[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 25 (Friday, February 6, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6392-6423]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-3086]
[[Page 6391]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Part 444
Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source
Performance Standards for the Industrial Waste Combustor Subcategory of
the Waste Combustors Point Source Category; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 25 / Friday, February 6, 1998 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 6392]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 444
[FRL-5931-6]
RIN 2040-AD03
Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New
Source Performance Standards for the Industrial Waste Combustor
Subcategory of the Waste Combustors Point Source Category
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposal represents the Agency's first effort to develop
Clean Water Act (CWA) national effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for wastewater discharges from commercially-operating
hazardous waste combustor facilities regulated as ``incinerators'' or
``boilers and industrial furnaces'' under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) as well as commercially-operating non-hazardous
industrial waste combustor facilities. The proposal would not apply to
sewage sludge incinerators, medical waste incinerators, municipal waste
combustors or other solid waste combustion units. Sources of wastewater
that would be regulated under the proposal include flue gas quench,
slag quench, and air pollution control wastewater.
This proposal would limit the discharge of pollutants into
navigable waters of the United States and the introduction of
pollutants into publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) by existing and
new stand-alone industrial waste combustors that incinerate waste
received from offsite. The proposal would not apply to wastewater
discharges from industrial waste combustors that only burn wastes
generated on-site at an industrial facility or generated at facilities
under common corporate ownership.
Compliance with this proposed regulation is estimated to reduce the
discharge of pollutants by at least 230,000 pounds per year and to cost
an estimated $2.16 million annualized (post-tax $1996).
DATES: Comments on the proposal must be received by May 7, 1998.
In addition, EPA will conduct a workshop and public hearing on the
pretreatment standards of the rule on February 26, 1998 from 10:00 am
to 1:00 pm.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments and supporting data on this proposal
to: Ms. Samantha Hopkins, US EPA, (4303), 401 M Street SW, Washington,
DC 20460. Please submit an original and two copies of your comments and
enclosures (including references). See Section IX of SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION for further instructions.
Commenters who want EPA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
should enclose a self-addressed, stamped envelope. No facsimiles
(faxes) will be accepted. Comments and data will also be accepted on
disks in WordPerfect format or ASCII file format.
Comments may also be filed electronically to
hopkins.samantha@epamail.epa.gov''. Electronic comments must be
submitted as an ASCII or WordPerfect file avoiding the use of special
characters and any form of encryption. Electronic comments must be
identified by the docket number W-97-08 and may be filed online at many
Federal Depository Libraries. No confidential business information
(CBI) should be sent via e-mail.
The public record is available for review in the EPA Water Docket,
401 M Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20460. The record for this rulemaking
has been established under docket number W-97-08, and includes
supporting documentation, but does not include any information claimed
as Confidential Business Information (CBI). The record is available for
inspection from 9:00 am to 4:00 pm, Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. For access to docket materials, please call (202) 260-
3027 to schedule an appointment.
The workshop and public hearing covering the rulemaking will be
held at the EPA headquarters auditorium, Waterfront Mall, 401 M St. SW,
Washington, DC. Persons wishing to present formal comments at the
public hearing should have a written copy for submittal.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For additional technical information contact Ms. Samantha Hopkins at
(202) 260-7149. For additional economic information contact Mr. William
Anderson at (202) 260-5131.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities: Entities potentially regulated by this action
include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..................... Incinerators regulated under RCRA (i.e.
rotary kiln incinerators, liquid
injection incinerators) that operate
commercially
Boilers and industrial furnaces (BIFs)
regulated under RCRA (i.e. cement kilns,
boilers, industrial furnaces) that
operate commercially
Industrial waste combustors that burn non-
hazardous industrial waste and operate
commercially.
Federal Govt................. Federal Agencies which burn industrial
hazardous or non-hazardous waste and
operate commercially (none
identified).\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No Federal Agencies which operate commercially were identified in
the information collection activities for this regulation. However,
Federal Agencies operating commercially would be covered by the
proposed regulation.
The preceding table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
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 in Sec. 444.02 of the proposed rule.
If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult one of the persons listed in the proceeding
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Supporting Documentation
The regulations proposed today are supported by several major
documents:
1. ``Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for Industrial Waster Combustors'' (EPA 821-B-
97-011). Hereafter referred to as the Technical Development Document,
presents EPA's technical conclusions concerning the proposal. EPA
describes, among other things, the data collection activities in
support of the proposal, the wastewater treatment technology options,
wastewater characterization, and the estimation of costs to the
industry.
[[Page 6393]]
2. ``Economic Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Proposed
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Industrial Waste
Combustors'' (EPA 821-B-97-010).
3. ``Statistical Support Document of Proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for Industrial Waste Combustors'' (EPA 821-B-
97-008).
4. ``Environmental Assessment of Proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for Industrial Waste Combustors'' (EPA 821-B-
97-009).
How To Obtain Supporting Documents
The Technical and Economic Development Documents can be obtained
through EPA's Home Page of the Internet, located at www.EPA.gov/OST/
rules. The document are also available from the Office of Water
Resource Center, RC-4100, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street SW., Washington, D.C.,
20460; telephone (202) 260-7786 for the voice mail publication request.
Organization of This Document
Legal Authority
I. Legal Authority for the Proposed Regulation
A. Clean Water Act
B. CWA Section 304(m) Requirements
II. Overview of the Industrial Waste Combustor Industry
A. Summary of the Industrial waste Combustor Industry
B. Related Regulation
C. Summary of Public Participation
III. Summary and Scope of Proposed Regulation
General Provisions
A. Scope of This Regulation
B. Monitoring Requirements for Industrial Waste Combustors
Limitations and Standards for Existing Industrial Waste Combustor
Facilities
C. Proposed Effluent Limitations for Existing Industrial Waste
Combustor Facilities That Discharge Wastewater to Navigable Waters
D. Proposed Pretreatment Standards for Existing Industrial Waste
Combustor Facilities That Discharge Wastewater into a POTW
Limitations and Standards for New Industrial Waste Combustor Facilities
E. Proposed Effluent Limitations for New Industrial Waste
Combustor Facilities That Will Discharge Wastewater to Navigable
Waters
F. Proposed Pretreatment Standards for New Industrial Waste
Combustor Facilities That Will Discharge Wastewater into a POTW
IV. Detailed Description of Industrial Waste Combustors
A. Identified Industrial Waste Combustor Facilities
B. Wastewater Treatment Processes Used by Industrial Waste
Combustors
V. Summary of EPA Activities and Data Gathering Efforts
A. EPA's Initial Efforts to Develop a Guideline for the
Industrial Waster Combustor Industry
B. Wastewater Sampling Program
C. Waste Treatment Industry Phase II: Incinerators Screener
Survey and Questionnaire
D. Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire
VI. Development of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
A. Industry Subcategorization
B. Characterization of Wastewater
C. Pollutants Not Regulated
D. Dioxins/Furans in Industrial Waste Combustor Industry
E. Available Technologies
F. Rationale for Selection of the Technology Basis of the
Proposed Regulation
G. Development of Numerical Limitations
VII. Costs and Impacts of Regulatory Alternative
A. Costs
B. Pollutant Reductions
C. Economic Analysis
D. Water Quality Analysis and Other Environmental Benefits
E. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
VIII. Related Acts of Congress and Executive Orders
A. Paperwork Reduction Act
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
D. Executive Order 12866
E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
IX. Solicitation of Data and Comments
A. Introduction and General Solicitation
B. Specific Data and Comment Solicitations
X. Regulatory Implementation
Appendix 1--Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations
Legal Authority: These regulations are being proposed under the
authority of Sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, and 501 of the Clean
Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, and 1361.
