
1
..................................
13.5
Option
6
Technology
................
15.9
Source:
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
1
EPA
calculated
the
baseline
sludge
and
waste
oil
generation
using
responses
to
the
1989
MP&
M
Phase
I
Questionnaire
and
the
1996
MP&
M
Phase
II
Detailed
Questionnaires.

MP&
M
facilities
usually
either
recycle
waste
oil
on­
site
or
off­
site,
or
contract
haul
it
for
disposal
as
either
a
hazardous
or
nonhazardous
waste.
However,
EPA
notes
that
the
inclusion
of
water
conservation
and
pollution
prevention
in
the
technology
basis
for
the
Oily
Wastes
subcategory
results
in
the
generation
of
less
waste
oil
than
a
technology
basis
that
did
not
incorporate
pollution
prevention.
EPA
finds
the
overall
increase
in
waste
oil
generation
as
acceptable.

C.
Energy
Requirements
EPA
estimates
that
compliance
with
this
regulation
will
result
in
a
net
increase
in
energy
consumption
at
MP&
M
facilities.
EPA
presents
the
estimates
of
energy
usage
for
the
selected
option
in
Table
X
 
2.

TABLE
X
 
2.
 
ENERGY
REQUIREMENTS
BY
OPTION
Option
Energy
required
(
kilowatt
hrs/
yr)

Baseline
1
..................................
6,883,774
Selected
Options
......................
7,234,450
Source:
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
1
EPA
calculated
the
baseline
sludge
and
waste
oil
generation
using
responses
to
the
1989
MP&
M
Phase
I
Questionnaire
and
the
1996
MP&
M
Phase
II
Detailed
Questionnaires.
The
final
regulation
does
not
include
indirect
discharging
facilities.

By
comparison,
electric
power
generation
facilities
generated
3,123
billion
kilowatt
hours
of
electric
power
in
the
United
States
in
1997
(
The
Energy
Information
Administration,
Electric
Power
Annual
1998
Volume
1,
Table
A1).
Additional
energy
requirements
for
EPA's
selected
options
are
trivial
(
i.
e.,
significantly
less
than
0.01
percent
of
national
requirements).

XI.
Regulatory
Implementation
The
purpose
of
this
section
is
to
provide
assistance
and
direction
to
permit
writers
and
MP&
M
facilities
to
aid
in
their
implementation
of
this
regulation.
This
section
also
discusses
the
relationship
of
upset
and
bypass
provisions,
and
variances
and
modification
to
the
final
limitations
and
standards.
For
additional
implementation
information,
see
section
15
of
the
TDD
for
today's
final
rule.

A.
Implementation
of
the
Limitations
and
Standards
for
Direct
Dischargers
Effluent
limitations
and
new
source
performance
standards
act
as
one
of
the
primary
mechanisms
to
control
the
discharges
of
pollutants
to
waters
of
the
United
States.
Authorized
States
may
also
set
permit
limitations
based
on
the
capabilities
of
the
treatment
installed
to
ensure
proper
operation
and
maintenance
of
the
treatment
technology.
These
limitations
and
standards
are
applied
to
individual
facilities
through
NPDES
permits
issued
by
the
EPA
or
authorized
States
under
section
402
of
the
Act.
In
specific
cases,
the
NPDES
permitting
authority
may
elect
to
establish
permit
limits
for
pollutants
not
covered
by
this
regulation
based
on
the
capabilities
of
on­
site
treatment
technologies.
In
addition,
if
State
water
quality
standards
or
other
provisions
of
State
or
Federal
law
require
limits
on
pollutants
not
covered
by
this
regulation
(
or
require
more
stringent
limits
or
standards
on
covered
pollutants
in
order
to
achieve
compliance),
the
permitting
authority
must
apply
those
limitations
or
standards.
See
CWA
section
301(
b)(
1)(
C).

1.
Compliance
Dates
for
Existing
and
New
Sources
New
and
reissued
Federal
and
State
NPDES
permits
to
direct
dischargers
must
include
the
effluent
limitations
promulgated
today.
The
permits
must
require
immediate
compliance
with
such
limitations.
If
the
permitting
authority
wishes
to
provide
a
compliance
schedule,
it
must
do
so
through
an
enforcement
mechanism.
New
sources
must
comply
with
the
new
source
standards
(
NSPS)
of
the
MP&
M
rule
at
the
time
they
commence
discharging
MP&
M
process
wastewater.
Because
the
final
rule
was
not
promulgated
within
120
days
of
the
proposed
rule,
the
Agency
considers
a
discharger
a
new
source
if
its
construction
commences
after
June
12,
2003.

2.
Applicability
In
section
V
of
this
preamble
and
section
15
of
the
TDD,
EPA
provides
details
information
on
the
applicability
of
this
rule
to
various
operations.
Permit
writers
should
closely
examine
all
metal
products
and
machinery
operations
and
compare
these
operations
against
the
applicability
statement
for
today's
rule
(
see
40
CFR
438.1)
and
section
1
of
the
TDD
to
determine
if
they
are
subject
to
the
provisions
of
this
rule.

3.
Implementation
for
Facilities
Subject
to
Multiple
Effluent
Limitations
Guidelines
The
regulations
in
today's
final
rule
do
not
apply
to
wastewater
discharges
which
are
subject
to
the
limitations
and
standards
of
other
effluent
limitations
guidelines
(
e.
g.,
Metal
Finishing
(
40
CFR
part
433)
or
Iron
and
Steel
Manufacturing
(
40
CFR
part
420)).

4.
Waiver
for
Pollutants
Not
Present
In
May
2000,
EPA
promulgated
a
regulation
to
streamline
the
NPDES
regulations
(``
Amendments
to
Streamline
the
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
Program
Regulations:
Round
Two''
(
see
65
FR
30886;
May
15,
2000))
which
includes
a
monitoring
waiver
for
direct
dischargers
subject
to
effluent
guidelines.
Direct
discharge
facilities
may
forego
sampling
of
a
guideline­
limited
pollutant
if
that
discharger
``
has
demonstrated
through
sampling
and
other
technical
factors
that
the
pollutant
is
not
present
in
the
discharge
or
is
present
only
at
background
levels
from
intake
water
and
without
any
increase
in
the
pollutant
due
to
activities
of
the
discharger,''
(
see
65
FR
30908;
40
CFR
122.44).
EPA
noted
in
the
preamble
to
the
final
NPDES
streamlining
rule
that
it
is
providing
a
waiver
from
monitoring
requirements,
but
not
a
waiver
from
the
limit.
In
addition,
the
revision
does
not
waive
monitoring
for
any
pollutants
for
which
there
are
limits
based
on
water
quality
standards.
The
waiver
for
direct
dischargers
lasts
for
the
term
of
the
NPDES
permit
and
is
not
available
during
the
term
of
the
first
permit
issued
to
a
discharger.
Any
request
for
this
waiver
must
be
submitted
when
applying
for
a
reissued
permit
or
modification
of
a
reissued
permit.
Therefore,
EPA
is
not
including
a
monitoring
waiver
in
today's
final
regulations
for
direct
dischargers.
When
authorized
by
their
permit
writer,
direct
discharge
facilities
covered
by
any
effluent
guidelines
(
including
today's
rule)
will
be
able
to
use
the
monitoring
waiver
contained
in
the
NPDES
streamlining
final
rule.

5.
Compliance
with
the
Limitations
and
Standards
The
same
basic
procedures
apply
to
the
calculation
of
all
limitations
and
standards
for
the
OWS,
regardless
of
whether
the
control
level
is
BPT,
BCT,

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00044
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25729
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
or
NSPS.
For
simplicity,
the
following
discussion
refers
only
to
effluent
limitations
guidelines;
however,
the
discussion
also
applies
to
new
source
standards.

a.
Definitions
The
limitations
for
pollutants
for
the
OWS,
as
presented
in
today's
final
rule,
are
provided
as
maximum
daily
discharge
limitations.
Definitions
provided
at
40
CFR
122.2
state
that
the
``
maximum
daily
discharge
limitation''
is
the
``
highest
allowable
`
daily
discharge.'
''
Daily
discharge
is
defined
as
the
``
`
discharge
of
a
pollutant'
measured
during
a
calendar
day
or
any
24­
hour
period
that
reasonably
represents
the
calendar
day
for
purposes
of
sampling.''
Section
10
of
the
TDD
describes
the
data
selection
and
calculations
used
to
develop
today's
limitations.

b.
Percentile
Basis
for
Limits,
Not
Compliance
EPA
promulgates
limitations
that
facilities
are
capable
of
complying
with
at
all
times
by
properly
operating
and
maintaining
their
processes
and
treatment
technologies.
EPA
established
these
limitations
on
the
basis
of
percentiles
estimated
using
data
from
facilities
with
well­
operated
and
controlled
processes
and
treatment
systems.
However,
because
EPA
uses
a
percentile
basis,
the
issue
of
exceedances
(
i.
e.,
values
that
exceed
the
limitations)
or
excursions
is
often
raised
in
public
comments
on
limitations.
For
example,
comments
often
suggest
that
EPA
include
a
provision
that
allows
a
facility
to
be
considered
in
compliance
with
permit
limitations
if
its
discharge
exceeds
the
specified
daily
maximum
limitations
one
day
out
of
100.
As
explained
in
section
10.4
of
the
TDD,
these
limitations
were
never
intended
to
have
the
rigid
probabilistic
interpretation
implied
by
such
comments.
The
following
discussion
provides
a
brief
overview
of
EPA's
position
on
this
issue.
EPA
expects
that
all
facilities
subject
to
the
limitations
will
design
and
operate
their
treatment
systems
to
achieve
the
long­
term
average
performance
level
on
a
consistent
basis
because
facilities
with
well­
designed
and
operated
model
technologies
have
demonstrated
that
this
can
be
done.
Facilities
that
are
designed
and
operated
to
achieve
the
long­
term
average
effluent
levels
used
in
developing
the
limitations
should
be
capable
of
compliance
with
the
limitations
at
all
times,
because
the
limitations
incorporate
an
allowance
for
variability
in
effluent
levels
about
the
long­
term
average.
The
allowance
for
variability
is
based
on
control
of
treatment
variability
demonstrated
in
normal
operations.
EPA
recognizes
that,
as
a
result
of
today's
rule,
some
dischargers
may
need
to
improve
treatment
systems,
process
controls,
and/
or
treatment
system
operations
in
order
to
consistently
meet
limitations
and
standards
in
the
final
MP&
M
effluent
guidelines.
EPA
finds
that
this
consequence
is
consistent
with
the
Clean
Water
Act
statutory
framework,
which
requires
that
discharge
limitations
reflect
best
practicable
control
technology
currently
available
(
BPT).

c.
Limitations
EPA
did
not
establish
monthly
average
limitations
for
O&
G
(
as
HEM)
and
TSS
because
a
monthly
average
limitation
would
be
based
on
the
assumption
that
a
facility
would
be
required
to
monitor
more
frequently
than
once
a
month.
For
the
reasons
set
forth
in
section
VI.
F.
1,
EPA
estimates
that
one
monthly
monitoring
event
is
sufficient;
however,
if
permitting
authorities
choose
to
require
more
frequent
monitoring
for
O&
G
(
as
HEM)
and
TSS,
they
may
set
monthly
average
limitations
and
standards
based
on
their
BPJ
(
see
40
CFR
430.24(
a)(
1),
footnote
b).

d.
Requirements
of
Laboratory
Analysis
The
permittee
is
responsible
for
communicating
the
requirements
of
the
analysis
to
the
laboratory,
including
the
sensitivity
required
to
meet
the
regulatory
limits
associated
with
each
analyte
of
interest.
In
turn,
the
laboratory
is
responsible
for
employing
the
appropriate
set
of
method
options
and
a
calibration
range
in
which
the
concentration
of
the
lowest
non­
zero
standard
represents
a
sample
concentration
lower
than
the
regulatory
limit
for
each
analyte.
It
is
the
responsibility
of
the
permittee
to
convey
to
the
laboratory
the
required
sensitivity
to
comply
with
the
limitations
(
see
Sierra
Club
v.
Union
Oil,
813
F.
2d
1480,
page
1492
(
9th
Cir.
1987)).

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

C.
Variances
and
Modifications
The
CWA
requires
application
of
effluent
limitations
established
pursuant
to
section
301
to
all
direct
dischargers.
However,
the
statute
provides
for
the
modification
of
these
national
requirements
in
a
limited
number
of
circumstances.
Moreover,
the
Agency
has
established
administrative
mechanisms
to
provide
an
opportunity
for
relief
from
the
application
of
the
national
effluent
limitations
guidelines
for
categories
of
existing
sources
for
toxic,
conventional,
and
nonconventional
pollutants.

1.
Fundamentally
Different
Factors
Variances
EPA
will
develop
effluent
limitations
or
standards
different
from
the
otherwise
applicable
requirements
if
an
individual
discharging
facility
is
fundamentally
different
with
respect
to
factors
considered
in
establishing
the
limitation
of
standards
applicable
to
the
individual
facility.
Such
a
modification
is
known
as
a
``
fundamentally
different
factors''
(
FDF)
variance.
Early
on,
EPA,
by
regulation
provided
for
the
FDF
modifications
from
the
BPT
effluent
limitations,
BAT
limitations
for
toxic
and
nonconventional
pollutants
and
BPT
limitations
for
conventional
pollutants
for
direct
dischargers.
For
indirect
dischargers,
EPA
provided
for
modifications
from
pretreatment
standards.
FDF
variances
for
toxic
pollutants
were
challenged
judicially
and
ultimately
sustained
by
the
Supreme
Court.
(
Chemical
Manufacturers
Assn
v.
NRDC,
479
U.
S.
116
(
1985)).
Subsequently,
in
the
Water
Quality
Act
of
1987,
Congress
added
a
new
section
301(
n)
explicitly
authorizing
modifications
of
the
otherwise
applicable
BAT
effluent
limitations
or
categorical
pretreatment
standards
for
existing
sources
if
a
facility
is
fundamentally
different
with
respect
to
the
factors
specified
at
section
304
(
other
than
costs)
considered
by
EPA
in
establishing
the
effluent
limitations
or
pretreatment
standards.
Section
301(
n)
also
defined
the
conditions
under
which
EPA
may
establish
alternative
requirements.
Under
section
301(
n),
an
application
for
approval
of
FDF
variance
must
be
based
solely
on:
(
1)
Information
submitted
during
rulemaking
raising
the
factors
that
are
fundamentally
different;
or
(
2)
information
the
applicant
did
not
have
an
opportunity
to
submit.
The
alternate
limitation
or
standard
must
be
no
less
stringent
than
justified
by
the
difference
and
must
not
result
in
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00045
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25730
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
markedly
more
adverse
non­
water
quality
environmental
impacts
than
the
national
limitation
or
standard.
EPA
regulations
at
40
CFR
part
125
subpart
D,
authorizing
the
Regional
Administrators
to
establish
alternative
limitations
and
standards,
further
detail
the
substantive
criteria
used
to
evaluate
FDF
variance
requests
for
direct
dischargers.
Thus,
40
CFR
125.31(
d)
identifies
six
factors
(
e.
g.,
volume
of
process
wastewater,
age
and
size
of
a
discharger's
facility)
that
may
be
considered
in
determining
if
a
facility
is
fundamentally
different.
The
Agency
must
determine
whether,
on
the
basis
of
one
or
more
of
these
factors,
the
facility
in
question
is
fundamentally
different
from
the
facilities
and
factors
considered
by
EPA
in
developing
the
nationally
applicable
effluent
guidelines.
The
regulation
also
lists
four
other
factors
(
e.
g.,
infeasibility
of
installation
within
the
time
allowed
or
a
discharger's
ability
to
pay)
that
may
not
provide
a
basis
for
an
FDF
variance.
In
addition,
under
40
CFR
125.31(
b)(
3),
a
request
for
limitations
less
stringent
than
the
national
limitation
may
be
approved
only
if
compliance
with
the
national
limitations
would
result
in
either:
(
a)
A
removal
cost
wholly
out
of
proportion
to
the
removal
cost
considered
during
development
of
the
national
limitations;
or
(
b)
a
non­
water
quality
environmental
impact
(
including
energy
requirements)
fundamentally
more
adverse
than
the
impact
considered
during
development
of
the
national
limits.
The
conditions
for
approval
of
a
request
to
modify
applicable
pretreatment
standards
and
factors
considered
are
the
same
as
those
for
direct
dischargers.
The
legislative
history
of
section
301(
n)
underscores
the
necessity
for
the
FDF
variance
applicant
to
establish
eligibility
for
the
variance.
EPA's
regulations
at
40
CFR
125.32(
b)(
1)
are
explicit
in
imposing
this
burden
upon
the
applicant.
The
applicant
must
show
that
the
factors
relating
to
the
discharge
controlled
by
the
applicant's
permit
which
are
claimed
to
be
fundamentally
different
are,
in
fact,
fundamentally
different
from
those
factors
considered
by
the
EPA
in
establishing
the
applicable
guidelines.
The
pretreatment
regulations
incorporate
a
similar
requirement
at
40
CFR
403.13(
h)(
9).
Facilities
must
submit
all
FDF
variance
applications
to
the
appropriate
Director
(
as
defined
at
40
CFR
122.2)
no
later
than
180
days
from
the
date
the
limitations
or
standards
are
established
or
revised
(
see
CWA
§
301(
n)(
2)
and
40
CFR
122.21(
m)(
1)(
i)(
B)(
2)).
EPA
regulations
clarify
that
effluent
limitations
guidelines
are
``
established''
or
``
revised''
on
the
date
those
effluent
limitations
guidelines
are
published
in
the
Federal
Register
(
see
40
CFR
122.21(
m)(
1)(
i)(
B)(
2)).
Therefore
all
facilities
requesting
FDF
variances
from
the
effluent
limitations
guidelines
in
today's
final
rule
must
submit
all
FDF
variance
applications
to
their
Director
(
as
defined
at
40
CFR
122.2)
no
later
than
November
10,
2003.
An
FDF
variance
is
not
available
to
a
new
source
subject
to
NSPS.