I. Legal Authority for the Proposed Regulation
A. Clean Water Act
1. Overview of 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
attacks 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.
Direct dischargers must comply with effluent limitations and new
source performance 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. Permits authorizing discharges
issued under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System must
require compliance with these limitations and standards (CWA Sections
301(b), 304(b), 306, 307(b)-(d), 33 U.S.C. 1311(b), 1314(b), 1316, and
1317(b)-(d)). In the absence of national effluent limitations and new
source performance standards, EPA must establish ``best professional
judgement'' limitations and standards on a case-by-case basis before it
may issue an NPDES discharge permit.
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 (for new
and existing sources) which restrict pollutant discharges for those who
discharge wastewater indirectly through sewers flowing to publicly-
owned treatment works (POTWs) (Section 307 (b) and (c), 33 U.S.C.
Sec. 1317 (b) and (c)). National pretreatment standards are established
for those pollutants in wastewater from indirect dischargers which may
pass through or interfere 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 implement local treatment
limits applicable to their industrial indirect dischargers to satisfy
any local requirements (40 CFR 403.5).
2. Statutory Requirements of Regulation
As noted above, the CWA requires EPA to establish effluent
limitations guidelines, pretreatment standards for new and existing
sources performance standards. These guidelines and standards are
summarized below:
a. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)--Sec.
304(b)(1) of the CWA
In the guidelines for a given industry category, EPA defines what
are the BPT effluent limitations for conventional, priority, and non-
conventional pollutants. In specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number of
factors. EPA first
[[Page 6394]]
considers the cost of achieving effluent reductions in relation to the
effluent reductions obtained. The Agency next considers: the age of the
equipment and facilities, the processes employed and any required
process changes, engineering aspects of the control technologies, non-
water quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements),
and such other factors as the Agency deems appropriate (CWA
304(b)(1)(B)). Traditionally, EPA established 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, however, existing performance is uniformly
inadequate, EPA may require higher levels of control than currently in
place in an industrial category if the Agency determines that the
technology can be practicably applied.
b. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)--Sec. 304(b)(4)
of the CWA
The 1977 amendments to the CWA required EPA to identify effluent
reduction levels for conventional pollutants associated with BCT
technology for discharges from existing industrial point sources beyond
the effluent reductions achieved under BPT. In addition to other
factors specified in Section 304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires that EPA
establish BCT limitations after consideration of a two part ``cost-
reasonableness'' test. EPA explained its methodology for the
development of BCT limitations in July 1986 (51 FR 24974).
Section 303(a)(4) designates the following as conventional
pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total
suspended solids (TSS), fecal coliform, pH, and any additional
pollutants defined by the Administrator as conventional. The
Administrator designated oil and grease as an additional conventional
pollutant on July 30, 1979 (44 FR 44501).
c. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)--Sec.
304(b)(2) of the CWA
In general, BAT effluent limitations guidelines represent the best
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 non-water quality environmental impacts, including
energy requirements. The Agency retains considerable discretion in
assigning the weight to be accorded these factors.
d. New Source Performance Standands (NSPS)--Sec. 306 of the CWA
NSPS reflect effluent reductions that are achievable based on the
best available demonstrated treatment technology. New facilities have
the opportunity to install the best and most efficient production
processes and wastewater treatment technologies. As a result, NSPS
should represent the most stringent controls attainable through the
application of the best available 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 impact and energy requirements.
e. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)--Sec. 307(b) of
the CWA
PSES are designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants that pass-
through, interfere-with, or are otherwise incompatible with the
operation of publicly-owned treatment works (POTW), including
interfering with sludge disposal methods at POTWs. Pretreatment
standards are technology-based and analogous to BAT effluent
limitations guidelines.
The General Pretreatment Regulations, which set forth the framework
for the implementation of categorical pretreatment standard, are found
at 40 CFR Part 403. Those regulations require POTWs to establish
pretreatment standards to address local pass-through and establish
pretreatment standards that apply to all non-domestic dischargers. See
52 FR 1586, January 14, 1987.
f. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)--Sec. 307(b) of the
CWA
Like PSES, PSNS are designed to prevent the discharges of
pollutants that pass-through, interfere-with, or are otherwise
incompatible with the operation of POTWs. 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 consider the same factors in promulgating PSNS
as it considers in promulgating NSPS.
B. CWA Section 304(m) Requirements
Section 304(m) of the Act (33 U.S. 1314(m)), added by the Water
Quality Act of 1987, requires EPA to establish schedules for (1)
reviewing and revising existing effluent limitation guidelines and
standards (``effluent guidelines''), and (2) promulgating new effluent
guidelines On January 2, 1990, EPA published and Effluent Guidelines
Plan (55 FR 80), that included schedules for developing new revised
effluent guidelines for several industry categories. One of the
industries for which the Agency established a schedule was the
``Hazardous Waste Treatment, Phase II'' Category. EPA subsequently
changed the category name ``Hazardous Waste Treatment, Phase II'' to
``Landfills and Incinerators.''
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (NRDC) and Public Citizen,
Inc. challenged the Effluent Guidelines Plan in a suit filed in U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia (NRDC et al. v. Reilly.
Civ. No. 89-2980). The district court entered a Consent Decree in this
litigation on January 31, 1992. The Decree required, among other
things, that EPA propose effluent guidelines for the ``Landfills and
Incinerators'' category by December 1995 and take final action on these
effluent guidelines by December 1997. On February 4, 1997, the court
approved modifications to the Decree which revise the deadlines to
November 1997 for proposal and November 1999 for final action. EPA
provide notice of these modifications on February 26, 1997 at 62 FR
8726. Also, although ``Landfills and Incinerators'' is listed as a
single entry in the Consent Decree schedule, EPA is publishing two
separate rulemaking actions in the Federal Register.
II. Overview of the Industrial Waste Combustor Industry
Today's proposal represents the Agency's first attempt to develop
national guidelines that would establish effluent limitations and
pretreatment standards for new and existing discharges from a defined
segment of facilities combusting wastes. EPA estimates that the
regulation being proposed today would reduce the discharge of total
suspended solids and metals from these facilities by at least 230,000
pounds per year. EPA performed an analysis of the water quality
benefits that would be derived from this proposal and predicts the
proposal would eliminate current excursions of aquatic life and/or
human health toxic levels for three streams. EPA's model also projects
that adoption of the proposal would result in reduction of sewage
sludge contamination associated with discharges from Industrial Waste
Combustor facilities at two of the three POTWs.
[[Page 6395]]
This summary section highlights the technology bases and other key
aspects of the proposed rule. The technology descriptions in this
section are presented in abbreviated form. More detailed descriptions
are included in the Technical Development Document and Section VI.F. of
this notice. Today's proposal presents the Agency's recommended
regulatory approach as well as other options considered by EPA. The
Agency's recommended approach as well as other options considered by
EPA. The Agency's recommended approach for establishing discharge
limitations is based on a detailed evaluation of the available data. As
indicated below in the discussion of the specifics of the proposal, the
Agency welcomes comment on all options and issues and encourages
commenters to submit additional data during the comment period. Also,
the Agency plans additional discussion with interested parties during
the comment period to ensure that the Agency has the views of all
parties and the best possible data upon which to base a decision for
the final regulation. EPA's final regulation may be based upon any
technologies, rationale or approaches that are described in this
proposal and public comments, including any options considered but not
selected for today's proposed regulation.
A. Summary of the Industrial Waste Combustor Industry
The universe of combustion facilities currently in operation in the
United States is broad. These include municipal waste incinerators that
burn household and other municipal trash and incinerators that burn
hazardous wastes. Other types of incinerators include those that burn
medical wastes exclusively and sewage sludge incinerators for
incineration of POTWs' wastewater treatment residual sludge. In
addition, some boilers and industrial furnaces (e.g., cement kilns) may
burn waste materials for fuel.
While many industries began incinerating some of their wastes as
early as the late 1950's, the current market for waste combustion
(particularly combustion of hazardous wastes) is essentially a creature
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and EPA's
resulting regulation of hazardous waste disposal. Among the major
regulatory spurs to combustion of hazardous wastes have been the land-
ban restrictions under the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA)
of 1984 and clean-up agreements for Superfund sites called ``Records of
Decision'' (RODs).
Prior to the promulgation of EPA's Land Disposal Restrictions
(LDRs) (40 CFR Part 268), hazardous waste generators were free to send
untreated wastes directly to landfills. The LDRs mandated alternative
treatment standards for wastes, known as Best Demonstrated Available
Technologies (BDATs). Quite often, combustion was the stipulated BDAT.
Future modifications to the LDRs may either increase or decrease the
quantity of wastes directed to the combustion sector.
The LDRs have also influenced hazardous waste management under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) (42 U.S.C. 9601, et seq.). The RODs set out the clean-up plan
for contaminated sites under CERCLA. A key attribute to the RODs is the
choice of remediation technology. Incineration is often a technology
selected for remediation. While remediation efforts contribute a
minority of the wastes managed by combustion, combustion has been used
frequently on remediation projects. In addition, future congressional
changes to CERCLA may affect remediation disposal volumes directed to
the combustion sector.
The Agency proposed a draft Waste Minimization and Combustion
Strategy in 1993 and 1994 to promote better combustion of hazardous
waste and encourage reduced generation of wastes. The key projects
under the broad umbrella of the strategy are: ``Revised Standards for
Hazardous Waste Combustors'' 61 FR 17358, April 1996, the Waste
Minimization National Plan completed in May 1995, and the ``RCRA
Expanded Public Participation Rule'' 60 FR 63417, December 1995. Waste
minimization will directly affect waste volumes sent to the combustion
and all other waste management sectors.
In recent years, a number of contrary forces have contributed to a
reduction in the volume of wastes being incinerated. Declines in waste
volumes and disposal prices have been attributed to: waste minimization
by waste generators, intense price competition driven by overcapacity,
and changes in the competitive balance between cement kilns (and other
commercial Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (BIFs)) and commercial
incinerators. These trends have been offset by factors such as
increased overall waste generation as part of general economic
improvement, Industrial Waste Combustors consolidation, and reductions
in onsite combustion. The Agency solicits information and data on the
current size of the industry and trends related to the growth or
decline in the need for the services provided by these facilities.
The segment of the universe of combustion units for which EPA is
today proposing regulations includes all units which operate
commercially and which use controlled flame combustion in the treatment
or recovery of industrial waste. For example, industrial boilers,
industrial furnaces, rotary kiln incinerators and liquid-injection
incinerators are all types of units included in the Industrial Waste
Combustor Industry.
Combustion or recovery operations at these facilities generate the
following types of wastewater described more fully in Section VI.B.1.:
air pollution control wastewater, flue gas quench wastewater, slag
quench, truck/equipment wash water, container wash water, laboratory
drain wastewater, and floor washings from process area. Typical non-
wastewater by-products of combustion or recovery operations may
include: slag or ash developed in the combustion unit itself, and
emission particles collected using air pollution control systems. There
are many different types of air pollution control systems in use by
combustion units. The types employed by combustion units include, but
are not limited to: packed towers (which use a caustic scrubbing
solution for the removal of acid gases), baghouses (which remove
particles and do not use any water), wet electrostatic precipitators
(which remove particles using water but do not generate a wastewater
stream), and venturi scrubbers (which remove particles using water and
generate a wastewater stream). Thus, the amount of wastewater and types
of wastewater generated by a combustion unit are directly dependent
upon the types of air pollution control systems employed by the
combustion unit.
B. Related Regulations
1. Hazardous Waste Combustion Regulation Proposed in 1996
Under the joint authority of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the
Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA): EPA proposed the Revised
Technical Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustion (HWC) Facilities (61
FR 17358, April 19, 1996). The proposed regulations would apply to the
following types of combustors:
RCRA Incinerators (as defined in 40 CFR 260.10)
RCRA Cement Kilns and RCRA Lightweight Aggregate Kilns (as
defined in 40 CFR 260.10)
The proposal would not apply to:
[[Page 6396]]
RCRA Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (other than Cement
Kilns and Aggregate Kilns, as defined in 40 CFR 260.10)
The proposed HWC regulation would establish stack emission limits
for several hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). Under the Clean Air Act
(CAA), these limits must require the maximum achievable degree of
emission reductions of HAPs, taking into account the cost of achieving
such reductions and non-air quality health and environmental impacts
and energy requirements--so-called Maximum Achievable Control
Technologies (MACT) standards. The HWC regulation would not set limits
on the water effluents from the air pollution control systems (APCS)
(like wet scrubbers, quench systems). The Agency identified revised
emission limits based on updated data, which was published at 62 FR
24212, May 2, 1997. The Agency's current schedule calls for
promulgation of this regulation in the third quarter of 1998. If the
final regulation were promulgated as proposed, it is likely that some
facilities using dry air pollution control, not presently generating
Industrial Waste Combustor wastewater, may switch to using wet APCS. It
is not anticipated that the universe of facilities that may be
potentially subject to today's proposal will increase as a result of
the promulgation of the HWC regulations.
2. Industrial Combustion Coordinated Rulemaking (ICCR)
EPA plans an Industrial Combustion Coordinated Rulemaking (ICCR) to
develop recommendations for Federal air emission regulations that
address various combustion source categories and pollutants.
Regulations will be developed under sections 112 and 129 of the Clean
Air Act, as well as section 111. The overall goal of the Industrial
Combustion Coordinated Rulemaking is to develop recommendations for a
unified set of Federal air regulations that will maximize environmental
and public health compliance, within constraints of the Clean Air Act.
The ICCR is expected to be proposed in October 1999 and promulgated in
November 2000.