2.
Water
Quality
Variances
Section
301(
g)
of
the
CWA
authorizes
a
variance
from
BAT
effluent
guidelines
for
certain
non­
conventional
pollutants
due
to
localized
environmental
factors
so
long
as
the
discharge
does
not
violate
any
water
quality­
based
effluent
limitations.
These
pollutants
include
ammonia,
chlorine,
color,
iron,
and
phenols
(
as
measured
by
the
colorimetric
4­
aminoantipyrine
(
4AAP)
method).
Dischargers
subject
to
new
or
revised
BAT
limitations
promulgated
today
for
those
pollutants
may
be
eligible
for
a
section
301(
g)
variance.
Please
note
that
section
301(
g)(
4)(
c)
requires
the
filing
of
section
301(
g)
variance
applications
pertaining
to
the
new
or
revised
limits
not
later
than
February
9,
2004.
Existing
section
301(
g)
variances
for
limitations
not
being
revised
today
are
not
affected
by
today's
action.
This
variance
is
not
applicable
to
today's
final
rule
as
none
of
these
parameters
are
regulated
by
today's
final
rule.

3.
Permit
Modifications
Even
after
EPA
(
or
an
authorized
State)
has
issued
a
final
permit
to
a
direct
discharger,
the
permit
may
still
be
modified
under
certain
conditions.
(
When
a
permit
modification
is
under
consideration,
however,
all
other
permit
conditions
remain
in
effect.)
A
permit
modification
may
be
triggered
in
several
circumstances.
These
could
include
a
regulatory
inspection
or
information
submitted
by
the
permittee
which
reveals
the
need
for
modification.
Any
interested
person
may
request
that
a
permit
modification
be
made.
There
are
two
classifications
of
modifications:
Major
and
minor.
From
a
procedural
standpoint,
they
differ
primarily
with
respect
to
the
public
notice
requirements.
Major
modifications
require
public
notice
while
minor
modifications
do
not.
Virtually
any
modification
that
results
in
less
stringent
conditions
is
treated
as
a
major
modifications,
with
provisions
for
public
notice
and
comment.
Conditions
that
would
necessitate
a
major
modification
of
a
permit
are
described
at
40
CFR
part
122.62.
Minor
modifications
are
generally
nonsubstantive
changes.
The
conditions
for
minor
modification
are
described
at
40
CFR
part
122.63.

XII.
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
A.
Executive
Order
12866:
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
Under
Executive
Order
12866,
(
see
58
FR
51735
(
October
4,
1993))
the
Agency
must
determine
whether
the
regulatory
action
is
``
significant''
and
therefore
subject
to
OMB
review
and
the
requirements
of
the
Executive
Order.
The
Order
defines
``
significant
regulatory
action''
as
one
that
is
likely
to
result
in
a
rule
that
may:
(
1)
Have
an
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
$
100
million
or
more
or
adversely
affect
in
a
material
way
the
economy,
a
sector
of
the
economy,
productivity,
competition,
jobs,
the
environment,
public
health
or
safety,
or
State,
local,
or
tribal
governments
or
communities;
(
2)
Create
a
serious
inconsistency
or
otherwise
interfere
with
an
action
taken
or
planned
by
another
agency;
(
3)
Materially
alter
the
budgetary
impact
of
entitlements,
grants,
user
fees,
or
loan
programs
or
the
rights
and
obligations
of
recipients
thereof;
or
(
4)
Raise
novel
legal
or
policy
issues
arising
out
of
legal
mandates,
the
President's
priorities,
or
the
principles
set
forth
in
the
Executive
Order.
It
has
been
determined
that
this
rule
is
not
a
``
significant
regulatory
action''
under
the
terms
of
Executive
Order
12866
and
is
therefore
not
subject
to
OMB
review.

B.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
This
action
does
not
impose
an
information
collection
burden
under
the
provisions
of
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.
This
rule
merely
establishes
technology­
based
discharge
limitations
and
standards.
Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00046
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25731
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.
An
Agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
are
listed
at
40
CFR
part
9
and
48
CFR
chapter
15.

C.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
The
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA)
generally
requires
an
agency
to
prepare
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
of
any
rule
subject
to
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
requirements
under
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act
or
any
other
statute
unless
the
agency
certifies
that
the
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
Small
entities
include
small
businesses,
small
organizations,
and
small
governmental
jurisdictions.
For
assessing
the
impacts
of
today's
rule
on
small
entities,
a
small
entity
is
defined
as:
(
1)
A
small
business
according
to
the
regulations
of
the
Small
Business
Administration
(
SBA)
at
13
CFR
part
121.201,
which
define
small
businesses
for
Standard
Industrial
Classification
(
SIC)
codes;
(
2)
a
small
governmental
jurisdiction
that
is
a
government
of
a
city,
county,
town,
school
district
or
special
district
with
a
population
of
less
than
50,000;
and
(
3)
a
small
organization
that
is
any
not­
forprofit
enterprise
which
is
independently
owned
and
operated
and
is
not
dominant
in
its
field.
To
assess
the
potential
economic
impact
of
today's
rule
on
small
entities,
EPA
drew
on:
(
1)
A
comparison
of
compliance
costs
to
revenue;
and
(
2)
the
firm
and
facility
impact
analyses
discussed
in
section
VIII
of
this
preamble.
First,
EPA
performed
an
analysis
comparing
annualized
compliance
costs
to
revenue
for
small
entities
at
the
firm
level.
EPA
found
that
none
of
the
small
firms
are
estimated
to
incur
compliance
costs
equaling
or
exceeding
one
percent
of
annual
revenue.
Second,
EPA
drew
on
the
facility
impact
analysis,
which
estimated
facility
closures
and
other
adverse
changes
to
financial
condition
(
referred
to
as
``
moderate
impacts'').
See
section
VIII.
D
of
today's
rule
for
details
of
EPA's
analysis
of
closures
and
moderate
impacts
for
privately­
owned
businesses.
This
analysis
indicated
that
the
final
rule
would
cause
no
regulated
facilities
owned
by
small
entities
to
close
or
to
incur
moderate
impacts.
From
these
analyses,
EPA
determined
that
the
final
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
See
Chapter
10
of
the
final
rule
EEBA
for
a
more
detailed
discussion
of
the
economic
impacts
on
small
entities.
After
considering
the
economic
impacts
of
today's
final
rule
on
small
entities,
I
certify
that
this
action
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
In
accordance
with
section
603
of
the
RFA,
EPA
prepared
an
initial
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
(
IRFA)
for
the
proposed
rule
and
convened
a
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel
to
obtain
advice
and
recommendations
of
representatives
of
the
regulated
small
entities
in
accordance
with
section
609(
b)
of
the
RFA
(
see
66
FR
519).
The
January
2001
proposed
rule
(
see
66
FR
523)
presents
a
summary
of
the
Panel's
recommendations
and
the
full
Panel
Report
(
see
DCN
16127,
section
11.2)
presents
a
detailed
discussion
of
the
Panel's
advice
and
recommendations.

D.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
1.
UMRA
Requirements
Title
II
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
(
UMRA),
Public
Law
104
 
4,
establishes
requirements
for
Federal
agencies
to
assess
the
effects
of
their
regulatory
actions
on
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments
and
the
private
sector.
Under
UMRA
section
202,
EPA
generally
must
prepare
a
written
statement,
including
a
cost­
benefit
analysis,
for
proposed
and
final
rules
with
``
Federal
mandates''
that
may
result
in
expenditures
to
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
to
the
private
sector,
of
$
100
million
or
more
in
any
one
year.
Before
promulgating
an
EPA
rule
for
which
a
written
statement
is
needed,
UMRA
section
205
generally
requires
EPA
to
identify
and
consider
a
reasonable
number
of
regulatory
alternatives
and
adopt
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
that
achieves
the
objectives
of
the
rule.
The
provisions
of
section
205
do
not
apply
when
they
are
inconsistent
with
applicable
law.
Moreover,
section
205
allows
EPA
to
adopt
an
alternative
other
than
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
if
the
Administrator
publishes
with
the
final
rule
an
explanation
why
that
alternative
was
not
adopted.
EPA
is
required
by
UMRA
section
203
to
develop
a
small
government
agency
plan
before
it
establishes
any
regulatory
requirements
that
may
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments,
including
tribal
governments.
The
plan
must
provide
for
notifying
potentially
affected
small
governments,
enabling
officials
of
affected
small
governments
to
have
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
EPA
regulatory
proposals
with
significant
Federal
intergovernmental
mandates,
and
informing,
educating,
and
advising
small
governments
on
compliance
with
the
regulatory
requirements.
EPA
determined
that
this
rule
does
not
contain
a
Federal
mandate
that
may
result
in
expenditures
of
$
100
million
or
more
for
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
the
private
sector
in
any
one
year.
The
estimated
total
annualized
before­
tax
costs
of
compliance
are
$
13.8
million
($
2001).
On
an
after­
tax
basis
the
costs
total
$
11.9
million
($
2001),
of
which
the
private
sector
incurs
$
3.0
million
($
2001)
and
state
and
local
governments
that
perform
MP&
M
activities
incur
$
9.0
million
($
2001).
Thus,
today's
rule
is
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
UMRA
sections
202
and
205.
EPA
also
determined
that
this
rule
contains
no
regulatory
requirements
that
might
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments.
The
final
regulation
imposes
no
new
administrative
costs
on
small
governments
owning
POTWs
because
the
regulations
does
not
establish
pretreatment
standards
for
POTWs
with
indirectly
discharging
government­
owned
facilities.
With
respect
to
the
280
small
governmentowned
facilities,
EPA
determined
that
the
costs
of
the
final
rule
are
not
significant
for
small
governments.
Of
these
facilities,
140
incur
no
compliance
costs
under
the
final
rule
and
the
remaining
140
incur
annualized
costs
that
average
approximately
$
25,000
per
facility.
The
total
compliance
cost
for
all
the
small
government­
owned
facilities
incurring
costs
under
the
regulation
is
$
3.5
million.
EPA
concluded
that
these
compliance
costs
will
have
no
significant
budgetary
impacts
for
any
of
the
governments
owning
these
facilities.
In
addition,
EPA
concluded
that
the
final
rule
does
not
uniquely
affect
small
governments
because
small
and
large
governments
are
affected
by
the
rule
in
the
same
way.
Thus,
today's
rule
is
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
UMRA
section
203.
Although
today's
final
rule
does
not
contain
a
Federal
mandate
under
UMRA,
EPA
did
undertake
an
assessment
of
the
impacts
of
the
final
rule
on
State
and
local
governments
as
part
of
its
decision­
making
process.
The
following
section
discusses
some
of
the
results
of
EPA's
review.
More
detail
may
be
found
in
the
EEBA.

2.
Analysis
of
Impacts
on
Government
Entities
EPA
estimates
that
the
costs
to
government­
owned
facilities
to
comply
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00047
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25732
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
with
today's
final
rule
are
approximately
$
9.0
million
annually
($
2001),
which
is
below
the
threshold
specified
in
§
202.
EPA,
nevertheless,
assessed
the
impacts
on
State
and
local
governments
during
the
course
of
development
of
the
rule.
Generally,
governments
may
incur
two
types
of
costs
as
a
result
of
the
proposed
regulation:
(
1)
Direct
costs
to
comply
with
the
rule
for
facilities
owned
by
government
entities;
and
(
2)
administrative
costs
to
implement
the
regulation.
Both
types
of
costs
are
discussed
below.

a.
Compliance
Costs
for
Government­
Owned
MP&
M
Facilities
As
previously
explained,
EPA
surveyed
government­
owned
facilities
to
assess
the
cost
of
the
regulation
on
these
facilities
and
the
government
entities
that
own
them.
The
survey
responses
support
EPA's
analysis
of
the
budgetary
impacts
of
the
regulation.
Survey
information
includes:
The
size
and
income
of
the
populations
served
by
the
affected
government
entities;
the
government's
current
revenues
by
source,
taxable
property,
debt,
pollution
control
spending,
and
bond
rating;
and
the
costs,
funding
sources,
and
other
characteristics
of
the
MP&
M
facilities
owned
by
each
government
entity.
Table
XII
 
1
provides
national
estimates
of
the
government
entities
that
operate
MP&
M
facilities
potentially
subject
to
the
regulation
by
size.
Table
XII
 
2
summarizes
the
annualized
compliance
costs
incurred
by
government
entities
by
size.

TABLE
XII
 
1.
 
NUMBER
OF
GOVERNMENT­
OWNED
FACILITIES
BY
TYPE
AND
SIZE
OF
GOVERNMENT
ENTITY
Size
of
government
and
status
under
final
option
Municipal
government
State
government
County
government
Regional
government
authority
Total
Large
Governments
(
population
>
50,000)

Number
of
regulated
government
entities
...............................................
26
129
23
0
178
Number
of
government
entities
with
exclusions
......................................
592
248
758
46
1,645
Small
Governments
(
population
<=
50,000)

Number
of
regulated
government
entities
...............................................
280
0
0
0
280
Number
of
government
entities
with
exclusions
......................................
1,470
0
212
0
1,682
All
Governments
Number
of
regulated
government
entities
...............................................
306
129
23
0
458
Number
of
government
entities
with
exclusions
......................................
2,062
248
970
46
3,327
Total
..................................................................................................
2,368
377
993
46
3,785
TABLE
XII
 
2.
 
NUMBER
OF
REGULATED
GOVERNMENT­
OWNED
FACILITIES
AND
COMPLIANCE
COSTS
BY
SIZE
OF
GOVERNMENT
[
million,
2001$]

Number
of
facilities
Costs
Regulated
Facilities
Owned
by
Large
Governments
...................................................................................
178
$
5.5
Regulated
Facilities
Owned
by
Small
Governments
...................................................................................
280
$
3.5
All
Regulated
Government­
Owned
Facilities
...............................................................................................
458
$
9.0
The
table
shows
that
280
regulated
facilities
(
or
61
percent)
of
the
regulated
government
entities
are
owned
by
small
governments.
These
facilities
incur
$
3.5
million
annually
in
compliance
costs
with
an
average
cost
of
$
12,575
per
facility.
Larger
governmental
entities
own
the
remaining
178
regulated
facilities
(
or
39
percent).
EPA
estimates
that
facilities
owned
by
the
larger
governmental
entities
incur
$
5.5
million
in
annual
compliance
costs
with
an
average
cost
of
$
30,700
per
facility.
EPA
used
the
analysis
described
in
Section
VIII.
E
to
estimate
the
impacts
on
government
owned
facilities.
EPA
judged
a
government
to
experience
significant
budgetary
impacts
if:
(
1)
One
or
more
facilities
incur
compliance
costs
exceeding
1%
of
the
baseline
cost
of
service,
(
2)
total
debt
service
costs
 
post­
compliance,
and
including
costs
to
finance
MP&
M
capital
costs
entirely
with
debt
 
exceed
25%
of
baseline
revenue,
and
(
3)
total
annualized
pollution
control
costs
per
household,
post­
compliance,
exceed
one
percent
of
median
household
income.
EPA
estimated
no
significant
impacts
for
any
of
these
facilities,
based
on
these
budgetary
criteria.
Thus,
EPA
concluded
that
none
of
the
affected
governments
are
expected
to
incur
significant
budgetary
impacts
as
a
result
of
the
regulation.
However,
EPA
also
considered
whether
the
MP&
M
regulation
may
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments.
b.
Small
Government
Impacts
EPA
estimates
that
small
governments
(
i.
e.,
governments
with
a
population
of
less
than
50,000)
own
1,962
MP&
M
facilities.
The
decision
not
to
regulate
indirect
facilities
will
exclude
1,682
small
government­
owned
MP&
M
facilities
from
additional
requirements.
Thus,
the
final
regulation
covers
280
small
government­
owned
facilities.
Of
these
facilities,
140
incur
no
compliance
costs
under
the
final
rule,
and
the
remaining
140
incur
annualized
costs
that
average
approximately
$
25,000
per
facility.
The
total
compliance
cost
for
all
the
small
government­
owned
facilities
incurring
costs
under
this
regulation
is
$
3.5
million.
Of
the
280
facilities
owned
by
small
governments,
140
have
costs
greater
than
1
percent
of
baseline
cost
of
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00048
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25733
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
service
(
measured
as
total
facility
costs
and
expenditures,
including
operating,
overhead
and
debt
service
costs
and
expenses).
None
of
the
affected
governments
incur
costs
that
cause
them
to
exceed
the
thresholds
for
impacts
on
taxpayers
or
for
government
debt
burden.
EPA
therefore
estimated
no
significant
budgetary
impacts
for
any
of
the
governments
owning
these
facilities.
In
accordance
with
this
finding,
EPA
determined
that
this
rule
contains
no
regulatory
requirements
that
might
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments.

c.
POTW
Administrative
Costs
Since
all
indirect
dischargers
are
excluded
from
the
final
rule,
EPA
expects
the
rule
to
impose
no
new
POTW
administrative
costs.