Under the CAA, the ICCR will potentially regulate air emissions
from several categories of industrial combustion sources, including
boilers, process heaters, waste incinerators, combustion turbines, and
internal combustion engines. The ICCR will not cover combustion sources
which burn hazardous waste. The combustion devices that will be covered
by the ICCR are used pervasively for energy generation and waste
disposal in a wide variety of industries and commercial and
institutional establishments. They burn non-hazardous fuels including
oil, coal, natural gas, wood, and other non-hazardous wastes. The
industrial combustion regulations will affect thousands of sources
nationwide. Only a small number of the facilities covered under the
ICCR are also Industrial Waste Combustor facilities and thus
potentially subject to today's proposal. Specifically, only ICCR
facilities which operate commercially are potentially subject to
today's proposal.
Because this regulation is not scheduled to go final until November
2000, EPA does not know what the final emission standards will be or on
what technology they will be based. Consequently, EPA may need to
reconsider its effluent limitations guidelines following promulgation
of final ICCR rules.
C. Summary of Public Participation
During the data gathering activities that preceded development of
the proposed rules, EPA met with or spoke to the following
representatives from the industry: the Environmental Technology Council
(formerly the Hazardous Waste Treatment Council), the National Solid
Waste Management Association, and the Council of Industrial Boiler
Owners.
EPA will assess all comments and data received at the public
meeting prior to promulgation.
III. Summary and Scope of Proposed Regulation
EPA is proposing to establish discharge limitations and standards
for wastewater discharges from those facilities which the proposed rule
defines as an ``Industrial Waste Combuster facility.'' Industrial Waste
Combustor facilities include commercial hazardous waste incinerators,
boilers and industrial furnaces that burn waste for fuel and other
commercial combustors burning industrial wastes. EPA is not including
within the scope of the proposal industrial waste combustors that burn
only wastes received from off-site facilities within the same corporate
ownership (intracompany wastes) or industrial waste combustors that
only burn wastes generated on-site. This summary section highlights the
technology bases and other key aspects of the proposed rule. The
technology descriptions in this section are presented in abbreviated
form; more detailed descriptions are found in the Technical Development
Document and Section VI.F. of today's notice.
The following summarizes today's proposal:
General Provisions
A. Scope of This Regulation
In today's notice, EPA is proposing effluent limitations guidelines
and pretreatment standards for new and existing commercial facilities
that are engaged in the combustion of industrial waste received from
off-site facilities not under the same corporate ownership as the
industrial waste combustor. The proposal would not apply to wastewater
generated in burning wastes from intracompany transfers exclusively
and/or from industrial processes on-site exclusively.
The proposed regulation today applies to the discharge of
wastewater associated with the operation of the following:
RCRA Incinerators (as defined in 40 CFR 260.10 and in the
Definitions Section of this notice),
RCRA Boiler and Industrial Furnaces (BIFs) (as defined in
40 CFR 260.10 and in the Definitions Section of this notice), and
Non-hazardous commercial combustors.
As noted above, the proposal would not apply to wastewater
discharges associated with combustion units that burn only wastes
generated on-site. Furthermore, wastewater discharges from RCRA
hazardous incinerators, RCRA BIFs, and non-hazardous combustors that
burn waste generated off-site from facilities that are under the same
corporate ownership (or effective control) as the combustor are
similarly not included within the scope of this proposal. Facilities
subject to the guidelines and standards would include commercial
facilities whose operation is the combustion of off-site generated
industrial waste as well as industrial or manufacturing combustors that
burn waste received from off-site from facilities that are not within
the same corporate structure. A further discussion of the types of
combustion units to be covered under this regulation is included in the
Technical Development Document and Section IV.A. of this notice.
As noted, facilities which only burn waste from off-site facilities
under the same corporate structure (intracompany facility) and/or only
burn waste generated on-site (captive facility) are not included in
this proposal to be regulated under these guidelines. EPA has decided
not to include these facilities within the scope of this regulation for
the following reasons. First, based on its survey, EPA
[[Page 6397]]
identified (as of 1992) approximately 185 captive facilities and
approximately 89 facilities that burn wastes received from other
facilities within the same corporate umbrella.\1\ A significant number
of these facilities generated no Industrial Waste Combustor wastewater.
EPA's data show that 73 captive facilities (39 percent) and 36
intracompany facilities (42 percent) generated no Industrial Waste
Combustor wastewater. Second, EPA believes the wastewater generated by
Industrial Waste Combustor operations at most of the captive and
intracompany facilities that EPA has identified are already subject to
national effluent limitations (or pretreatment standards) based on the
manufacturing operations at the facility. Specifically, 140 of the 156
captive and intracompany facilities which received a screener survey
and generated Industrial Waste Combustor wastewater as a result of
their combustion operations: (1) Were either previously identified as
subject to another effluent guidelines by EPA or (2) identified
themselves as subject to another effluent guidelines. There are 97
facilities subject to the Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic
Fibers category (40 CFR Part 414), 17 subject to the Pharmaceuticals
category (40 CFR Part 439), 16 subject to the Steam Electric Power
Generating category (40 CFR Part 423), 3 to the Pesticide Manufacturing
category (40 CFR Part 455), and 7 to other categories. EPA could not
identify an effluent guidelines category applicable to their discharges
for 16 of these 156 facilities (five of these are federal facilities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As explained below, EPA conducted an extensive survey (with
follow-up questionnaire), in part, to characterize the universe of
facilities being considered for regulation. Following proposal, EPA
plans to review its screener survey and questionnaire results in
order to confirm the accuracy of its assignment of wastewater flows
and facilities as captive, intra-company or commercial Industrial
Waste Combustors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, 83 percent of all captive facilities and 73 percent of all
intracompany facilities reported that the combustion unit wastewaters
made up less than 20 percent of the final wastewater stream discharged
from each facility. EPA concluded that, in these circumstances, it is
likely that the Industrial Waste Combustor waste streams are being
treated along with other categorical waste. Also, 71 percent of all
captive facilities and 67 percent of all intracompany facilities
reported that their IWC wastewater is covered as process wastewater
under existing EPA effluent limitations (40 CFR Parts 405-471). This
indicates that most Industrial Waste Combustor waste streams are
subject either directly (where discharged separately) or when mixed
with other wastes subject to national effluent guidelines (or
pretreatment standards) comparable to those being considered here.
Given these facts, EPA has concluded preliminarily that it should not
include such captive or intracompany facilities within the scope of
today's proposed action. However, EPA is requesting comment on its
approach. The Agency is particularly eager for data concerning
treatment of such waste streams at categorical and other facilities.
The proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards are intended
to cover wastewater discharges resulting from combustion of, or
recovery of components from, hazardous and non-hazardous industrial
waste received from off-site facilities.
The Agency also solicits comment on including a de minimis quantity
or percentage of off-site receipts in comparison to the total amount of
waste burned at the facility for which facilities would not be
considered in the scope of this regulation. Some manufacturing
facilities may receive a few shipments of waste or off-specification
products to be burned on site, but these facilities do not actively
accept large quantities of waste from off-site for the purpose of
combustion and disposal. In the 1994 Waste Treatment Industry Phase II:
Incinerators Questionnaire, some Industrial Waste Combustor facilities
were identified with intermittent shipments of waste. EPA is requesting
information on the amounts of waste received and the reasons the waste
were accepted to determine if a de minimis quantity should be
established to limit the applicability of this rulemaking. At present,
no de minimis quantity exemption has been established for this
rulemaking. Facilities are included in the scope of this regulation
regardless of the quantity received for treatment if they accept any
waste for treatment from off-site.