3.
Consultation
In
addition
to
private
industry,
stakeholders
affected
by
this
rule
include
State
and
local
government
regulators.
During
development
of
the
proposed
and
final
rule,
EPA
consulted
with
all
of
these
stakeholder
groups
on
topics
such
as
options
development,
cost
models,
pollutants
to
be
regulated,
cost
of
the
regulation,
and
compliance
alternatives.
Some
stakeholders
provided
helpful
comments
on
the
cost
models,
technology
options,
pollution
prevention
techniques,
and
monitoring
alternatives.
Because
many
MP&
M
facilities
in
the
proposed
rule
were
indirect
dischargers,
the
Agency
involved
POTWs
as
they
would
have
had
to
implement
the
rule.
EPA
consulted
with
POTWs
individually
and
through
the
Association
of
Municipal
Sewerage
Agencies
(
AMSA).
In
addition,
EPA
consulted
with
Regional
pretreatment
coordinators
and
State
and
local
regulators.
However,
EPA
is
not
promulgating
new
or
revised
pretreatment
standards
in
today's
final
rule.
See
the
proposed
rule
preamble
(
see
66
FR
519)
for
a
summary
of
these
consultation
activities.

E.
Executive
Order
13132:
Federalism
Executive
Order
13132,
entitled
``
Federalism''
(
see
64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999),
requires
Federal
agencies
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
State
and
local
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
federalism
implications.''
``
Policies
that
have
federalism
implications''
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
``
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government.''
This
final
rule
does
not
have
federalism
implications.
It
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13132.
The
rule
establishes
effluent
limitations
imposing
requirements
that
apply
to
metal
product
and
machinery
facilities,
as
defined
by
this
final
rule,
when
they
discharge
wastewater.
The
rule
applies
to
States
and
localities
if
they
own
and
operate
in­
scope
MP&
M
facilities
that
discharge
directly
to
surface
waters.
EPA
estimates
that
458
facilities
subject
to
the
regulation
are
owned
and
operated
by
state
and
local
governments.
EPA
estimates
that
these
facilities
will
experience
an
impact
of
$
0
to
$
125,000,
with
an
average
impact
of
$
20,000
per
year
($
2001).
In
addition,
the
final
rule
will
affect
State
governments
responsible
for
administering
CWA
permitting
programs.
The
final
rule,
at
most,
imposes
minimal
administrative
costs
on
States
that
have
an
authorized
NPDES
program.
(
These
States
must
incorporate
the
new
limitations
and
standards
in
new
and
reissued
NPDES
permits).
This
rule
does
not
change
the
current
status
of
this
administrative
burden
because
this
rule
does
not
impose
any
further
regulation
on
any
indirect
dischargers.
The
total
cost
of
today's
final
rule
to
state
and
local
governments
is
$
9.0
million
($
2001).
Thus,
Executive
Order
13132
does
not
apply
to
this
rule.
Although
Executive
Order
13132
does
not
apply
to
this
rule,
EPA
did
consult
with
State
and
local
government
representatives
in
developing
this
rule.
See
66
FR
525
for
a
discussion
of
consultation
activities.

F.
Executive
Order
13175:
Consultation
and
Coordination
With
Indian
Tribal
Governments
Executive
Order
13175,
entitled
``
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments''
(
see
65
FR
67249,
November
9,
2000),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
tribal
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
tribal
implications.''
``
Policies
that
have
tribal
implications''
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
``
substantial
direct
effects
on
one
or
more
Indian
tribes,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
government
and
the
Indian
tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes.''
This
final
rule
does
not
have
tribal
implications.
It
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
tribal
governments,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13175.
Based
on
the
information
collection
efforts
for
this
industry
category,
EPA
does
not
expect
any
Indian
tribal
governments
to
own
or
operate
in­
scope
MP&
M
facilities.
In
addition,
EPA
estimates
few,
if
any,
new
facilities
subject
to
the
rule
will
be
owned
by
tribal
governments.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13175
does
not
apply
to
this
rule.

G.
Executive
Order
13045:
Protection
of
Children
From
Environmental
Health
&
Safety
Risks
1.
Executive
Order
13045
Requirements
Executive
Order
13045,
``
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks''
(
see
62
FR
19885,
April
23,
1997)
applies
to
any
rule
that:
(
1)
is
determined
to
be
``
economically
significant''
as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866;
and
(
2)
concerns
an
environmental
health
or
safety
risk
that
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
may
have
a
disproportionate
affect
on
children.
If
the
regulatory
action
meets
both
criteria,
the
Agency
must
evaluate
the
environmental
health
or
safety
effects
of
the
planned
rule
on
children,
and
explain
why
the
planned
regulation
is
preferable
to
other
potentially
effective
and
reasonably
feasible
alternatives
considered
by
the
Agency.
This
final
rule
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13045
because
it
is
not
economically
significant
as
defined
in
Executive
Order
12866.
Nevertheless,
since
the
final
rule
is
expected
to
reduce
numerous
pollutants,
including
lead,
in
fish
tissue
and
drinking
water
that
exceed
human
health
criteria,
EPA
performed
an
analysis
of
children's
health
impacts
reduced
by
the
final
rule.

2.
Analysis
of
Children's
Health
Impacts
EPA
assessed
whether
the
final
regulation
will
benefit
children,
including
reducing
health
risk
from
exposure
to
MP&
M
pollutants
from
consumption
of
contaminated
fish
tissue
and
drinking
water
and
improving
recreational
opportunities.
The
Agency
was
able
to
quantify
only
one
category
of
benefits
specific
to
children:
avoided
health
damages
to
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00049
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25734
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
pre­
school
age
children
from
reduced
exposure
to
lead.
This
analysis
considered
several
measures
of
children's
health
benefits
associated
with
lead
exposure
for
children
up
to
age
six.
Avoided
neurological
and
cognitive
damages
were
expressed
as
changes
in
three
metrics:
(
1)
Overall
IQ
levels;
(
2)
the
incidence
of
low
IQ
scores
(<
70);
and
(
3)
the
incidence
of
bloodlead
levels
above
20
µ
g/
dL.
The
Agency
also
assessed
changes
in
the
incidence
of
neonatal
mortality
from
reduced
maternal
exposure
to
lead.
EPA's
methodology
for
assessing
lead­
related
benefits
to
children
is
presented
in
the
EEBA,
Chapter
14.
The
Ohio
case
study
analysis
showed
that
the
final
rule
is
expected
to
yield
$
422,000
(
2001$)
in
annual
benefits
to
children
in
the
State
of
Ohio
from
reduced
neurological
and
cognitive
damages
and
reduced
incidence
of
neonatal
mortality.
On
the
other
hand,
the
national­
level
analysis
shows
that
benefits
to
children
from
reduced
lead
discharges
are
negligible
nationwide.
As
noted
in
section
IX
of
today's
final
rule,
different
findings
from
these
two
analyses
are
likely
to
be
due
to
insufficient
data
and
a
more
simplistic
approach
used
in
the
national
level
analysis.
Children
over
age
seven
are
also
likely
to
benefit
from
reduced
neurological
and
cognitive
damages
from
reduced
exposure
to
lead.
Giedd
et
al.
(
1999)
studied
brain
development
among
10­
to
18­
year­
old
children
and
found
substantial
growth
in
brain
development,
mainly
in
the
early
teenage
years
(
see
DCN
20385,
section
8.5.2.3).
This
research
suggests
that
older
children
may
be
hypersensitive
to
lead
exposure,
as
are
children
aged
0
to
7.
Additional
benefits
to
children
from
reduced
exposure
to
lead
not
quantified
in
this
analysis
may
include
prevention
of
the
following
adverse
health
effects:
slowed
or
delayed
growth,
delinquent
and
anti­
social
behavior,
metabolic
effects,
impaired
heme
synthesis,
anemia,
impaired
hearing,
and
cancer
(
see
DCN
20416,
section
8.5.2.3).

H.
Executive
Order
13211:
Actions
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use
This
rule
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13211,
``
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use''
(
see
May
22,
2001;
66
FR
28355)
because
it
is
not
a
significant
regulatory
action
under
Executive
Order
12866.
I.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
As
noted
in
the
proposed
rule,
section
12(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
(``
NTTAA''),
Public
Law
104
 
113,
section
12(
d)
(
15
U.
S.
C.
272
note)
directs
EPA
to
use
voluntary
consensus
standards
in
its
regulatory
activities
unless
to
do
so
would
be
inconsistent
with
applicable
law
or
otherwise
impractical.
Voluntary
consensus
standards
are
technical
standards
(
e.
g.,
materials
specifications,
test
methods,
sampling
procedures,
and
business
practices)
that
are
developed
or
adopted
by
voluntary
consensus
standards
bodies.
The
NTTAA
directs
EPA
to
provide
Congress,
through
OMB,
explanations
when
the
Agency
decides
not
to
use
available
and
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards.
Today's
final
rule
does
not
establish
any
technical
standards,
thus
NTTAA
does
not
apply
to
this
rule.
It
should
be
noted,
however,
that
this
rulemaking
requires
direct
dischargers
to
monitor
for
pH,
TSS,
and
O&
G
(
as
HEM).
All
of
these
analytes
can
be
measured
by
EPA
methods
that
are
specified
in
the
tables
at
40
CFR
part
136.3.

J.
Executive
Order
12898:
Federal
Actions
To
Address
Environmental
Justice
in
Minority
Populations
and
Low­
Income
Populations
1.
Executive
Order
12898
Requirements
Executive
Order
12898
requires
that,
to
the
greatest
extent
practicable
and
permitted
by
law,
each
Federal
agency
must
make
achieving
environmental
justice
part
of
its
mission.
Executive
Order
12898
requires
that
each
Federal
agency
conduct
its
programs,
policies,
and
activities
that
substantially
affect
human
health
or
the
environment
in
a
manner
that
ensures
that
such
programs,
policies,
and
activities
do
not
exclude
persons
(
including
populations)
from
participation
in,
deny
persons
(
including
populations)
the
benefits
of,
or
subject
persons
(
including
populations)
to
discrimination
under,
such
programs,
policies,
and
activities
because
of
their
race,
color,
or
national
origin.

2.
Environmental
Justice
Analysis
EPA
examined
whether
the
final
regulation
will
promote
environmental
justice
in
the
areas
affected
by
MP&
M
discharges.
EPA
analyzed
the
demographic
characteristics
of
the
populations
residing
in
the
counties
affected
by
MP&
M
discharges
to
determine
whether
minority
and
or
lowincome
populations
are
subject
to
disproportionally
high
environmental
impacts.
This
analysis
is
based
on
information
on
the
race,
national
origin,
and
income
level
of
populations
residing
in
counties
traversed
by
reaches
receiving
discharges
from
the
32
sample
MP&
M
facilities.
EPA
performed
this
analysis
at
the
sample
level
only.
The
32
sample
facilities
discharge
to
32
unique
reaches
and
are
located
in
46
counties
in
12
States.
EPA
compared
demographic
data
from
the
1990
Census
for
counties
traversed
by
sample
MP&
M
reaches
with
corresponding
State­
level
data.
The
demographic
characteristics
that
EPA
analyzed
include:
percent
African
Americans,
percent
Native
American,
Eskimo,
or
Aleut,
percent
Asian
of
Pacific
Islander,
the
percent
of
the
population
below
the
poverty
level,
and
median
income.
This
analysis
shows
that
the
socioeconomic
characteristics
of
populations
residing
in
counties
abutting
MP&
M
discharge
reaches
reflect
corresponding
State
averages.
As
a
result,
EPA
expects
that
environmental
benefits
resulting
from
the
MP&
M
rule
will
not
accrue
to
populations
disproportionally
based
on
race
or
national
origin,
and
therefore
will
neither
promote
nor
discourage
environmental
justice.
EPA
also
analyzed
the
human
health
impacts
of
the
final
regulation,
including
changes
in
cancer
and
systemic
health
risk
to
subsistence
anglers.
EPA
determined
that
the
reductions
in
these
health
risks
resulting
from
the
final
regulation
are
negligible
(
see
Chapter
17
of
the
EEBA
for
a
detailed
discussion
of
environmental
justice
analyses
and
alternative
regulatory
options).

K.
Congressional
Review
Act
The
Congressional
Review
Act,
5
U.
S.
C.
801
et
seq.,
as
added
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996,
generally
provides
that
before
a
rule
may
take
effect,
the
agency
promulgating
the
rule
must
submit
a
rule
report,
which
includes
a
copy
of
the
rule,
to
each
House
of
the
Congress
and
to
the
Comptroller
General
of
the
United
States.
EPA
will
submit
a
report
containing
this
rule
and
other
required
information
to
the
U.
S.
Senate,
the
U.
S.
House
of
Representatives,
and
the
Comptroller
General
of
the
United
States
prior
to
publication
of
the
rule
in
the
Federal
Register.
A
major
rule
cannot
take
effect
until
60
days
after
it
is
published
in
the
Federal
Register.
This
action
is
not
a
``
major
rule''
as
defined
by
5
U.
S.
C.
804(
2).
This
rule
will
be
effective
after
June
12,
2003.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00050
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25735
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
Appendix
A
To
The
Preamble:
Abbreviations,
Acronyms,
and
Other
Terms
Used
in
Today's
Final
Rule
Act
 
The
Clean
Water
Act
Agency
 
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
AWQC
 
Ambient
Water
Quality
Criteria
BAT
 
Best
available
technology
economically
achievable,
as
defined
by
section
304(
b)(
2)(
B)
of
the
Act.
BCT
 
Best
conventional
pollutant
control
technology,
as
defined
by
section
304(
b)(
4)
of
the
Act.
BMP
 
Best
management
practices,
as
defined
by
section
304(
e)
of
the
Act.
BPJ
 
Best
professional
judgment
BPT
 
Best
practicable
control
technology
currently
available,
as
defined
by
section
304(
b)(
1)
of
the
Act.
CAA
 
Clean
Air
Act
(
42
U.
S.
C.
7401
et
seq.,
as
amended)
CBI
 
Confidential
Business
Information
CWA
 
Clean
Water
Act
(
33
U.
S.
C
1251
et
seq.,
as
amended)
Conventional
Pollutants
 
Constituents
of
wastewater
as
determined
by
section
304(
a)(
4)
of
the
Act
and
the
regulations
thereunder
40
CFR
401.16,
including
pollutants
classified
as
biochemical
oxygen
demand,
suspended
solids,
oil
and
grease,
fecal
coliform,
and
pH.
CE
 
Cost­
effectiveness
(
ratio
of
compliance
costs
(
in
1981$)
to
the
toxic
pounds
of
pollutants
removed
(
in
terms
of
poundequivalents
(
PE))
DAF
 
Dissolved
Air
Flotation
Direct
Discharger
 
An
industrial
discharger
that
introduces
wastewater
to
a
water
of
the
United
States
with
or
without
treatment
by
the
discharger.
EEBA
 
Economic,
Environmental,
and
Benefits
Analysis
of
the
Final
Metal
Products
&
Machinery
Rule
(
EPA
 
821
 
B
 
03
 
002)
Effluent
Limitation
 
A
maximum
amount,
per
unit
of
time,
production,
volume
or
other
unit,
of
each
specific
constituent
of
the
effluent
from
an
existing
point
source
that
is
subject
to
limitation.
Effluent
limitations
may
be
expressed
as
a
mass
loading
or
as
a
concentration
in
milligrams
of
pollutant
per
liter
discharged.
End­
of­
Pipe
Treatment
 
Refers
to
those
processes
that
treat
a
plant
waste
stream
for
pollutant
removal
prior
to
discharge.
FTE
 
Full
Time
Equivalents
(
related
to
the
number
of
employees)
HAP
 
Hazardous
Air
Pollutant
HEM
 
Hexane
Extractable
Material
Indirect
Discharger
 
An
industrial
discharger
that
introduces
wastewater
into
a
publicly
owned
treatment
works.
MACT
 
Maximum
Achievable
Control
Technology
(
applicable
to
NESHAPs)
MFJS
 
Metal
Finishing
Job
Shops
subcategory
MGY
 
Million
gallons
per
year
MP&
M
 
Metal
Products
and
Machinery
point
source
category
NAICS
 
North
American
Industry
Classification
System
NCA
 
Non­
Chromium
Anodizers
subcategory
NCEPI
 
EPA's
National
Center
for
Environmental
Publications
NESHAP
 
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
NODA
 
Notice
of
Data
Availability
(
June
5,
2002;
67
FR
38752)
NRMRL
 
EPA's
National
Risk
Management
Research
Laboratory
(
formerly
RREL
 
EPA's
Risk
Reduction
Engineering
Laboratory)
Nonconventional
Pollutants
 
Pollutants
that
have
not
been
designated
as
either
conventional
pollutants
or
priority
pollutants
NPDES
 
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
system,
a
Federal
Program
requiring
industry
dischargers,
including
municipalities,
to
obtain
permits
to
discharge
pollutants
to
the
nation's
water,
under
section
402
of
the
Act
OCPSF
 
Organic
chemicals,
plastics,
and
synthetic
fibers
manufacturing
point
source
category
(
40
CFR
part
414)
OMB
 
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
ORP
 
Oxidation­
Reduction
Potential
OWS
 
Oily
Wastes
subcategory
PE
 
Pound­
equivalents
(
the
units
used
to
weight
toxic
pollutants)
POTW
 
Publicly
owned
treatment
works
Priority
Pollutants
 
The
126
pollutants
listed
at
40
CFR
part
423,
appendix
A
PPA
 
Pollutant
Prevention
Act
of
1990
(
42
U.
S.
C.
13101
et
seq.,
Public
Law
101
 
508,
November
5,
1990)
PSES
 
Pretreatment
Standards
for
existing
sources
of
indirect
discharges,
under
section
307(
b)
of
the
Act
PSNS
 
Pretreatment
standards
for
new
sources
of
indirect
discharges,
under
sections
307(
b)
and
(
c)
of
the
Act
PWB
 
Printed
Wiring
Board
subcategory
RRLM
 
Railroad
Line
Maintenance
subcategory
SBA
 
U.
S.
Small
Business
Administration
SIC
 
Standards
Industrial
Classification,
a
numerical
categorization
scheme
used
by
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Commerce
to
denote
segments
of
industry
SFF
 
Steel
Forming
&
Finishing
subcategory
SGT
 
HEM
 
Silica
Gel
Treated
 
Hexane
Extractable
Material
refers
to
the
freon­
free
oil
and
grease
method
(
EPA
Method
1664)
used
to
measure
the
portion
of
oil
and
grease
that
is
similar
to
total
petroleum
hydrocarbons
SDD
 
Shipbuilding
Dry
Dock
subcategory
SIU
 
Significant
Industrial
User
as
defined
in
the
General
Pretreatment
Regulations
(
40
CFR
part
403)
TDD
 
Development
Document
for
the
Final
Effluent
Limitations
Guidelines
and
Standards
for
the
Metal
Products
&
Machinery
Point
Source
Category
(
EPA
 
821
 
B
 
03
 
001)
TOC
 
Total
Organic
Carbon
(
EPA
Method
415.1)
TOP
 
Total
Organics
Parameter
TRI
 
Toxic
Release
Inventory
TTO
 
Total
Toxic
Organics
TWF
 
Toxic
Weighting
Factor
VOC
 
Volatile
Organic
Compound
List
of
Subjects
in
40
CFR
Part
438
Environmental
protection;
Metal
products
and
machinery;
Waste
treatment
and
disposal;
Water
pollution
control.
Dated:
February
14,
2003.
Christine
Todd
Whitman,
Administrator.


For
the
reasons
set
forth
in
this
preamble,
title
40,
chapter
I
of
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
is
amended
as
follows:


1.
A
new
part
438
is
added
to
read
as
follows:

PART
438
 
METAL
PRODUCTS
AND
MACHINERY
POINT
SOURCE
CATEGORY
Sec.
438.1
General
applicability.
438.2
General
definitions.

Subpart
A
 
Oily
Wastes
438.10
Applicability.
438.12
Effluent
limitations
attainable
by
the
application
of
the
best
practicable
control
technology
currently
available
(
BPT).
438.13
Effluent
limitations
attainable
by
application
of
the
best
control
technology
for
conventional
pollutants
(
BCT).
438.15
New
source
performance
standards
(
NSPS).

Appendix
A
to
part
438
 
Typical
Products
in
Metal
Products
&
Machinery
Sectors
Appendix
B
to
part
438
 
Oily
Operations
Definitions
Appendix
C
to
part
438
 
Metal­
Bearing
Operations
Definitions
Authority:
33
U.
S.
C.
1311,
1314,
1316,
1317,
1318,
1342
and
1361.

§
438.1
General
applicability.

(
a)
As
defined
more
specifically
in
subpart
A,
except
as
provided
in
paragraphs
(
b)
through
(
e)
of
this
section,
this
part
applies
to
process
wastewater
discharges
from
oily
operations
(
as
defined
at
§
438.2(
f)
and
appendix
B
of
this
part)
to
surface
waters
from
existing
or
new
industrial
facilities
(
including
facilities
owned
and
operated
by
Federal,
State,
or
local
governments)
engaged
in
manufacturing,
rebuilding,
or
maintenance
of
metal
parts,
products,
or
machines
for
use
in
the
Metal
Product
&
Machinery
(
MP&
M)
industrial
sectors
listed
in
this
section.
The
MP&
M
industrial
sectors
consist
of
the
following:
Aerospace;
Aircraft;
Bus
and
Truck;
Electronic
Equipment;
Hardware;
Household
Equipment;
Instruments;
Miscellaneous
Metal
Products;
Mobile
Industrial
Equipment;
Motor
Vehicle;
Office
Machine;

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00051
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25736
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
Ordnance;
Precious
Metals
and
Jewelry;
Railroad;
Ships
and
Boats;
or
Stationary
Industrial
Equipment.
(
b)
The
regulations
in
this
part
do
not
apply
to
process
wastewaters
from
metal­
bearing
operations
(
as
defined
at
§
438.2(
d)
and
appendix
C
of
this
part)
or
process
wastewaters
which
are
subject
to
the
limitations
and
standards
of
other
effluent
limitations
guidelines
(
e.
g.,
Metal
Finishing
(
40
CFR
part
433)
or
Iron
and
Steel
Manufacturing
(
40
CFR
part
420)).
The
regulations
in
this
part
also
do
not
apply
to
process
wastewaters
from
oily
operations
(
as
defined
at
§
438.2(
f)
and
appendix
B
of
this
part)
commingled
with
process
wastewaters
already
covered
by
other
effluent
limitations
guidelines
or
with
process
wastewaters
from
metal­
bearing
operations.
This
provision
must
be
examined
for
each
point
source
discharge
at
a
given
facility.
(
c)
Wastewater
discharges
resulting
from
the
washing
of
cars,
aircraft
or
other
vehicles,
when
performed
only
for
aesthetic
or
cosmetic
purposes,
are
not
subject
to
this
part.
Direct
discharges
resulting
from
the
washing
of
cars,
aircraft
or
other
vehicles,
when
performed
as
a
preparatory
step
prior
to
one
or
more
successive
manufacturing,
rebuilding,
or
maintenance
operations,
are
subject
to
this
part.
(
d)
Wastewater
discharges
from
railroad
line
maintenance
facilities
(
as
defined
at
§
438.2(
h))
are
not
subject
to
this
part.
Wastewater
discharges
from
railroad
overhaul
or
heavy
maintenance
facilities
(
as
defined
at
§
438.2(
i))
may
be
covered
by
subpart
A
of
this
part,
the
Metal
Finishing
Point
Source
Category
(
40
CFR
part
433),
or
by
other
effluent
limitations
guidelines,
as
applicable.
(
e)
The
following
wastewater
discharges
are
not
subject
to
this
part:
(
1)
Non­
process
wastewater
as
defined
at
§
438.2(
e).
(
2)
Wastewater
discharges
introduced
into
a
Publicly
Owned
Treatment
Works
(
POTW)
or
a
Federally
owned
and
operated
Treatment
Works
Treating
Domestic
Sewage
(
TWTDS),
as
defined
at
40
CFR
122.2.
(
3)
Process
wastewater
generated
by
maintenance
and
repair
activities
at
gasoline
service
stations,
passenger
car
rental
facilities,
or
utility
trailer
and
recreational
vehicle
rental
facilities.
(
4)
Wastewater
discharges
generated
from
gravure
cylinder
preparation
or
metallic
platemaking
conducted
within
or
for
printing
and
publishing
facilities.
(
5)
Wastewater
discharges
in
or
on
dry
docks
and
similar
structures,
such
as
graving
docks,
building
ways,
marine
railways,
lift
barges
at
shipbuilding
facilities
(
or
shipyards),
and
ships
that
are
afloat.
(
6)
Wastewater
generated
by
facilities
primarily
performing
drum
reconditioning
and
cleaning
to
prepare
metal
drums
for
resale,
reuse,
or
disposal.

§
438.2
General
definitions.
As
used
in
this
part:
(
a)
The
general
definitions
and
abbreviations
at
40
CFR
part
401
shall
apply.
(
b)
The
regulated
parameters
are
listed
with
approved
methods
of
analysis
in
Table
1B
at
40
CFR
136.3,
and
are
defined
as
follows:
(
1)
O&
G
(
as
HEM)
means
total
recoverable
oil
and
grease
measured
as
n­
hexane
extractable
material.
(
2)
TSS
means
total
suspended
solids.
(
c)
Corrosion
preventive
coating
means
the
application
of
removable
oily
or
organic
solutions
to
protect
metal
surfaces
against
corrosive
environments.
Corrosion
preventive
coatings
include,
but
are
not
limited
to:
petrolatum
compounds,
oils,
hard
dry­
film
compounds,
solvent­
cutback
petroleumbased
compounds,
emulsions,
waterdisplacing
polar
compounds,
and
fingerprint
removers
and
neutralizers.
Corrosion
preventive
coating
does
not
include
electroplating,
or
chemical
conversion
coating
operations.
(
d)
Metal­
bearing
operations
means
one
or
more
of
the
following:
abrasive
jet
machining;
acid
pickling
neutralization;
acid
treatment
with
chromium;
acid
treatment
without
chromium;
alcohol
cleaning;
alkaline
cleaning
neutralization;
alkaline
treatment
with
cyanide;
anodizing
with
chromium;
anodizing
without
chromium;
carbon
black
deposition;
catalyst
acid
pre­
dip;
chemical
conversion
coating
without
chromium;
chemical
milling
(
or
chemical
machining);
chromate
conversion
coating
(
or
chromating);
chromium
dragout
destruction;
cyanide
drag­
out
destruction;
cyaniding
rinse;
electrochemical
machining;
electroless
catalyst
solution;
electroless
plating;
electrolytic
cleaning;
electroplating
with
chromium;
electroplating
with
cyanide;
electroplating
without
chromium
or
cyanide;
electropolishing;
galvanizing/
hot
dip
coating;
hot
dip
coating;
kerfing;
laminating;
mechanical
and
vapor
plating;
metallic
fiber
cloth
manufacturing;
metal
spraying
(
including
water
curtain);
paintingimmersion
(
including
electrophoretic,
``
E­
coat'');
photo
imaging;
photo
image
developing;
photoresist
application;
photoresist
strip;
phosphor
deposition;
physical
vapor
deposition;
plasma
arc
machining;
plastic
wire
extrusion;
salt
bath
descaling;
shot
tower
 
lead
shot
manufacturing;
soldering;
solder
flux
cleaning;
solder
fusing;
solder
masking;
sputtering;
stripping
(
paint);
stripping
(
metallic
coating);
thermal
infusion;
ultrasonic
machining;
vacuum
impregnation;
vacuum
plating;
water
shedder;
wet
air
pollution
control;
wire
galvanizing
flux;
and
numerous
suboperations
within
those
listed
in
this
paragraph.
In
addition,
process
wastewater
also
results
from
associated
rinses
that
remove
materials
that
the
preceding
processes
deposit
on
the
surface
of
the
workpiece.
These
metalbearing
operations
are
defined
in
appendix
C
of
this
part.
(
e)
Non­
process
wastewater
means
sanitary
wastewater,
non­
contact
cooling
water,
water
from
laundering,
and
non­
contact
storm
water.
Nonprocess
wastewater
for
this
part
also
includes
wastewater
discharges
from
non­
industrial
sources
such
as
residential
housing,
schools,
churches,
recreational
parks,
shopping
centers
as
well
as
wastewater
discharges
from
gas
stations,
utility
plants,
and
hospitals.
(
f)
Oily
operations
means
one
or
more
of
the
following:
abrasive
blasting;
adhesive
bonding;
alkaline
cleaning
for
oil
removal;
alkaline
treatment
without
cyanide;
aqueous
degreasing;
assembly/
disassembly;
burnishing;
calibration;
corrosion
preventive
coating
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
c)
of
this
section);
electrical
discharge
machining;
floor
cleaning
(
in
process
area);
grinding;
heat
treating;
impact
deformation;
iron
phosphate
conversion
coating;
machining;
painting­
spray
or
brush
(
including
water
curtains);
polishing;
pressure
deformation;
solvent
degreasing;
steam
cleaning;
testing
(
e.
g.,
hydrostatic,
dye
penetrant,
ultrasonic,
magnetic
flux);
thermal
cutting;
tumbling/
barrel
finishing/
mass
finishing/
vibratory
finishing;
washing
(
finished
products);
welding;
wet
air
pollution
control
for
organic
constituents;
and
numerous
suboperations
within
those
listed
in
this
paragraph.
In
addition,
process
wastewater
also
results
from
associated
rinses
that
remove
materials
that
the
preceding
processes
deposit
on
the
surface
of
the
workpiece.
These
oily
operations
are
defined
in
appendix
B
of
this
part.
(
g)
Process
wastewater
means
wastewater
as
defined
at
40
CFR
parts
122
and
401,
and
includes
wastewater
from
air
pollution
control
devices.
(
h)
Railroad
line
maintenance
facilities
means
facilities
specified
at
§
438.1
that
only
perform
routine
cleaning
and
light
maintenance
on
railroad
engines,
cars,
car­
wheel
trucks,

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00052
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25737
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
or
similar
parts
or
machines,
and
discharge
wastewater
exclusively
from
oily
operations
(
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
f)
of
this
section
and
appendix
B
of
this
part).
These
facilities
only
perform
one
or
more
of
the
following
operations:
assembly/
disassembly,
floor
cleaning,
maintenance
machining
(
wheel
truing),
touch­
up
painting,
and
washing.
(
i)
Railroad
overhaul
or
heavy
maintenance
facilities
means
facilities
engaged
in
the
manufacture,
overhaul,
or
heavy
maintenance
of
railroad
engines,
cars,
car­
wheel
trucks,
or
similar
parts
or
machines.
These
facilities
typically
perform
one
or
more
of
the
operations
in
paragraph
(
h)
of
this
section
and
one
or
more
of
the
following
operations:
abrasive
blasting,
alkaline
cleaning,
aqueous
degreasing,
corrosion
preventive
coating,
electrical
discharge
machining,
grinding,
heat
treating,
impact
deformation,
painting,
plasma
arc
machining,
polishing,
pressure
deformation,
soldering/
brazing,
stripping
(
paint),
testing,
thermal
cutting,
and
welding.
Subpart
A
 
Oily
Wastes
§
438.10
Applicability.

(
a)
This
subpart
applies
to
process
wastewater
directly
discharged
from
facilities
specified
at
§
438.1.
(
b)
This
subpart
applies
to
process
wastewater
discharges
from
oily
operations
(
as
defined
at
§
438.2(
f)
and
appendix
B
of
this
part).
(
c)
This
subpart
does
not
apply
to
process
wastewater
discharges
from
metal­
bearing
operations
(
as
defined
at
§
438.2(
d)
and
appendix
C
of
this
part).