B. Monitoring Requirements for Industrial Waste Combustors
EPA's regulations require that both direct and indirect discharges
must monitor to establish compliance with their limitations and
standards. Thus, EPA's NPDES permit regulations require that all the
permits of all direct dischargers must include requirements to monitor
according to EPA-approved test procedures each pollutant limited in the
permit, the volume of effluent discharged from each outfall, other
appropriate measurements such as pollutants such to notification
requirements. See 40 CFR 122.44(i). EPA's pretreatment regulations
similarly require indirect discharge to monitor to demonstrate
compliance with pretreatment standards. See 40 CFR 403.12(g).
Limitations and Standards for Existing Industrial Waste Combustor
Facilities
C. Proposed Effluent Limitations for Existing Industrial Waste
Combustor Facilities That Discharge Wastewater to Navigable Waters
i. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)
The Agency is proposing to establish BPT effluent limitations
guidelines for the Industrial Waste Combustors to control conventional,
priority, and non-conventional pollutants in the waste treatment
effluent. Table III.C-1 is a summary of the technology basis for the
proposed effluent limitations.
Table III.C-1.--Technology Basis for BPT Effluent Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed subpart Technology basis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
444.................................... Primary Precipitation, Solid-
Liquid Separation, Secondary
Precipitation, Solid-Liquid
Separation, and Sand
Filtration.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BPT limitations would be based upon two stages of chemical
precipitation, each at different pH levels, each followed by some form
of separation and sludge dewatering. The first stage of chemical
precipitation is preceded by chromium reduction, when necessary. The
different pH levels would be selected so as to optimize the removal of
metals from the Industrial Waste Comubustor wastewater. The pollutants
controlled and the points of application are described in Section VI of
this notice.
ii. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)
The EPA is proposing BCT effluent limitations guides for Total
Suspended Solids (TSS) for the Industrial Waste Combustor Industry. The
proposed BCT effluent limitations guidelines are equal to the proposed
BPT limitations for TSS. The development of proposed BCT effluent
limitations is further explained in Section VI of this notice.
iii. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
The Agency is proposing to set BAT effluent limitations guidelines
for the Industrial Waste Combustor Industry. These proposed limitations
are based on the same technologies proposed for BPT.
[[Page 6398]]
D. Proposed Pretreatment Standards for Existing Industrial Waste
Combustor Facilities That Discharge Wastewater into a POTW
Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
For pollutants that pass-through or otherwise interfere with POTWs,
EPA is proposing to set PSES similar to the proposed BPT/BAT effluent
limitations for the Industrial Waste Combustors. Table III.D-1 is a
summary of the technology basis for the proposed effluent limitations.
PSES are further discussed in Section V of this notice.
Table III.D-1.--Technology Basis for PSES Effluent Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed subpart Technology basis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
444.................................... Primary Precipitation, Solid-
Liquid Separation, Secondary
Precipitation and Solid-Liquid
Separation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitations and Standards for New Industrial Waste Combustor
Facilities
E. Proposed Effluent Limitations for New Industrial Waste Combustor
Facilities That Will Discharge Wastewater to Navigable Waters
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
EPA is proposing to set NSPS equivalent to the proposed BPT/BCT/BAT
effluent limitations for the Industrial Waste Combustor Industry. NSPS
are discussed in more detail in Section VI of this notice.
F. Proposed Pretreatment Standards for New Industrial Waste Combustor
Facilities That Will Discharge Wastewater into a POTW
Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)
For pollutants that pass-through or otherwise interfere with POTWs,
EPA is proposing to set PSNS equivalent to the proposed PSES effluent
limitations. PSNS are further discussed in Section VI of this notice.
IV. Detailed Description of Industrial Waste Combustors
A. Identified Industrial Waste Combustor Facilities
Presented below is a brief summary description of the Industrial
Waste Combustor Industry, for which EPA is today proposing guidelines.
Based upon responses to EPA's 1994 Waste Treatment Industry Phase
II: Incinerators Screener Survey and Questionnaire (see discussion
below), the Agency estimates that there are approximately 84 commercial
Industrial Waste Combustor facilities of the type for which EPA is
proposing limitations and standards. These include both stand-alone
combustion facilities as well as facilities which treat their own
process residuals along with wastes received from off-site. Of these 84
facilities, 58 facilities do not generate any type of Industrial Waste
Combustor wastewater (as defined in Section VI.B. of this notice.)
Also, 13 of these facilities generate Industrial Waste Combustor
wastewater but do not discharge the wastewater to a receiving stream or
to a POTW. These facilities are considered ``zero or alternative
dischargers'' and use a variety of methods to dispose of their
wastewater. At these facilities, (1) wastewater is sent off-site for
treatment or disposal (four facilities); (2) wastewater is burned or
evaporated on site (five facilities); (3) wastewater is sent to a
surface impoundment on site (three facilities); and (4) wastewater is
injected underground on site (one facility). Thus, EPA has identified
only 13 facilities that were discharging Industrial Waste Combustor
wastewater to a receiving stream or introducing wastewater to a POTW in
1992. Of these 13 facilities, 2 facilities have, since 1992, either
stopped accepting waste from off site for combustion or have closed
their combustion operations. Eight of the 11 open facilities introduce
their Industrial Waste Combustor wastewater to a receiving stream and 3
of the 11 facilities discharge their Industrial Waste Combustor
wastewater to a POTW. These 11 facilities are found near the industries
generating the wastes undergoing combustion.
As previously noted, Industrial Waste Combustor facilities accept a
variety of different wastes for treatment. Typically, a combustor
operator will request that the waste generators initially furnish
profile information on the waste stream to be burned. After the
combustion facility reviews the profile information of the waste, it
determines a charge for treating the waste stream. If the waste
generator accepts the cost of treatment, shipments of the waste stream
to the combustion facility will begin. For each truck load of waste
received for combustion, the combustion facility collects a sample from
the shipment and analyzes the sample to determine if it matches the
profile information. Specifically, the waste shipment is analyzed to
characterize the level of pollutants in the sample as well as the
energy content of the sample. If the sample matches the profile
information, the shipment of waste will be burned. If the sample does
not match the profile information, the combustion facility will
reevaluate the estimated cost of combustion for the shipment or decline
the shipment for combustion.
The 11 open facilities identified by EPA operate a wide variety of
combustion units. Four facilities operate rotary kilns and are
hazardous waste incinerators regulated under RCRA. Three facilities
operate liquid injection incinerators that are also incinerators
regulated under RCRA. Three facilities operate furnaces that are
regulated as BIFs under RCRA. One facility operates a liquid injection
device that is also regulated as a BIF under RCRA. Finally, one
facility operates a combustion device that is not subject to RCRA
regulations as either a BIF or an incinerator.
The 11 open facilities identified by EPA use a wide variety of air
pollution control systems. The types of air pollution control systems
in use are: fabric filters, spray chamber scrubbers, packed tower
scrubbers, ionizing wet scrubbers, venturi scrubbers, dry scrubbers,
dry cyclones, and wet electrostatic precipitators. Ten of the 11 open
facilities use more than one of the air pollution control systems
listed above. Six of the eleven facilities use a combination of wet and
dry air pollution control systems. Four of the eleven facilities use
only wet air pollution control systems. The type of air pollution
systems in use at two of the facilities is not known.