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

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

Regulated
parameter
Maximum
daily
1
1.
TSS
...........................................
62
2.
O&
G
(
as
HEM)
.........................
46
1
mg/
L
(
ppm).

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

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

§
438.15
New
source
performance
standards
(
NSPS).

New
point
sources
subject
to
this
subpart
must
achieve
the
new
source
performance
standards
(
NSPS)
for
TSS,
O&
G
(
as
HEM),
and
pH,
which
are
the
same
as
the
corresponding
limitation
specified
at
§
438.12.
The
performance
standards
apply
with
respect
to
each
new
point
source
that
commences
discharge
after
June
12,
2003.

Appendix
A
to
Part
438
 
Typical
Products
in
Metal
Products
and
Machinery
Sectors
AEROSPACE
Guided
Missiles
&
Space
Vehicle
Guided
Missile
&
Space
Vehicle
Prop
Other
Space
Vehicle
&
Missile
Parts
AIRCRAFT
Aircraft
Engines
&
Engine
Parts
Aircraft
Frames
Manufacturing
Aircraft
Parts
&
Equipment
Airports,
Flying
Fields,
&
Services
BUS
&
TRUCK
Bus
Terminal
&
Service
Facilities
Courier
Services,
Except
by
Air
Freight
Truck
Terminals,
W/
or
W/
O
Maintenance.
Intercity
&
Rural
Highways
(
Buslines)
Local
&
Suburban
Transit
(
Bus
&
subway)
Local
Passenger.
Trans.
(
Lim.,
Amb.,
Sight
See)
Local
Trucking
With
Storage
Local
Trucking
Without
Storage
Motor
Vehicle
Parts
&
Accessories
School
Buses
Trucking
Truck
&
Bus
Bodies
Truck
Trailers
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00053
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25738
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
Communications
Equipment
Connectors
for
Electronic
Applications
Electric
Lamps
Electron
Tubes
Electronic
Capacitors
Electronic
Coils
&
Transformers
Electronic
Components
Radio
&
TV
Communications
Equipment
Telephone
&
Telegraph
Apparatus
HARDWARE
Architectural
&
Ornamental
Metal
Work
Bolts,
Nuts,
Screws,
Rivets
&
Washers
Crowns
&
Closures
Cutlery
Fabricated
Metal
Products
Fabricated
Pipe
&
Fabricated
Pipe
Fittings
Fabricated
Plate
Work
(
Boiler
Shops)
Fabricated
Structural
Metal
Fasteners,
Buttons,
Needles
&
Pins
Fluid
Power
Values
&
Hose
Fittings
Hand
&
Edge
Tools
Hand
Saws
&
Saw
Blades
Hardware
Heating
Equipment,
Except
Electric
Industrial
Furnaces
&
Ovens
Iron
&
Steel
Forgings
Machine
Tool
Accessories
&
Measuring
Devices
Machine
Tools,
Metal
Cutting
Types
Machine
Tools,
Metal
Forming
Types
Metal
Shipping
Barrels,
Drums,
Kegs,
Pails
Metal
Stampings
Power
Driven
Hand
Tools
Prefabricated
Metal
Buildings
&
Components
Screw
Machine
Products
Sheet
Metal
Work
Special
Dies
&
Tools,
Die
Sets,
Jigs,
Etc.
Steel
Springs
Valves
&
Pipe
Fittings
Wire
Springs
HOUSEHOLD
EQUIPMENT
Commercial,
Ind.
&
Inst.
Elec.
Lighting
Fixtures
Current­
Carrying
Wiring
Devices
Electirc
Housewares
&
Fans
Electric
Lamps
Farm
Freezers
Household
Appliances
Household
Cooking
Equipment
Household
Refrig.
&
Home
&
Farm
Freezers
Household
Laundry
Equipment
Household
Vacuum
Cleaners
Lighting
Equipment
Noncurrent­
Carrying
Wiring
Devices
Radio
&
Television
Repair
Shops
Radio
&
Television
Sets
Except
Commn.
Types
Refrig.
&
Air
Cond.
Serv.
&
Repair
Shops
Residential
Electrical
Lighting
Fixtures
INSTRUMENTS
Analytical
Instruments
Automatic
Environmental
Controls
Coating,
Engraving,
&
Allied
Services
Dental
Equipment
&
Supplies
Ophthalmic
Goods
Fluid
Meters
&
Counting
Devices
Instruments
to
Measure
Electricity
Laboratory
Apparatus
&
Furniture
Manufacturing
Industries
Measuring
&
Controlling
Devices
Optical
Instruments
&
Lenses
Orthopedic,
Prosthetic,
&
Surgical
Supplies
Pens,
Mechanical
Pencils,
&
Parts
Process
Control
Instruments
Search
&
Navigation
Equipment
Surgical
&
Medical
Instruments
&
Apparatus
Watches,
Clocks,
Associated
Devices
&
Parts
MOBILE
INDUSTRIAL
EQUIPMENT
Construction
Machinery
&
Equipment
Farm
Machinery
&
Equipment
Garden
Tractors
&
Lawn
&
Garden
Equipment
Hoist,
Industrial
Cranes
&
Monorails
Industrial
Trucks,
Tractors,
Trailers,
Tanks
&
Tank
Components
Mining
machinery
&
equipment,
except
oil
field
MOTOR
VEHICLE
Auto
Exhaust
System
Repair
Shops
Automobile
Dealers
(
new
&
used)
Auto.
Dealers
(
Dunebuggy,
Go­
cart,
Snowmobile)
Automobile
Service
(
includes
Diag.
&
Insp.
Cntrs.)
Automotive
Equipment
Automotive
Glass
Replacement
Shops
Automotive
Repairs
Shops
Automotive
Stampings
Automotive
Transmission
Repair
Shops
Carburetors,
Pistons
Rings,
Values
Electrical
Equipment
for
Motor
General
Automotive
Repair
Shops
Mobile
Homes
Motor
Vehicle
&
Automotive
Bodies
Motor
Vehicle
Parts
&
Accessories
Motorcycle
Dealers
Motorcycles
Passenger
Car
Leasing
Recreational
&
Utility
Trailer
Dealers
Taxicabs
Top
&
Body
Repair
&
Paint
Shops
Travel
Trailers
&
Campers
Vehicles
Vehicular
Lighting
Equipment
Welding
Shops
(
includes
Automotive)

INSTRUMENTS
OFFICE
MACHINE
Calculating
&
Accounting
Equipment
Computer
Maintenance
&
Repair
Computer
Peripheral
Equipment
Computer
Related
Services
Computer
Rental
&
Leasing
Computer
Storage
Devices
Computer
Terminals
Electrical
&
Electronic
Repair
Electronic
Computers
Office
Machines
Photographic
Equipment
&
Supplies
ORDNANCE
Ammunition
Ordnance
&
Accessories
Small
Arms
Small
Arms
Ammunition
PRECIOUS
METALS
&
JEWELRY
Costume
Jewelry
Jewelers'
Materials
&
Lapidary
Work
Jewelry,
Precious
Metal
Musical
Instruments
Silverware,
Plated
Ware,
&
Stainless
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00054
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25739
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
RAILROAD
Line­
Haul
Railroads
Railcars,
Railway
Systems
Switching
&
Terminal
Stations
SHIPS
&
BOATS
Boat
Building
&
Repairing
Deep
Sea
Domestic
Transportation
of
Freight
Deep
Sea
Passenger
Transportation,
Except
by
Ferry
Freight
Transportation
on
the
Great
Lakes
Marinas
Ship
Building
&
Repairing
Towing
&
Tugboat
Service
Water
Passenger
Transportation
Ferries
Water
Transportation
of
Freight
Water
Transportation
Services
STATIONARY
INDUSTRIAL
EQUIPMENT
Air
&
Gas
Compressors
Automatic
Vending
Machines
Ball
&
Roller
Bearings
Blowers
&
Exhaust
&
Ventilation
Fans
Commercial
Laundry
Equipment
Conveyors
&
Conveying
Equipment
Electric
Industrial
Apparatus
Elevators
&
Moving
Stairways
Equipment
Rental
&
Leasing
Food
Product
Machinery
Fluid
Power
Cylinders
&
Actuators
Fluid
Power
Pumps
&
Motors
General
Industrial
Machinery
Heavy
Construction
Equipment
Rental
Industrial
Machinery
Industrial
Patterns
Industrial
Process
Furnaces
&
Ovens
Internal
Combustion
Engines
Measuring
&
Dispensing
Pumps
Mechanical
Power
Transmission
Equipment
Metal
Working
Machinery
Motors
&
Generators
Oil
Field
Machinery
&
Equipment
Packaging
Machinery
Paper
Industries
Machinery
Printing
Trades
Machinery
&
Equipment
Pumps
&
Pumping
Equipment
Refrigeration
&
Air
&
Heating
Equipment
Relays
&
Industrial
Controls
Rolling
Mill
Machinery
&
Equipment
Scales
&
Balances,
Except
Laboratory
Service
Industry
Machines
Special
Industry
Machinery
Speed
Changers,
High
Speed
Drivers
&
Gears
Steam,
Gas,
Hydraulic
Turbines,
Generator
Units
Switchgear
&
Switchboard
Apparatus
Textile
Machinery
Transformers
Welding
Apparatus
Woodworking
Machinery
MISCELLANEOUS
METAL
PRODUCTS
Miscellaneous
Fabricated
Wire
Products
Miscellaneous
Metal
Work
Miscellaneous
Repair
Shops
&
Related
Services
Miscellaneous
Transportation
Equipment
Appendix
B
to
Part
438
 
Oily
Operations
Definitions
Note:
The
definitions
in
this
appendix
shall
not
be
used
to
differentiate
between
the
six
``
core''
metal
finishing
operations
(
i.
e.,
Electroplating,
Electroless
Plating,
Anodizing,
Coating
(
chromating,
phosphating,
and
coloring),
Chemical
Etching
and
Milling,
and
Printed
Circuit
Board
Manufacture)
and
forty
``
ancillary''
process
operations
listed
at
40
CFR
433.10(
a).
Abrasive
Blasting
involves
removing
surface
film
from
a
part
by
using
abrasive
directed
at
high
velocity
against
the
part.
Abrasive
blasting
includes
bead,
grit,
shot,
and
sand
blasting,
and
may
be
performed
either
dry
or
with
water.
The
primary
applications
of
wet
abrasive
blasting
include:
Removing
burrs
on
precision
parts;
producing
satin
or
matte
finishes;
removing
fine
tool
marks;
and
removing
light
mill
scale,
surface
oxide,
or
welding
scale.
Wet
blasting
can
be
used
to
finish
fragile
items
such
as
electronic
components.
Also,
some
aluminum
parts
are
wet
blasted
to
achieve
a
fine­
grained
matte
finish
for
decorative
purposes.
In
abrasive
blasting,
the
water
and
abrasive
typically
are
reused
until
the
particle
size
diminishes
due
to
impacting
and
fracture.
Adhesive
Bonding
involves
joining
parts
using
an
adhesive
material.
Typically,
an
organic
bonding
compound
is
used
as
the
adhesive.
This
operation
usually
is
dry;
however,
aqueous
solutions
may
be
used
as
bonding
agents
or
to
contain
residual
organic
bonding
materials.
Alkaline
Cleaning
for
Oil
Removal
is
a
general
term
for
the
application
of
an
alkaline
cleaning
agent
to
a
metal
part
to
remove
oil
and
grease
during
the
manufacture,
maintenance,
or
rebuilding
of
a
metal
product.
This
unit
operation
does
not
include
washing
of
the
finished
products
after
routine
use
(
as
defined
in
``
Washing
(
Finished
Products)''
in
this
appendix),
or
applying
an
alkaline
cleaning
agent
to
remove
nonoily
contaminants
such
as
dirt
and
scale
(
as
defined
in
``
Alkaline
Treatment
Without
Cyanide''
in
this
appendix
and
``
Alkaline
Treatment
With
Cyanide''
in
appendix
C
of
this
part).
Wastewater
generated
includes
spent
cleaning
solutions
and
rinse
waters.
(
1)
Alkaline
cleaning
is
performed
to
remove
foreign
contaminants
from
parts.
This
operation
usually
is
done
prior
to
finishing
(
e.
g.,
electroplating).
(
2)
Emulsion
cleaning
is
an
alkaline
cleaning
operation
that
uses
either
complex
chemical
enzymes
or
common
organic
solvents
(
e.
g.,
kerosene,
mineral
oil,
glycols,
and
benzene)
dispersed
in
water
with
the
aid
of
an
emulsifying
agent.
The
pH
of
the
solvent
usually
is
between
7
and
9,
and,
depending
on
the
solvent
used,
cleaning
is
performed
at
temperatures
from
room
temperature
to
82
°
C
(
180
°
F).
This
operation
often
is
used
as
a
replacement
for
vapor
degreasing.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00055
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25740
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
Alkaline
Treatment
Without
Cyanide
is
a
general
term
used
to
describe
the
application
of
an
alkaline
solution
not
containing
cyanide
to
a
metal
surface
to
clean
the
metal
surface
or
prepare
the
metal
surface
for
further
surface
finishing.
Aqueous
Degreasing
involves
cleaning
metal
parts
using
aqueous­
based
cleaning
chemicals
primarily
to
remove
residual
oils
and
greases
from
the
part.
Residual
oils
can
be
from
previous
operations
(
e.
g.,
machine
coolants),
oil
from
product
use
in
a
dirty
environment,
or
oil
coatings
used
to
inhibit
corrosion.
Wastewater
generated
by
this
operation
includes
spent
cleaning
solutions
and
rinse
waters.
Assembly/
Disassembly
involves
fitting
together
previously
manufactured
or
rebuilt
parts
or
components
into
a
complete
metal
product
or
machine
or
taking
a
complete
metal
product
or
machine
apart.
Assembly/
disassembly
operations
are
typically
dry;
however,
special
circumstances
can
require
water
for
cooling
or
buoyancy.
Also,
rinsing
may
be
necessary
under
some
conditions.
Burnishing
involves
finish
sizing
or
smooth
finishing
a
part
(
previously
machined
or
ground)
by
displacing,
rather
than
removing,
minute
surface
irregularities
with
smooth
point
or
line­
contact,
fixed
or
rotating
tools.
Lubricants
or
soap
solutions
can
be
used
to
cool
the
tools
used
in
burnishing
operations.
Wastewater
generated
during
burnishing
include
process
solutions
and
rinse
water.
Calibration
is
performed
to
provide
reference
points
for
the
use
of
a
product.
This
unit
operation
typically
is
dry,
although
water
may
be
used
in
some
cases
(
e.
g.,
pumping
water
for
calibration
of
a
pump).
Water
used
in
this
unit
operation
usually
does
not
contain
additives.
Corrosion
Preventive
Coating
involves
applying
removable
oily
or
organic
solutions
to
protect
metal
surfaces
against
corrosive
environments.
Corrosion
preventive
coatings
include,
but
are
not
limited
to:
Petrolatum
compounds,
oils,
hard
dry­
film
compounds,
solvent­
cutback
petroleum­
based
compounds,
emulsions,
water­
displacing
polar
compounds,
and
fingerprint
removers
and
neutralizers.
Corrosion
preventive
coating
does
not
include
electroplating,
or
chemical
conversion
coating
operations.
Many
corrosion
preventive
materials
also
are
formulated
to
function
as
lubricants
or
as
a
base
for
paint.
Typical
applications
include:
Assembled
machinery
or
equipment
in
standby
storage;
finished
parts
in
stock
or
spare
parts
for
replacement;
tools
such
as
drills,
taps,
dies,
and
gauges;
and
mill
products
such
as
sheet,
strip,
rod
and
bar.
Wastewater
generated
during
corrosion
preventive
coating
includes
spent
process
solutions
and
rinses.
Process
solutions
are
discharged
when
they
become
contaminated
with
impurities
or
are
depleted
of
constituents.
Corrosion
preventive
coatings
typically
do
not
require
an
associated
rinse,
but
parts
are
sometimes
rinsed
to
remove
the
coating
before
further
processing.
Electrical
Discharge
Machining
involves
removing
metals
by
a
rapid
spark
discharge
between
different
polarity
electrodes,
one
the
part
and
the
other
the
tool,
separated
by
a
small
gap.
The
gap
may
be
filled
with
air
or
a
dielectric
fluid.
This
operation
is
used
primarily
to
cut
tool
alloys,
hard
nonferrous
alloys,
and
other
hard­
to­
machine
materials.
Most
electrical
discharge
machining
processes
are
operated
dry;
however,
in
some
cases,
the
process
uses
water
and
generates
wastewater
containing
dielectric
fluid.
Floor
Cleaning
(
in
Process
Area)
removes
dirt,
debris,
and
process
solution
spills
from
process
area
floors.
Floors
can
be
cleaned
using
wet
or
dry
methods,
such
as
vacuuming,
mopping,
dry
sweeping,
and
hose
rinsing.
Non­
process
area
floor
cleaning
in
offices
and
other
similar
non­
process
areas
is
not
included
in
this
unit
operation.
Grinding
involves
removing
stock
from
a
part
by
using
abrasive
grains
held
by
a
rigid
or
semirigid
binder.
Grinding
shapes
or
deburrs
the
part.
The
grinding
tool
usually
is
a
disk
(
the
basic
shape
of
grinding
wheels),
but
can
also
be
a
cylinder,
ring,
cup,
stick,
strip,
or
belt.
The
most
commonly
used
abrasives
are
aluminum
oxide,
silicon
carbide,
and
diamond.
The
process
may
use
a
grinding
fluid
to
cool
the
part
and
remove
debris
or
metal
fines.
Wastewater
generated
during
grinding
includes
spent
coolants
and
rinses.
Metal­
working
fluids
become
spent
for
a
number
of
reasons,
including
increased
biological
activity
(
i.
e.,
the
fluids
become
rancid)
or
decomposition
of
the
coolant
additives.
Rinse
waters
typically
are
assimilated
into
the
working
fluid
or
treated
on
site.
Heat
Treating
involves
modifying
the
physical
properties
of
a
part
by
applying
controlled
heating
and
cooling
cycles.
This
operation
includes
tempering,
carburizing,
cyaniding,
nitriding,
annealing,
aging,
normalizing,
austenitizing,
austempering,
siliconizing,
martempering,
and
malleablizing.
Parts
are
heated
in
furnaces
or
molten
salt
baths,
and
then
may
be
cooled
by
quenching
in
aqueous
solutions
(
e.
g.,
brine
solutions),
neat
oils
(
pure
oils
with
little
or
no
impurities),
or
oil/
water
emulsions.
Heat
treating
typically
is
a
dry
operation,
but
is
considered
a
wet
operation
if
aqueous
quenching
solutions
are
used.
Wastewater
includes
spent
quench
water
and
rinse
water.
Impact
Deformation
involves
applying
impact
force
to
a
part
to
permanently
deform
or
shape
it.
Impact
deformation
may
include
mechanical
processes
such
as
hammer
forging,
shot
peening,
peening,
coining,
highenergy
rate
forming,
heading,
or
stamping.
Natural
and
synthetic
oils,
light
greases,
and
pigmented
lubricants
are
used
in
impact
deformation
operations.
Pigmented
lubricants
include
whiting,
lithapone,
mica,
zinc
oxide,
molybdenum
disulfide,
bentonite,
flour,
graphite,
white
lead,
and
soap­
like
materials.
These
operations
typically
are
dry,
but
wastewater
can
be
generated
from
lubricant
discharge
and
from
rinsing
operations
associated
with
the
operation.
Iron
Phosphate
Conversion
Coating
is
the
process
of
applying
a
protective
coating
on
the
surface
of
a
metal
using
a
bath
consisting
of
a
phosphoric
acid
solution
containing
no
metals
(
e.
g.,
manganese,
nickel,
or
zinc)
or
a
phosphate
salt
solution
(
i.
e.,
sodium
or
potassium
salts
of
phosphoric
acid
solutions)
containing
no
metals
(
e.
g.,
manganese,
nickel,
or
zinc)
other
than
sodium
or
potassium.
Any
metal
concentrations
in
the
bath
are
from
the
substrate.
Machining
involves
removing
stock
from
a
part
(
as
chips)
by
forcing
a
cutting
tool
against
the
part.
This
includes
machining
processes
such
as
turning,
milling,
drilling,
boring,
tapping,
planing,
broaching,
sawing,
shaving,
shearing,
threading,
reaming,
shaping,
slotting,
hobbing,
and
chamfering.
Machining
processes
use
various
types
of
metal­
working
fluids,
the
choice
of
which
depends
on
the
type
of
machining
being
performed
and
the
preference
of
the
machine
shop.
The
fluids
can
be
categorized
into
four
groups:
Straight
oil
(
neat
oils),
synthetic,
semisynthetic,
and
water­
soluble
oil.
Machining
operations
generate
wastewater
from
working
fluid
or
rinse
water
discharge.
Metal­
working
fluids
periodically
are
discarded
because
of
reduced
performance
or
development
of
a
rancid
odor.
After
machining,
parts
are
sometimes
rinsed
to
remove
coolant
and
metal
chips.
The
coolant
reservoir
is
sometimes
rinsed,
and
the
rinse
water
is
added
to
the
working
fluid.
Painting­
Spray
or
Brush
(
Including
Water
Curtains)
involves
applying
an
organic
coating
to
a
part.
Coatings
such
as
paint,
varnish,
lacquer,
shellac,
and
plastics
are
applied
by
spraying,
brushing,
roll
coating,
lithographing,
powder
coating,
and
wiping.
Water
is
used
in
painting
operations
as
a
solvent
(
water­
borne
formulations)
for
rinsing,
for
cleanup,
and
for
water­
wash
(
or
curtain)
type
spray
booths.
Paint
spray
booths
typically
use
most
of
the
water
in
this
unit
operation.
Spray
booths
capture
overspray
(
i.
e.,
paint
that
misses
the
product
during
application),
and
control
the
introduction
of
pollutants
into
the
workplace
and
environment.
Polishing
involves
removing
stock
from
a
part
using
loose
or
loosely
held
abrasive
grains
carried
to
the
part
by
a
flexible
support.
Usually,
the
objective
is
to
achieve
a
desired
surface
finish
or
appearance
rather
then
to
remove
a
specified
amount
of
stock.
Buffing
is
included
in
this
unit
operation,
and
usually
is
performed
using
a
revolving
cloth
or
sisal
buffing
wheel,
which
is
coated
with
a
suitable
compound.
Liquid
buffing
compounds
are
used
extensively
for
largevolume
production
on
semiautomated
or
automated
buffing
equipment.
Polishing
operations
typically
are
dry,
although
liquid
compounds
and
associated
rinses
are
used
in
some
polishing
processes.
Pressure
Deformation
involves
applying
force
(
other
than
impact
force)
to
permanently
deform
or
shape
a
part.
Pressure
deformation
may
include
rolling,
drawing,
bending,
embossing,
sizing,
extruding,
squeezing,
spinning,
necking,
forming,
crimping
or
flaring.
These
operations
use
natural
and
synthetic
oils,
light
greases,
and
pigmented
lubricants.
Pigmented
lubricants
include
whiting,
lithapone,
mica,
zinc
oxide,
molybdenum
disulfide,
bentonite,
flour,
graphite,
white
lead,
and
soap­
like
materials.
Pressure
deformation
typically
is
dry,
but
wastewater
is
sometimes
generated
from
the
discharge
of
lubricants
or
from
rinsing
associated
with
the
process.
Solvent
Degreasing
removes
oils
and
grease
from
the
surface
of
a
part
using
organic
solvents,
including
aliphatic
petroleum
(
e.
g.,
kerosene,
naphtha),
aromatics
(
e.
g.,
benzene,
toluene),
oxygenated
hydrocarbons
(
e.
g.,