B. Wastewater Treatment Processes Used by Industrial Waste Combustors
As the Agency learned from data and information collected as a
result of the 1994 Waste Treatment Industry Phase II: Incinerators
Questionnaire, the commercial Industrial Waste Combustors for whose
wastewater discharges EPA is today proposing effluent guidelines accept
many types of hazardous and non-hazardous industrial waste for
treatment in liquid or solid form. In 1992, these 11 commercial
facilities accepted approximately 314,000 tons of industrial waste for
combustion, of which 86 percent was hazardous and 14 percent was non-
hazardous.
The wastewater generated by the different types of facilities is
very similar. The majority of the wastewater by the 11 open Industrial
Waste Combustor facilities is generated from air pollution control
systems designed to capture stack emissions. Air pollution
[[Page 6399]]
control wastewater consists of primarily or inorganic pollutants and
has very low concentrations of organic compounds because these are
largely destroyed during combustion. The post-combustion streams that
passes through the air pollution control system contain low levels of
organics and consequently little ends up in the wastewater.
Nine of the 11 open Industrial Waste Combustor facilities employ
some type of chemical precipitation to treat these organic pollutants
in their wastewater. These facilities then send the treatment sludge to
a RCRA Subtitle C or D landfill depending upon its content. Two of the
remaining eleven only neutralize their air pollution control system
wastewater before discharge.
The remaining facility does not generate air pollution control
system wastewater. It uses filtration and adsorption as its wastewater
treatment technology to treat the following wastewaters: floor washings
from the Industrial Waste Combustor process area, truck/equipment wash
water and container wash water.
EPA sampled wastewater at three facilities for five days. Of the
three facilities sampled by EPA, only one facility generated and
treated wastewater exclusively from its air pollution control system.
It also did not treat other wastewater such as floor washwater, truck/
equipment washwater or container wash water with its air pollution
control system wastewater. The other two facilities generated
wastewater streams other than air pollution control wastewater, but
treated these other wastewater streams separately from the air
pollution control wastewater. Because these other streams contain both
organic and inorganic pollutants, these two facilities treated these
other wastewaters using biological treatment. These biological
treatment systems were not sampled by EPA because the volume of these
other wastewater streams (floor washings or truck/equipment/container
wash water) represented only a small percentage of the wastewater being
treated in these systems. Thus, EPA has no sampling data for any
wastewaters other than air pollution control wastewater and flue gas
quench. And thus, the proposed regulations are based on data from
facilities employing treatment technologies designed to reduce metals
loadings. The proposed limits do not include limits on discharges of
organic pollutants and do not regulate discharges associated with the
other types of wastewater streams EPA identified at these sites. Permit
writers would need to establish site-specific Best Professional
Judgment (BPJ) limits to regulate facilities which do not generate any
wastewater from air pollution control systems but which are discharging
wastewater associated with the treatment of other Industrial Waste
Combustor wastewater streams. If EPA obtains data on treatment of these
other wastewater streams it will consider developing limits for these
wastestreams in this rule. To this end, EPA is requesting commenters to
provide sampling data on such treatment of these ancillary streams.
Further, the Agency is requesting comments on whether it should
subcategorize the industry based on the types of wastewater sources
found at an Industrial Waste Combustor facility. Commenters should also
submit data on specific wastewater technologies that may be appropriate
for treating these wastewaters.
V. Summary of EPA Activities and Data Gathering Efforts
A. EPA's Initial Efforts To Develop a Guideline for the Industrial
Waste Combustor Industry
In 1986, the Agency initiated a study of waste treatment facilities
which receive waste from off-site for treatment, recovery, or disposal.
The Agency looked at various segments of the waste management industry
including combustors, centralized waste treatment facilities,
landfills, fuel blending operations, and waste solidification/
stabilization processes (Preliminary Data Summary for the Hazardous
Waste Treatment Industry, EPA 440-1-89-100, September 1989).
Developemnt of effluent limitations guidelines and standards for
the Industrial Waste Combustor Industry began in 1993. EPA originally
looked at RCRA hazardous waste incinerators, RCRA boilers and
industrial furnaces (BIFs), and non-hazardous combustion units that
treat industrial waste. Sewage sludge incinerators, municipal waste
incinerators, and medical waste incinerators were not included in the
1989 study or in the initial data collection effort in 1993. EPA
limited this phase of the rulemaking to the development of regulations
for Industrial Waste Combustors.
B. Wastewater Sampling Program
In the sampling program for the 1989 Hazardous Waste Treatment
Industry Study, twelve families were sampled to characterize the wastes
received and evaluate the on-site treatment technology performance at
combustors, landfills, and hazardous waste treatment facilities. All of
the facilities sampled had more than one on-site operation (e.g.,
combustion and landfill leachate generation). The data collected cannot
be used for this project because the facilities mix wastestreams for
treatment. The collected data provides information on the performance
of mixed wastewater treatment systems. Waste characteristics and
treatment technology performance for the combustor facilities cannot be
differentiated from the characteristics and performance associated with
treatment of the mixed streams.
Between 1993 and 1995, EPA visited 14 Industrial Waste Combustor
facilities. Eight of the fourteen Industrial Waste Combustors EPA
visited were captive facilities because captive facilities were still
being considered for inclusion in the scope of the Industrial Waste
Combustor regulation at the time of the site visits. During each visit,
EPA gathered information on waste receipts, waste and wastewater
treatment, and disposal practices. EPA also took one grab-sample of
untreated Industrial Waste Combustor scrubber blowdown water at twelve
of the fourteen facilities. EPA analyzed most of these grab-samples for
over 450 analytes to identify pollutants at these facilities. The grab-
samples from the twelve site visits allowed EPA to assess whether there
was a significant difference in raw wastewater characteristics from a
wide variety of combustion unit types. (Section IV.A. of today's notice
describes the types of combustion units used by Industrial Waste
Combustors.) EPA determined that the raw wastewater characteristics
were similar for all types of combustion units both in types of
pollutants found and the concentrations of the pollutants found.
Specifically, organics, pesticides/herbicides, and dioxins/furans were
generally only found, if at all, in low concentrations in the grab-
samples. (See Section VI.D. for a thorough discussion of dioxins/furans
found at 7 of the 12 Industrial Waste Combustor facilities sampled.)
However, a variety of metal analytes were found in treatable
concentrations in the grab-samples.
Based on these data and the responses to the 1994 Waste Treatment
Industry Phase II: Incinerators Questionnaire, EPA selected three of
the Industrial Waste Combustor facilities for the BPT/BAT sampling
program to collect data to characterize discharges and the performance
of selected treatment systems. Using data supplied by the facilities,
EPA applied five criteria in initially selecting which facilities to
sample. The criteria were based on whether the wastewater treatment
system: (1) was effective in removing pollutants; (2) treated wastes
received
[[Page 6400]]
from a variety of sources (solids as well as liquids), (3) employed
either novel treatment technologies or applied traditional treatment
technologies in a novel manner (4) applied waste management
practicesthat increased the effectiveness of the treatment unit, and
(5) discharged its treated wastewater under an NPDES permit. The other
11 facilities visited were not sampled because they did not meet these
criteria. Eight of these 11 facilities visited did not operate
commercially, and are thus no longer in the scope of the project.