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00056
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25741
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
ketones,
alcohol,
ether),
and
halogenated
hydrocarbons
(
e.
g.,
1,1,1­
trichloroethane,
trichloroethylene,
methylene
chloride).
Solvent
cleaning
takes
place
in
either
the
liquid
or
vapor
phase.
Solvent
vapor
degreasing
normally
is
quicker
than
solvent
liquid
degreasing.
However,
ultrasonic
vibration
is
sometimes
used
with
liquid
solvents
to
decrease
the
required
immersion
time
of
complex
shapes.
Solvent
cleaning
often
is
used
as
a
precleaning
operation
prior
to
alkaline
cleaning,
as
a
final
cleaning
of
precision
parts,
or
as
surface
preparation
for
some
painting
operations.
Solvent
degreasing
operations
typically
are
not
followed
by
rinsing,
although
rinsing
is
performed
in
some
cases.
Steam
Cleaning
removes
residual
dirt,
oil,
and
grease
from
parts
after
processing
though
other
unit
operations.
Typically,
additives
are
not
used
in
this
operation;
the
hot
steam
removes
the
pollutants.
Wastewater
is
generated
when
the
cleaned
parts
are
rinsed.
Testing
(
e.
g.,
hydrostatic,
dye
penetrant,
ultrasonic,
magnetic
flux)
involves
applying
thermal,
electrical,
mechanical,
hydraulic,
or
other
energy
to
determine
the
suitability
or
functionality
of
a
part,
assembly,
or
complete
unit.
Testing
also
may
include
applying
surface
penetrant
dyes
to
detect
surface
imperfections.
Other
examples
of
tests
frequently
performed
include
electrical
testing,
performance
testing,
and
ultrasonic
testing;
these
tests
typically
are
dry
but
may
generate
wastewater
under
certain
circumstances.
Testing
usually
is
performed
to
replicate
some
aspect
of
the
working
environment.
Wastewater
generated
during
testing
includes
spent
process
solutions
and
rinses.
Thermal
Cutting
involves
cutting,
slotting,
or
piercing
a
part
using
an
oxy­
acetylene
oxygen
lance,
electric
arc
cutting
tool,
or
laser.
Thermal
cutting
typically
is
a
dry
process,
except
for
the
use
of
contact
cooling
waters
and
rinses.
Tumbling/
Barrel
Finishing/
Mass
Finishing/
Vibratory
Finishing
involves
polishing
or
deburring
a
part
using
a
rotating
or
vibrating
container
and
abrasive
media
or
other
polishing
materials
to
achieve
a
desired
surface
appearance.
Parts
to
be
finished
are
placed
in
a
rotating
barrel
or
vibrating
unit
with
an
abrasive
media
(
e.
g.,
ceramic
chips,
pebbles),
water,
and
chemical
additives
(
e.
g.,
alkaline
detergents).
As
the
barrel
rotates,
the
upper
layer
of
the
part
slides
toward
the
lower
side
of
the
barrel,
causing
the
abrading
or
polishing.
Similar
results
can
be
achieved
in
a
vibrating
unit,
where
the
entire
contents
of
the
container
are
in
constant
motion,
or
in
a
centrifugal
unit,
which
compacts
the
load
of
media
and
parts
as
the
unit
spins
and
generates
up
to
50
times
the
force
of
gravity.
Spindle
finishing
is
a
similar
process,
where
parts
to
be
finished
are
mounted
on
fixtures
and
exposed
to
a
rapidly
moving
abrasive
slurry.
Wastewater
generated
during
barrel
finishing
includes
spent
process
solutions
and
rinses.
Following
the
finishing
process,
the
contents
of
the
barrel
are
unloaded.
Process
wastewater
is
either
discharged
continuously
during
the
process,
discharged
after
finishing,
or
collected
and
reused.
The
parts
are
sometimes
given
a
final
rinse
to
remove
particles
of
abrasive
media.
Washing
(
Finished
Products)
involves
cleaning
finished
metal
products
after
use
or
storage
using
fresh
water
or
water
containing
a
mild
cleaning
solution.
This
unit
operation
applies
only
to
the
finished
products
that
do
not
require
maintenance
or
rebuilding.
Welding
involves
joining
two
or
more
pieces
of
material
by
applying
heat,
pressure,
or
both,
with
or
without
filler
material,
to
produce
a
metallurgical
bond
through
fusion
or
recrystallization
across
the
interface.
This
includes
gas
welding,
resistance
welding,
arc
welding,
cold
welding,
electron
beam
welding,
and
laser
beam
welding.
Welding
typically
is
a
dry
process,
except
for
the
occasional
use
of
contact
cooling
waters
or
rinses.
Wet
Air
Pollution
Control
for
Organic
Constituents
involves
using
water
to
remove
organic
constituents
that
are
entrained
in
air
streams
exhausted
from
process
tanks
or
production
areas.
Most
frequently,
wet
air
pollution
control
devices
are
used
with
cleaning
and
coating
processes.
A
common
type
of
wet
air
pollution
control
is
the
wet
packed
scrubber
consisting
of
a
spray
chamber
that
is
filled
with
packing
material.
Water
is
continuously
sprayed
onto
the
packing
and
the
air
stream
is
pulled
through
the
packing
by
a
fan.
Pollutants
in
the
air
stream
are
absorbed
by
the
water
droplets
and
the
air
is
released
to
the
atmosphere.
A
single
scrubber
often
serves
numerous
process
tanks.