During each sampling episode, wastewater treatment system influent
and effluent streams were sampled. Samples also were taken an
intermediate points to assess the performance of individual treatment
units. This information is summarized in the Technical Development
Document. In all sampling episodes, samples were analyzed for over 450
analytes to identify the pollutants at these facilities. Again, organic
compounds, pesticides/herbicides, and dioxins/furans were generally
only found in low concentrations in the composite daily samples, if
they were found at all. Dioxin/furan analytes were not detected in the
sampling episode used to establish BPT/BAT/PSES. However, dioxin/furan
analytes were found in the two other sampling episodes (see discussion
in Section VI.D. below.)
EPA completed the three sampling episodes for the Industrial Waste
Combustor Industry from 1994 to 1995. Selection of facilities to be
sampled was limited due to the small number of facilities in the scope
of the project. Only nine of the operating facilities identified
discharged their treated wastewater under an NPDES permit. Of these
nine facilities, only five burned solid as well as liquid waste. Also,
one of these five burned non-hazardous waste only. All of the
facilities sampled used some form of precipitation for treatment of the
metal-bearing waste streams. All of the facilities sampled were
directed dischargers and were therefore designed to treat effectively
the conventional pollutant found in this industry, TSS. Data from two
of the facilities sampled could not be used to calculate the proposed
limitations and standards in combination with the other facility
because they did not employ the selected treatment technology. However,
data from these facilities were used to characterize the raw waste
streams. Thus, only one sampling episode contained data which were used
to characterize the treatment technology performance of the Industrial
Waste Combustors.
C. Waste Treatment Industry Phase II: Incinerators Screener Survey and
Questionnaire
Under the authority of Section 308 of the Clean Water Act, EPA sent
the Waste Treatment Industry Phase II: Incinerators 1992 Screener
Survey (OMB Approval Number: 2040-0162, Expired: 08/31/96) in September
1993 to 606 facilities that the Agency had identified as possible
Industrial Waste Combustor facilities. Since the Industrial Waste
Combustor Industry was not represented by a SIC code at the time of the
survey, identification of facilities was difficult. Directories of
treatment facilities, Agency information, and telephone directories
were used to identify the 606 facilities to which the questionnaires
were mailed. The screener survey requested summary information on: (1)
the types of wastes accepted for combustion; (2) the types of
combustion units at a facility; (3) the quantity, treatment, and
disposal of wastewater generated from combustion operations; (4)
available analytical monitoring data on wastewater treatment; and (5)
the degree of co-treatment (treatment of Industrial Waste Combustor
wastewater with wastewater from other industrial operations at the
facility). Information obtained by the Waste Treatment Industry Phase
II: Incinerators 1992 screener survey is summarized in the Technical
Development Document for today's proposed rule. The responses from 564
facilities indicated that 357 facilities burned industrial waste in
1992. The remaining 207 did not burn industrial waste in 1992. Of the
357 facilities that burned industrial waste, 142 did not generate any
Industrial Waste Combustor wastewater as a result of their combustion
operations. Of the remaining 215 facilities that generated Industrial
Waste Combustor wastewater, 59 operated commercially, and 156 only
burned wastes generated on-site, and/or only burned wastes generated
from off-site facilities under the same corporate structure.
Following an analysis of the screener survey results, EPA sent the
1994 Waste Treatment Industry Phase II: Incinerators Questionnaire (OMB
Approval Number: 2040-0167, Expired: 12/31/96) in March, 1994 to
selected facilities which burned industrial waste and generated
Industrial Waste Combustor wastewater. EPA sent the questionnaire to
all 59 of the commercial facilities and all 16 of the non-commercial
facilities that burned non-hazardous industrial waste. Further, EPA
sent 32 of the remaining 140 non-commercial facilities a questionnaire.
These thirty-two were selected based on a statistical random sample.
The questionnaire specifically requested information on: (1) the type
of wastes accepted for treatment; (2) the types of combustion units at
a facility; (3) the types of air pollution control devices used to
control emissions from the combustion units at a facility; (4) the
quantity, treatment, and disposal of wastewater generated from
combustion operations; (5) available analytical monitoring data on
wastewater treatment; (6) the degree of co-treatment (treatment of
Industrial Waste Combustor wastewater with wastewater from other
industrial operations at the facility); and (7) the extent of
wastewater recycling and/or reuse at the facility. Information was also
obtained through follow-up telephone calls and written requests for
clarification of questionnaire responses. Information obtained by the
1994 Waste Treatment Industry Phase II: Incinerators Questionnaire is
summarized in the Technical Development Document for today's proposed
rule.
D. Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire
EPA also requested a subset of Industrial Waste Combustor
facilities that received a questionnaire to submit wastewater
monitoring data in the form of individual data points rather than
monthly or annual aggregates. Only facilities that had identified a
sample point location where the stream was over 50 percent Industrial
Waste Combustor wastewater received the Detailed Monitoring
Questionnaire. These wastewater monitoring data included information on
pollutant concentrations at various points in the wastewater treatment
processes. Data were requested from 26 facilities. Sixteen of these
facilities operated commercially and 10 operated non-commercially.
VI. Development of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
A. Industry Subcategorization
For today's proposal, EPA considered whether a single set of
effluent limitations and standards should be established for this
industry or whether different limitations and standards were
appropriate for subcategories within the industry. In its preliminary
decision that subcategorization is not required, EPA took into account
all the information collected and developed with respect to the
following factors: waste type received; type of combustion process; air
pollution control used; nature of wastewater generated; facility size,
age, and location; non-water
[[Page 6401]]
quality impact characteristics; and treatment technologies and costs.
For most facilities in this industry, a wide variety of wastes are
combusted. These facilities, however, employ the same wastewater
treatment technologies regardless of the specific type of waste being
combusted in a given day.
EPA concluded that a number of factors did not provide an
appropriate basis for subcategorization. The Agency concluded that the
age of a facility should not be a basis for subcategorization because
many older facilities have unilaterally improved or modified their
treatment process over time. Facility size is also not a useful
technical basis for subcategorization for the Industrial Waste
Combustor Industry because wastes can be burned to the same level
regardless of the facility size and has no significant relation to the
quality or character of the wastewaters generated or treatment
performance. Likewise, facility location is not a good basis for
subcategorization; no consistent differences in wastewater treatment
performance or costs exist because of geographic location. Non-water
quality characteristics (waste treatment residuals and air emission
effects) did not constitute a basis for subcategorization. The
environmental effects associated with disposal of waste treatment
residual or the transport of potentially hazardous wastewater are a
result of individual facility practices. The Agency did not identify
any consistent basis for these decisions that would support
subcategorization. Treatment costs to not appear to be a basis for
subcategorization because costs will vary and are dependent on the
following waste stream variables: flow rates, waste quality, waste
energy content, and pollutant loadings. Therefore, treatment costs were
not used as a factor in determining subcategories.