Appendix
C
to
Part
438
 
Metal­
Bearing
Operations
Definitions
Note:
The
definitions
in
this
appendix
shall
not
be
used
to
differentiate
between
the
six
``
core''
metal
finishing
operations
(
i.
e.,
Electroplating,
Electroless
Plating,
Anodizing,
Coating
(
chromating,
phosphating,
and
coloring),
Chemical
Etching
and
Milling,
and
Printed
Circuit
Board
Manufacture)
and
forty
``
ancillary''
process
operations
listed
at
40
CFR
433.10(
a).
Abrasive
Jet
Machining
includes
removing
stock
material
from
a
part
by
a
high­
speed
stream
of
abrasive
particles
carried
by
a
liquid
or
gas
from
a
nozzle.
Abrasive
jet
machining
is
used
for
deburring,
drilling,
and
cutting
thin
sections
of
metal
or
composite
material.
Unlike
abrasive
blasting,
this
process
operates
at
pressures
of
thousands
of
pounds
per
square
inch.
The
liquid
streams
typically
are
alkaline
or
emulsified
oil
solutions,
although
water
also
can
be
used.
Acid
Pickling
Neutralization
involves
using
a
dilute
alkaline
solution
to
raise
the
pH
of
acid
pickling
rinse
water
that
remains
on
the
part
after
pickling.
The
wastewater
from
this
operation
is
the
acid
pickling
neutralization
rinse
water.
Acid
Treatment
With
Chromium
is
a
general
term
used
to
describe
any
application
of
an
acid
solution
containing
chromium
to
a
metal
surface.
Acid
cleaning,
chemical
etching,
and
pickling
are
types
of
acid
treatment.
Chromic
acid
is
used
occasionally
to
clean
cast
iron,
stainless
steel,
cadmium
and
aluminum,
and
bright
dipping
of
copper
and
copper
alloys.
Also,
chromic
acid
solutions
can
be
used
for
the
final
step
in
acid
cleaning
phosphate
conversion
coating
systems.
Chemical
conversion
coatings
formulated
with
chromic
acid
are
defined
at
``
Chromate
Conversion
Coating
(
or
Chromating)''
in
this
appendix.
Wastewater
generated
during
acid
treatment
includes
spent
solutions
and
rinse
waters.
Spent
solutions
typically
are
batch
discharged
and
treated
or
disposed
of
off
site.
Most
acid
treatment
operations
are
followed
by
a
water
rinse
to
remove
residual
acid.
Acid
Treatment
Without
Chromium
is
a
general
term
used
to
describe
any
application
of
an
acid
solution
not
containing
chromium
to
a
metal
surface.
Acid
cleaning,
chemical
etching,
and
pickling
are
types
of
acid
treatment.
Wastewater
generated
during
acid
treatment
includes
spent
solutions
and
rinse
waters.
Spent
solutions
typically
are
batch
discharged
and
treated
or
disposed
of
off
site.
Most
acid
treatment
operations
are
followed
by
a
water
rinse
to
remove
residual
acid.
Alcohol
Cleaning
involves
removing
dirt
and
residue
material
from
a
part
using
alcohol.
Alkaline
Cleaning
Neutralization
involves
using
a
dilute
acid
solution
to
lower
the
pH
of
alkaline
cleaning
rinse
water
that
remains
on
the
part
after
alkaline
cleaning.
Wastewater
from
this
operation
is
the
alkaline
cleaning
neutralization
rinse
water.
Alkaline
Treatment
With
Cyanide
is
the
cleaning
of
a
metal
surface
with
an
alkaline
solution
containing
cyanide.
Wastewater
generated
during
alkaline
treatment
includes
spent
solutions
and
rinse
waters.
Alkaline
treatment
solutions
become
contaminated
from
the
introduction
of
soils
and
dissolution
of
the
base
metal.
They
usually
are
treated
and
disposed
of
on
a
batch
basis.
Alkaline
treatment
typically
is
followed
by
a
water
rinse
that
is
discharged
to
a
treatment
system.
Anodizing
With
Chromium
involves
producing
a
protective
oxide
film
on
aluminum,
magnesium,
or
other
light
metal,
usually
by
passing
an
electric
current
through
an
electrolyte
bath
in
which
the
metal
is
immersed.
Anodizing
may
be
followed
by
a
sealant
operation.
Chromic
acid
anodic
coatings
have
a
relatively
thick
boundary
layer
and
are
more
protective
than
are
sulfuric
acid
coatings.
For
these
reasons,
chromic
acid
is
sometimes
used
when
the
part
cannot
be
rinsed
completely.
These
oxide
coatings
provide
corrosion
protection,
decorative
surfaces,
a
base
for
painting
and
other
coating
processes,
and
special
electrical
and
mechanical
properties.
Wastewaters
generated
during
anodizing
include
spent
anodizing
solutions,
sealants,
and
rinse
waters.
Because
of
the
anodic
nature
of
the
process,
anodizing
solutions
become
contaminated
with
the
base
metal
being
processed.
These
solutions
eventually
reach
an
intolerable
concentration
of
dissolved
metal
and
require
treatment
or
disposal.
Rinse
water
following
anodizing,
coloring,
and
sealing
typically
is
discharged
to
a
treatment
system.
Anodizing
Without
Chromium
involves
applying
a
protective
oxide
film
to
aluminum,
magnesium,
or
other
light
metal,
usually
by
passing
an
electric
current
through
an
electrolyte
bath
in
which
the
metal
is
immersed.
Phosphoric
acid,
sulfuric
acid,
and
boric
acid
are
used
in
anodizing.
Anodizing
also
may
include
sealant
baths.
These
oxide
coatings
provide
corrosion
protection,
decorative
surfaces,
a
base
for
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00057
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25742
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
painting
and
other
coating
processes,
and
special
electrical
and
mechanical
properties.
Wastewater
generated
during
anodizing
includes
spent
anodizing
solutions,
sealants,
and
rinse
waters.
Because
of
the
anodic
nature
of
the
process,
anodizing
solutions
become
contaminated
with
the
base
metal
being
processed.
These
solutions
eventually
reach
an
intolerable
concentration
of
dissolved
metal
and
require
treatment
or
disposal.
Rinse
water
following
anodizing,
coloring,
and
sealing
steps
typically
is
discharged
to
a
treatment
systems.
Carbon
Black
Deposition
involves
coating
the
inside
of
printed
circuit
board
holes
by
dipping
the
circuit
board
into
a
tank
that
contains
carbon
black
and
potassium
hydroxide.
After
excess
solution
dips
from
the
circuit
boards,
they
are
heated
to
allow
the
carbon
black
to
adhere
to
the
board.
Catalyst
Acid
Pre­
Dip
uses
rinse
water
to
remove
residual
solution
from
a
part
after
the
part
is
processed
in
an
acid
bath.
The
wastewater
generated
in
this
unit
operation
is
the
rinse
water.
Chemical
Conversion
Coating
without
Chromium
is
the
process
of
applying
a
protective
coating
on
the
surface
of
a
metal
without
using
chromium.
Such
coatings
are
applied
through
phosphate
conversion
(
except
for
``
Iron
Phosphate
Conversion
Coating,''
see
appendix
B
of
this
part),
metal
coloring,
or
passivation.
Coatings
are
applied
to
a
base
metal
or
previously
deposited
metal
to
increase
corrosion
protection
and
lubricity,
prepare
the
surface
for
additional
coatings,
or
formulate
a
special
surface
appearance.
This
unit
process
includes
sealant
operations
that
use
additives
other
than
chromium.
(
1)
In
phosphate
conversion,
coatings
are
applied
for
one
or
more
of
the
following
reasons:
to
provide
a
base
for
paints
and
other
organic
coatings;
to
condition
surfaces
for
cold
forming
operations
by
providing
a
base
for
drawing
compounds
and
lubricants;
to
impart
corrosion
resistance
to
the
metal
surface;
or
to
provide
a
suitable
base
for
corrosion­
resistant
oils
or
waxes.
Phosphate
conversion
coatings
are
formed
by
immersing
a
metal
part
in
a
dilute
solution
of
phosphoric
acid,
phosphate
salts,
and
other
reagents.
(
2)
Metal
coloring
by
chemical
conversion
coating
produces
a
large
group
of
decorative
finishes.
Metal
coloring
includes
the
formation
of
oxide
conversion
coatings.
In
this
operation,
the
metal
surface
is
converted
into
an
oxide
or
similar
metallic
compound,
giving
the
part
the
desired
color.
The
most
common
colored
finishes
are
used
on
copper,
steel,
zinc,
and
cadmium.
(
3)
Passivation
forms
a
protective
coating
on
metals,
particularly
stainless
steel,
by
immersing
the
part
in
an
acid
solution.
Stainless
steel
is
passivated
to
dissolve
embedded
iron
particles
and
to
form
a
thin
oxide
film
on
the
surface
of
the
metal.
Wastewater
generated
during
chemical
conversion
coating
includes
spent
solutions
and
rinses
(
i.
e.,
both
the
chemical
conversion
coating
solutions
and
post­
treatment
sealant
solutions).
These
solutions
commonly
are
discharged
to
a
treatment
system
when
contaminated
with
the
base
metal
or
other
impurities.
Rinsing
normally
follows
each
process
step,
except
when
a
sealant
dries
on
the
part
surface.
Chemical
Milling
(
or
Chemical
Machining)
involves
removing
metal
from
a
part
by
controlled
chemical
attack,
or
etching,
to
produce
desired
shapes
and
dimensions.
In
chemical
machining,
a
masking
agent
typically
is
applied
to
cover
a
portion
of
the
part's
surface;
the
exposed
(
unmasked)
surface
is
then
treated
with
the
chemical
machining
solution.
Wastewater
generated
during
chemical
machining
includes
spent
solutions
and
rinses.
Process
solutions
typically
are
discharged
after
becoming
contaminated
with
the
base
metal.
Rinsing
normally
follows
chemical
machining.
Chromate
Conversion
Coating
(
or
Chromating)
involves
forming
a
conversion
coating
(
protective
coating)
on
a
metal
by
immersing
or
spraying
the
metal
with
a
hexavalent
chromium
compound
solution
to
produce
a
hexavalent
or
trivalent
chromium
compound
coating.
This
also
is
known
as
chromate
treatment,
and
is
most
often
applied
to
aluminum,
zinc,
cadmium
or
magnesium
surfaces.
Sealant
operations
using
chromium
also
are
included
in
this
unit
operation.
Chromate
solutions
include
two
types:
(
1)
those
that
deposit
substantial
chromate
films
on
the
substrate
metal
and
are
complete
treatments
themselves,
and
(
2)
those
that
seal
or
supplement
oxide,
phosphate,
or
other
types
of
protective
coatings.
Wastewater
generated
during
chromate
conversion
coating
includes
spent
process
solutions
(
i.
e.,
both
the
chromate
conversion
coating
solutions
and
posttreatment
sealant
solutions)
and
rinses.
These
solutions
typically
are
discharged
to
a
treatment
system
when
contaminated
with
the
base
metal
or
other
impurities.
Also,
chromium­
based
solutions,
which
are
typically
formulated
with
hexavalent
chromium,
lose
operating
strength
when
the
hexavalent
chromium
reduces
to
trivalent
chromium
during
use.
Rinsing
normally
follows
each
process
step,
except
for
sealants
that
dry
on
the
surface
of
the
part.
Chromium
Drag­
out
Destruction
is
a
unit
operation
performed
following
chromiumbearing
operations
to
reduce
hexavalent
chromium
that
is
``
dragged
out''
of
the
process
bath.
Parts
are
dipped
in
a
solution
of
a
chromium­
reducing
chemical
(
e.
g.,
sodium
metabisulfite)
to
prevent
the
hexavalent
chromium
from
contaminating
subsequent
process
baths.
This
operation
typically
is
performed
in
a
stagnant
drag­
out
rinse
tank
that
contains
concentrated
chromium­
bearing
wastewater.
Cyanide
Drag­
out
Destruction
involves
dipping
part
in
a
cyanide
oxidation
solution
(
e.
g.,
sodium
hypochloride)
to
prevent
cyanide
that
is
``
dragged
out''
of
a
process
bath
from
contaminating
subsequent
process
baths.
This
operation
typically
is
performed
in
a
stagnant
drag­
out
rinse
tank.
Cyaniding
Rinse
is
generated
during
cyaniding
hardening
of
a
part.
The
part
is
heated
in
a
molten
salt
solution
containing
cyanide.
Wastewater
is
generated
when
excess
cyanide
salt
solution
is
removed
from
the
part
in
rinse
water.
Electrochemical
Machining
is
a
process
in
which
the
part
becomes
the
anode
and
a
shaped
cathode
is
the
cutting
tool.
By
pumping
electrolyte
between
the
electrodes
and
applying
a
current,
metal
is
rapidly
but
selectively
dissolved
from
the
part.
Wastewater
generated
during
electrochemical
machining
includes
spent
electrolytes
and
rinses.
Electroless
Catalyst
Solution
involves
adding
a
catalyst
just
prior
to
an
electroless
plating
operation
to
accelerate
the
plating
operation.
Electroless
Plating
involves
applying
a
metallic
coating
to
a
part
using
a
chemical
reduction
process
in
the
presence
of
a
catalysis.
An
electric
current
is
not
used
in
this
operations.
The
metal
to
be
plated
onto
a
part
typically
is
held
in
solution
at
high
concentrations
using
a
chelating
agent.
This
plates
all
areas
of
the
part
to
a
uniform
thickness
regardless
of
the
configuration
of
the
part.
Also,
an
electroless­
plated
surface
is
dense
and
virtually
nonporous.
Copper
and
nickel
electroless
plating
operations
are
the
most
common.
Sealant
operations
(
i.
e.,
other
than
hot
water
dips)
following
electroless
plating
are
considered
separate
unit
operations
if
they
include
any
additives.
Wastewater
generated
during
electroless
plating
includes
spent
process
solutions
and
rinses.
The
wastewater
contains
chelated
metals,
which
require
separate
preliminary
treatment
to
break
the
metal
chelates
prior
to
conventional
chemical
precipitation.
Rinsing
follows
most
electroless
plating
processes
to
remove
residual
plating
solution
and
prevent
contamination
of
subsequent
process
baths.
Electrolytic
Cleaning
involves
removing
soil,
scale,
or
surface
oxides
from
a
part
by
electrolysis.
The
part
is
one
of
the
electrodes
and
the
electrolyte
is
usually
alkaline.
Electrolytic
alkaline
cleaning
and
electrolytic
acid
cleaning
are
the
two
types
of
electrolytic
cleaning.
(
1)
Electrolytic
alkaline
cleaning
produces
a
cleaner
surface
than
do
nonelectrolytic
methods
of
alkaline
cleaning.
This
operation
uses
strong
agitation,
gas
evolution
in
the
solution,
and
oxidation­
reduction
reactions
that
occur
during
electrolysis.
In
addition,
dirt
particles
become
electrically
charged
and
are
repelled
from
the
part
surface.
(
2)
Electrolytic
acid
cleaning
sometimes
is
used
as
a
final
cleaning
before
electroplating.
Sulfuric
acid
is
most
frequently
used
as
the
electrolyte.
As
with
electrolytic
alkaline
cleaning,
the
mechanical
scrubbing
effect
from
the
evolution
of
gas
enhances
the
effectiveness
of
the
process.
Wastewater
generated
during
electrolytic
cleaning
includes
spent
process
solutions
and
rinses.
Electrolytic
cleaning
solutions
become
contaminated
during
use
due
to
the
dissolution
of
the
base
metal
and
the
introduction
of
pollutants.
The
solutions
typically
are
batch
discharged
for
treatment
or
disposal
after
they
weaken.
Rinsing
following
electrolytic
cleaning
removes
residual
cleaner
to
prevent
contamination
of
subsequent
process
baths.
Electroplating
with
Chromium
involves
producing
a
chromium
metal
coating
on
a
surface
by
electrodeposition.
Electroplating
provides
corrosion
protection,
wear
or
erosion
resistance,
lubricity,
electrical
conductivity,
or
decoration.
In
electroplating,
metal
ions
in
acid,
alkaline,
or
neutral
solutions
are
reduced
on
the
cathodic
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00058
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25743
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
surfaces
of
the
parts
being
plated.
Metal
salts
or
oxides
typically
are
added
to
replenish
the
solutions.
Chromium
trioxide
often
is
added
as
a
source
of
chromium.
In
addition
to
water
and
the
metal
being
deposited,
electroplating
solutions
often
contain
agents
that
form
complexes
with
the
metal
being
deposited,
stabilizers
to
prevent
hydrolysis,
buffers
for
pH
control,
catalysts
to
assist
in
deposition,
chemical
aids
to
dissolve
anodes,
and
miscellaneous
ingredients
that
modify
the
process
to
attain
specific
properties.
Sealant
operations
performed
after
this
operation
are
considered
separate
unit
operations
if
they
include
any
additives
(
i.
e.,
other
than
hot
water
dips).
Wastewater
generated
during
electroplating
includes
spent
process
solutions
and
rinses.
Electroplating
solutions
occasionally
become
contaminated
during
use
due
to
the
base
metal
dissolving
and
the
introduction
of
other
pollutants,
diminishing
the
effectiveness
of
the
electroplating
solutions
diminishes.
Spent
concentrated
solutions
typically
are
treated
to
remove
pollutants
and
reused,
processed
in
a
wastewater
treatment
system,
or
disposed
of
off
site.
Rinse
waters,
including
some
dragout
rinse
tank
solutions,
typically
are
treated
on
site.
Electroplating
with
Cyanide
involves
producing
metal
coatings
on
a
surface
by
electrodeposition
using
cyanide.
Electroplating
provides
corrosion
protection,
wear
or
erosion
resistance,
electrical
conductivity,
or
decoration.
In
electroplating,
metal
ions
in
acid,
alkaline,
or
neutral
solutions
are
reduced
on
the
cathodic
surfaces
of
the
parts
being
plated.
The
metal
ions
in
solution
typically
are
replenished
by
dissolving
metal
from
anodes
contained
in
inert
wire
or
metal
baskets.
Sealant
operations
performed
after
this
operation
are
considered
separate
unit
operations
if
they
include
any
additives
(
i.
e.,
any
sealant
operations
other
than
hot
water
dips).
In
addition
to
water
and
the
metal
being
deposited,
electroplating
solutions
often
contain
agents
that
form
complexes
with
the
metal
being
deposited,
stabilizers
to
prevent
hydrolysis,
buffers
to
control
pH,
catalysts
to
assist
in
deposition,
chemical
aids
to
dissolve
anodes,
and
miscellaneous
ingredients
that
modify
the
process
to
attain
specific
properties.
Cyanide,
usually
in
the
form
of
sodium
or
potassium
cyanide,
frequently
is
used
as
a
complexing
agent
for
zinc,
cadmium,
copper,
and
precious
metal
baths.
Wastewater
generated
during
electroplating
includes
spent
process
solutions
and
rinses.
Electroplating
solutions
occasionally
become
contaminated
during
use
due
to
dissolution
of
the
base
metal
and
the
introduction
of
other
pollutants,
diminishing
the
performance
of
the
electroplating
solutions.
Spent
concentrated
solutions
typically
are
treated
to
remove
pollutants
and
reused,
processed
in
a
wastewater
treatment
system,
or
disposed
of
off
site.
Rinse
waters,
including
some
drag­
out
rinse
tank
solutions,
typically
are
treated
on
site.
Electroplating
without
Chromium
or
Cyanide
involves
the
production
of
metal
coatings
on
a
surface
by
electrodeposition,
without
using
chromium
or
cyanide.
Commonly
electroplated
metals
include
nickel,
copper,
tin/
lead,
gold,
and
zinc.
Electroplating
provides
corrosion
protection,
wear
or
erosion
resistance,
lubricity,
electrical
conductivity,
or
decoration.
In
electroplating,
metal
ions
in
acid,
alkaline,
or
neutral
solutions
are
reduced
on
the
cathodic
surfaces
of
the
parts
being
plated.
The
metal
ions
in
solution
typically
are
replenished
by
dissolving
metal
from
anodes
contained
in
inert
wire
or
metal
baskets.
Sealant
operations
performed
after
this
operation
are
considered
separate
unit
operations
if
they
include
any
additives
(
i.
e.,
any
sealant
operations
other
than
hot
water
dips).
In
addition
to
water
and
the
metal
being
deposited,
electroplating
solutions
often
contain
agents
that
form
complexes
with
the
metal
being
deposited,
stabilizers
to
prevent
hydrolysis,
buffers
to
control
pH,
catalysts
to
assist
in
deposition,
chemical
aids
to
dissolve
anodes,
and
miscellaneous
ingredients
that
modify
the
process
to
attain
specific
properties.
Wastewater
generated
during
electroplating
without
chromium
or
cyanide
includes
spent
process
solutions
and
rinses.
Electroplating
solutions
occasionally
become
contaminated
during
use
due
to
dissolution
of
the
base
metal
and
the
introduction
of
other
pollutants,
diminishing
the
effectiveness
of
the
electroplating
solutions.
Spent
concentrated
solutions
typically
are
treated
for
pollutant
removal
and
reused,
processed
in
a
wastewater
treatment
system,
or
disposed
of
off
site.
Rinse
waters,
including
some
drag­
out
rinse
tank
solutions,
typically
are
treated
on
site.
Electropolishing
involves
producing
a
highly
polished
surface
on
a
part
using
reversed
electrodeposition
in
which
the
anode
(
part)
releases
some
metal
ions
into
the
electrolyte
to
reduce
surface
roughness.
When
current
is
applied,
a
polarized
film
forms
on
the
metal
surface,
through
which
metal
ions
diffuse.
In
this
operation,
areas
of
surface
roughness
on
parts
serve
as
highcurrent
density
areas
and
are
dissolved
at
rates
greater
than
the
rates
for
smoother
portions
of
the
metal
surface.
Metals
are
electropolished
to
improve
appearance,
reflectivity,
and
corrosion
resistance.
Base
metals
processed
by
electropolishing
include
aluminum,
copper,
zinc,
low­
alloy
steel,
and
stainless
steel.
Common
electrolytes
include
sodium
hydroxide
and
combinations
of
sulfuric
acid,
phosphoric
acid,
and
chromic
acid.
Wastewater
generated
during
electropolishing
includes
spent
process
solutions
and
rinses.
Eventually,
the
concentration
of
dissolved
metals
increases
to
the
point
where
the
process
becomes
ineffective.
Typically,
a
portion
of
the
bath
is
decanted
and
either
fresh
chemicals
are
added
or
the
entire
solution
is
discharged
to
treatment
and
replaced
with
fresh
chemicals.
Rinsing
can
involve
several
steps
and
can
include
hot
immersion
or
spray
rinses.
Galvanizing/
Hot
Dip
Coating
involves
using
various
processes
to
coat
an
iron
or
steel
surface
with
zinc.
In
hot
dipping,
a
base
metal
is
coated
by
dipping
it
into
a
tank
that
contains
a
molten
metal.
Hot
Dip
Coating
involves
applying
a
metal
coating
(
usually
zinc)
to
the
surface
of
a
part
by
dipping
the
part
in
a
molten
metal
bath.
Wastewater
is
generated
in
this
operation
when
residual
metal
coating
solution
is
removed
from
the
part
in
rinse
water.
Kerfing
uses
a
tool
to
remove
small
amounts
of
metal
from
a
product
surface.
Water
and
synthetic
coolants
may
be
used
to
lubricate
the
area
between
the
tool
and
the
metal,
to
maintain
the
temperature
of
the
cutting
tool,
and
to
remove
metal
fines
from
the
surface
of
the
part.
This
operation
generates
oily
wastewater
that
contains
metal
fines
and
dust.
Laminating
involves
applying
a
material
to
a
substrate
using
heat
and
pressure.
Mechanical
and
Vapor
Plating
involves
applying
a
metallic
coating
to
a
part.
For
mechanical
plating,
the
part
is
rotated
in
a
drum
containing
a
water­
based
solution,
glass
beads,
and
metal
powder.
In
vapor
plating,
a
metallic
coating
is
applied
by
atomizing
the
metal
and
applying
an
electric
charge
to
the
part,
which
causes
the
atomized
(
vapor
phase)
metal
to
adhere
to
the
part.
Wastewater
generated
in
this
operation
includes
spent
solutions
from
the
process
bath
and
rinse
water.
Typically,
the
wastewater
contains
high
concentrations
of
the
applied
metal.
Metallic
Fiber
Cloth
Manufacturing
involves
weaving
thin
metallic
fibers
to
create
a
mesh
cloth.
Metal
Spraying
(
Including
Water
Curtain)
involves
applying
a
metallic
coating
to
a
part
by
projecting
molten
or
semimolten
metal
particles
onto
a
substrate.
Coatings
can
be
sprayed
from
rod
or
wire
stock
or
from
powdered
material.
The
process
involves
feeding
the
material
(
e.
g.,
wire)
into
a
flame
where
it
is
melted.
The
molten
stock
then
is
stripped
from
the
end
of
the
wire
and
atomized
by
a
high­
velocity
stream
of
compressed
air
or
other
gas
that
propels
the
material
onto
a
prepared
substrate
or
part.
Metal
spraying
coatings
are
used
in
a
wide
range
of
special
applications,
including:
insulating
layers
in
applications
such
as
induction
heating
coils;
electromagnetic
interference
shielding;
thermal
barriers
for
rocket
engines;
nuclear
moderators;
films
for
hot
isostatic
pressing;
and
dimensional
restoration
of
worn
parts.
Metal
spraying
is
sometimes
performed
in
front
of
a
``
water
curtain''
(
a
circulated
water
stream
used
to
trap
overspray)
or
a
dry
filter
exhaust
hood
that
captures
the
overspray
and
fumes.
With
water
curtain
systems,
water
is
recirculated
from
a
sump
or
tank.
Wastewater
is
generated
when
the
sump
or
tank
is
discharged
periodically.
Metal
spraying
typically
is
not
followed
by
rinsing.
Painting­
Immersion
(
Including
Electrophoretic,
``
E­
coat'')
involves
applying
an
organic
coating
to
a
part
using
processes
such
autophoretic
and
electrophoretic
painting.
(
1)
Autophoretic
Painting
involves
applying
an
organic
paint
film
by
electrophoresis
when
a
part
is
immersed
in
a
suitable
aqueous
bath.
(
2)
Electrophoretic
Painting
is
coating
a
part
by
making
it
either
anodic
or
cathodic
in
a
bath
that
is
generally
an
aqueous
emulsion
of
the
organic
coating
material.
(
3)
Other
Immersion
Painting
includes
all
other
types
of
immersion
painting
such
as
dip
painting.
Water
is
used
in
immersion
paint
operations
as
a
carrier
for
paint
particles
and
to
rinse
the
part.
Aqueous
painting
solutions
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00059
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25744
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
and
rinses
typically
are
treated
through
an
ultrafiltration
system.
The
concentrate
is
returned
to
the
painting
solution,
and
the
permeate
is
reused
as
rinse
water.
Sites
typically
discharge
a
bleed
stream
to
treatment.
The
painting
solution
and
rinses
are
batch
discharged
periodically
to
treatment.
Photo
Imaging
is
the
process
of
exposing
a
photoresist­
laden
printed
wiring
board
to
light
to
impact
the
circuitry
design
to
the
board.
Water
is
not
used
in
this
operation.
Photo
Image
Developing
is
an
operation
in
which
a
water­
based
solution
is
used
to
develop
the
exposed
circuitry
in
a
photoresist­
laden
printed
wiring
board.
Wastewater
generated
in
this
operation
includes
spent
process
solution
and
rinse
water.
Photoresist
Application
is
an
operation
that
uses
heat
and
pressure
to
apply
a
photoresist
coating
to
a
printed
wiring
board.
Water
is
not
used
in
this
operation.
Photoresist
Strip
involves
removing
organic
photoresist
material
from
a
printed
wiring
board
using
an
acid
solution.
Phosphor
Deposition
is
the
application
of
a
phosphorescent
coating
to
a
part.
Wastewater
generated
in
this
unit
operation
includes
water
used
to
keep
the
parts
clean
and
wet
while
the
coating
is
applied,
and
rinse
water
used
to
remove
excess
phosphorescent
coating
from
the
part.
Physical
Vapor
Deposition
involves
physically
removing
a
material
from
a
source
through
evaporation
or
sputtering,
using
the
energy
of
the
vapor
particles
in
a
vacuum
or
partial
vacuum
to
transport
the
removed
material,
and
condensing
the
removed
material
as
a
film
onto
the
surface
of
a
part
or
other
substrate.
Plasma
Arc
Machining
involves
removing
material
or
shaping
a
part
by
a
high­
velocity
jet
of
high­
temperature,
ionized
gas.
A
gas
(
nitrogen,
argon,
or
hydrogen)
is
passed
through
an
electric
arc,
causing
the
gas
to
become
ionized,
and
heated
to
temperatures
exceeding
16,650
°
C
(
30,000
°
F).
The
relatively
narrow
plasma
jet
melts
and
displaces
the
material
in
its
path.
Because
plasma
arc
machining
does
not
depend
on
a
chemical
reaction
between
the
gas
and
the
part,
and
because
plasma
temperatures
are
extremely
high,
the
process
can
be
used
on
almost
any
metal,
including
those
that
are
resistant
to
oxygen­
fuel
gas
cutting.
The
method
is
used
mainly
for
profile
cutting
of
stainless
steel
and
aluminum
alloys.
Although
plasma
arc
machining
typically
is
a
dry
process,
water
is
used
for
water
injection
plasma
arc
torches.
In
these
cases,
a
constricted
swirling
flow
of
water
surrounds
the
cutting
arc.
This
operations
also
may
be
performed
immersed
in
a
water
bath.
In
both
cases,
water
is
used
to
stabilize
the
arc,
to
cool
the
part,
and
to
contain
smoke
and
fumes.
Plastic
Wire
Extrusion
involves
applying
a
plastic
material
to
a
metal
wire
through
an
extrusion
process.
Salt
Bath
Descaling
involves
removing
surface
oxides
or
scale
from
a
part
by
immersing
the
part
in
a
molten
salt
bath
or
hot
salt
solution.
Salt
bath
descaling
solutions
can
contain
molten
salts,
caustic
soda,
sodium
hydride,
and
chemical
additives.
Molten
salt
baths
are
used
in
a
salt
bath­
water
quench­
acid
dip
sequence
to
remove
oxides
from
stainless
steel
and
other
corrosion­
resistant
alloys.
In
this
process,
the
part
typically
is
immersed
in
the
molten
salt,
quenched
with
water,
and
then
dipped
in
acid.
Oxidizing,
reducing,
or
electrolytic
salt
baths
can
be
used
depending
on
the
oxide
to
be
removed.
Wastewater
generated
during
salt
bath
descaling
includes
spent
process
solutions,
quenches,
and
rinses.
Shot
Tower
 
Lead
Shot
Manufacturing
involves
dropping
molten
lead
from
a
platform
on
the
top
of
a
tower
through
a
sieve­
like
device
and
into
a
vat
of
cold
water.
Soldering
involves
joining
metals
by
inserting
a
thin
(
capillary
thickness)
layer
of
nonferrous
filler
metal
into
the
space
between
them.
Bonding
results
from
the
intimate
contact
produced
by
the
metallic
bond
formed
between
the
substrate
metal
and
the
solder
alloy.
The
term
soldering
is
used
where
the
melting
temperature
of
the
filler
is
below
425
°
C
(
800
°
F).
Some
soldering
operations
use
a
solder
flux,
which
is
an
aqueous
or
nonaqueous
material
used
to
dissolve,
remove,
or
prevent
the
formation
of
surface
oxides
on
the
part.
Except
for
the
use
of
aqueous
fluxes,
soldering
typically
is
a
dry
operation;
however,
a
quench
or
rinse
sometimes
follows
soldering
to
cool
the
part
or
remove
excess
flux
or
other
foreign
material
from
its
surface.
Recent
developments
in
soldering
technology
have
focused
on
fluxless
solders
and
fluxes
that
can
be
cleaned
off
with
water.
Solder
Flux
Cleaning
involves
removing
residual
solder
flux
from
a
printed
circuit
board
using
either
an
alkaline
or
alcohol
cleaning
solution.
Solder
Fusing
involves
coating
a
tin­
lead
plated
circuit
board
with
a
solder
flux
and
then
passing
the
board
through
a
hot
oil.
The
hot
oil
fuses
the
tin­
lead
to
the
board
and
creates
a
solder­
like
finish
on
the
board.
Solder
Masking
involves
applying
a
resistive
coating
to
certain
areas
of
a
circuit
board
to
protect
the
areas
during
subsequent
processing.
Sputtering
is
a
vacuum
evaporation
process
in
which
portions
of
a
coating
material
are
physically
removed
from
a
substrate
and
deposited
a
thin
film
onto
a
different
substrate.
Stripping
(
Paint)
involves
removing
a
paint
(
or
other
organic)
coating
from
a
metal
basis
material.
Stripping
commonly
is
performed
as
part
of
the
manufacturing
process
to
recover
parts
that
have
been
improperly
coated
or
as
part
of
maintenance
and
rebuilding
to
restore
parts
to
a
usable
condition.
Organic
coatings
(
including
paint)
are
stripped
using
thermal,
mechanical,
and
chemical
means.
Thermal
methods
include
burn­
off
ovens,
fluidized
beds
of
sand,
and
molten
salt
baths.
Mechanical
methods
include
scraping
and
abrasive
blasting
(
as
defined
in
``
Abrasive
Blasting''
in
appendix
B
of
this
part).
Chemical
paint
strippers
include
alkali
solutions,
acid
solutions,
and
solvents
(
e.
g.,
methylene
chloride).
Wastewater
generated
during
organic
coating
stripping
includes
process
solutions
(
limited
mostly
to
chemical
paint
strippers
and
rinses).
Stripping
(
Metallic
Coating)
involves
removing
a
metallic
coating
from
a
metal
basis
material.
Stripping
is
commonly
part
of
the
manufacturing
process
to
recover
parts
that
have
been
improperly
coated
or
as
part
of
maintenance
and
rebuilding
to
restore
parts
to
a
usable
condition.
Metallic
coating
stripping
most
often
uses
chemical
baths,
although
mechanical
means
(
e.
g.,
grinding,
abrasive
blasting)
also
are
used.
Chemical
stripping
frequently
is
performed
as
an
aqueous
electrolytic
process.
Wastewater
generated
during
metallic
coating
stripping
includes
process
solutions
and
rinses.
Stripping
solutions
become
contaminated
from
dissolution
of
the
base
metal.
Typically,
the
entire
solution
is
discharged
to
treatment.
Rinsing
is
used
to
remove
the
corrosive
film
remaining
on
the
parts.
Thermal
Infusion
uses
heat
to
infuse
metal
powder
or
dust
onto
the
surface
of
a
part.
Typically,
thermal
infusion
is
a
dry
operation.
In
some
cases,
however,
water
may
be
used
to
remove
excess
metal
powder,
metal
dust,
or
molten
metal.
Ultrasonic
Machining
involves
forcing
an
abrasive
liquid
between
a
vibrating
tool
and
a
part.
Particles
in
the
abrasive
liquid
strike
the
part,
removing
any
microscopic
flakes
on
the
part.
Vacuum
Impregnation
is
used
to
reduce
the
porosity
of
the
part.
A
filler
material
(
usually
organic)
is
applied
to
the
surface
of
the
part
and
polymerized
under
pressure
and
heat.
Wastewater
is
generated
in
this
unit
operation
when
rinse
water
is
used
to
remove
residual
organic
coating
from
the
part.
Vacuum
Plating
involves
applying
a
thin
layer
of
metal
oxide
onto
a
part
using
molten
metal
in
a
vacuum
chamber.
Water
Shedder
involves
applying
a
dilute
water­
based
chemical
compound
to
a
part
to
accelerate
drying.
This
operation
typically
is
used
to
prevent
a
part
from
streaking
when
excess
water
remains
on
the
part.
Wet
Air
Pollution
Control
involves
using
water
to
remove
chemicals,
fumes,
or
dusts
that
are
entrained
in
air
streams
exhausted
from
process
tanks
or
production
areas.
Most
frequently,
wet
air
pollution
control
devices
are
used
with
electroplating,
cleaning,
and
coating
processes.
A
common
type
of
wet
air
pollution
control
is
the
wet
packed
scrubber
consisting
of
a
spray
chamber
that
is
filled
with
packing
material.
Water
is
continuously
sprayed
onto
the
packing
and
the
air
stream
is
pulled
through
the
packing
by
a
fan.
Pollutants
in
the
air
stream
are
absorbed
by
the
water
droplets
and
the
air
is
released
to
the
atmosphere.
A
single
scrubber
often
serves
numerous
process
tanks;
however,
the
air
streams
typically
are
segregated
by
source
into
chromium,
cyanide,
and
acid/
alkaline
sources.
Wet
air
pollution
control
can
be
divided
into
several
suboperations,
including:
(
1)
Wet
Air
Pollution
Control
for
Acid
Alkaline
Baths;
(
2)
Wet
Air
Pollution
Control
for
Cyanide
Baths;
(
3)
Wet
Air
Pollution
Control
for
Chromium­
Bearing
Baths;
and
(
4)
Wet
Air
Pollution
Control
for
Fumes
and
Dusts.
Wire
Galvanizing
Flux
involves
using
flux
to
remove
rust
and
oxide
from
the
surface
of
steel
wire
prior
to
galvanizing.
This
provides
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00060
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2
25745
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
long­
term
corrosion
protection
for
the
steel
wire.

[
FR
Doc.
03
 
4258
Filed
5
 
12
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
49
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00061
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYR2.
SGM
13MYR2