EPA identified three factors with significance for potentially
subcategorizing the Industrial Waste Combustor Industry: the type of
waste received for treatment, the type of air pollution control system
used by a facility, and the types of Industrial Waste Combustor
wastewater sources (e.g., container wash water vs. air pollution
control water).
A review of untreated Industrial Waste Combustor air pollution
control system wastewater showed that there is some difference in the
concentration of pollutants between solid and liquid waste combustion
units. In particular, for nine of the 27 metals analyzed at six
Industrial Waste Combustor facilities, the average concentration of a
particular metal was higher in the water from facilities that burned
solids (as well as liquids) than in facilities that burned liquids
only. EPA believes that this difference is probably the result of two
factors: the type of air pollution control employed by the facilities
and the amount of wastewater generated. Specifically, the data reviewed
by EPA showed that two of the three facilities that burn liquid waste
use dry scrubbing devices prior to using scrubbing devices which
generate wastewater. One of these facilities uses a baghouse initially
and the other uses a fabric filter. These dry scrubbers would remove
some of the metals which would have ended up in the wastewater stream.
In comparison, only one of the three facilities that burn solids uses a
dry scrubbing device prior to using scrubber devices which generate
wastewater. This facility uses an electrostatic precipitator initially.
In addition, all three of the facilities that burn liquid waste do not
recycle any of their wastewater for reuse in the scrubbing system
following partial wastewater treatment. In comparison, two of the three
facilities that burn solids recycle some of their partially treated
wastewater for reuse in their scrubbing system. One of these facilities
recycles 60 percent and the other recycles 82 percent. The reuse of
partially treated wastewater would have the effect of reducing the
wastewater discharge and increasing the concentration of metals in the
recycled wastewater. Thus, it is difficult to assess whether there is
in fact any significant difference in the concentrations of pollutants
in wastewater from facilities burning solid versus liquid waste. This
situation in general makes subcategorization on this basis difficult.
Therefore, EPA has concluded that available data do not support
subcategorizating either by the type of waste received for treatment or
the type of air pollution control system used by a facility.
Based on analysis of the Industrial Waste Combustor Industry, EPA
has determined that it should not subcategorize the Industrial Waste
Combustors for purposes of determining appropriate limitations and
standards. EPA invites comment on whether the Industrial Waste
Combustors should be divided into subcategories, and if so, what should
be the basis of the subcategorization. Commenters should submit data to
support any suggested subcategorization.
B. Characterization of Wastewater
This section describes current water use and wastewater
characterization at the 11 Industrial Waste Combustor facilities
identified in the U.S. which currently discharge Industrial Waste
Combustor wastewater to a receiving stream or to a POTW.
1. Water and Sources of Wastewater
Approximately 861 million gallons of wastewater are generated and
discharged annually at the 11 Industrial Waste Combustor facilities.
EPA has identified the sources described below as contributing to
wastewater discharges at Industrial Waste Combustor operations. Only
air pollution control wastewater, flue gas quench, and slag quench will
be subject to the proposed effluent limitations and standards. Most of
the wastewater generated by Industrial Waste Combustor operations
result from these sources.
a. Air Pollution Control System Wastewater. Particulate matter in
the effluent gas stream of an Industrial Waste Combustor is removed by
four main physical mechanisms (Handbook of Hazardous Waste
Incineration, Brunner 1989). One mechanism is interception, which is
the collision between a water droplet and a particle. Another method is
gravitational force, which causes a particle to fall out of the
direction of the streamline. The third mechanism is impingement, which
causes a water-particle to fall out of the streamline due to inertia.
Finally, contraction and expansion of a gas stream allow particulate
matter to be removed from the stream. Thus, removal of particulate
matter can be accomplished with or without the use of water. Depending
upon the type of waste being burned, Industrial Waste Combustors may
produce acid gases in the air pollution control system. In order to
collect these acid gases, caustic solution is generally used in a wet
scrubbing system.
b. Flue Gas Quench Wastewater. Water is used to rapidly cool the
gas emissions from combustion units. There are many types of air
pollution control systems that are used to quench the gas emission from
Industrial Waste Combustors. For example, in packed tower scrubbing
systems, water enters from the top of the tower and gas enters from the
bottom. Water droplets collect on the packing material and are rinsed
off by the water stream entering the top of the tower (Handbook of
Hazardous Waste Incineration, Brunner 1989). This rapidly cools the gas
stream along with removing some particulate matter.
c. Slag Quench Wastewater Water is used to cool molten material
generated in slagging-type combustors.
d. Truck/Equipment Wash Wastewater. Water is used to clean the
inside of trucks and the equipment used for transporting wastes.
[[Page 6402]]
e. Container Wash Wastewater. Water is used to clean the insides of
waste containers.
f. Laboratory Drain Wastewater. Water is used in on-site
laboratories which characterize incoming waste streams and monitor on-
site treatment performance.
g. Floor Washings and Other Wastewater From Process Area. This
includes stormwater which comes in direct contact with the waste or
waste handling and treatment areas. (Stormwater which does not come
into contact with the wastes would not be subject to today's proposed
limitations and standards. However, this stormwater is covered under
the NPDES stormwater rule, 40 CFR 122.26.)
2. Wastewater Discharge
As mentioned above, approximately 861 million gallons of wastewater
were discharged from the 11 of the 84 commercial industrial combustors
identified by EPA based on questionnaire responses. Eight of the 11
facilities discharge wastewater directly into a receiving stream or
body of water. The other three facilities discharge indirectly by
introducing their wastewater into a publicly-owned treatment works
(POTW). There are sixty-seven facilities that either do not generate
any wastewater (43) or do not discharge their wastewater to a receiving
stream or POTW (24) as explained above. In general, the primary types
of wastewater discharges from discharging facilities are: air pollution
control system wastewater, flue gas quench, laboratory-derived
wastewater, and floor washings from process area. EPA is using the
phrase ``Industrial Waste Combustor wastewater'' to refer to these
wastewaters.
This regulation applies to direct and indirect discharges only.
3. Wastewater Characterization
The Agency's BPT/BAT/PSES sampling program for this industry
detected 21 pollutants (conventional priority, and non-conventional) in
waste steams at treatable levels. The quantity of these pollutants
currently being discharged is difficult to assess. Limited monitoring
data are available from facilities for the list of pollutants
identified from the Agency's sampling program prior to commingling of
these wastewaters with non-contaminated stormwater and other industrial
wastewater before discharge. EPA also used wastewater permit
information, monitoring data supplied in the 1994 Waste Treatment
Industry Phase II: Incinerators Questionnaire and data supplied in the
Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire to estimate current pollutant
discharge levels. EPA used a ``non-process wastewater'' factor to
quantify the amount of non-contaminated stormwater and other industrial
process water in a facility's discharge Section 4 of the Technical
Development Document (TDD) provides a more detailed description of
``non-process wastewater'' factors and their use. A facility's current
discharge of treated Industrial Waste Combustor wastewater was
calculated using the monitoring data supplied multiplied by the ``non-
process wastewater'' factor. The Agency is soliciting comments on the
approaches used to calculate the current performance as well as
requesting any monitoring data available before the addition of non-
contaminated stormwater or other industrial wastewater.
C. Pollutants Not Regulated
EPA is proposing effluent limitations and standards for only a few
conventional, priority, and non-conventional pollutants in this
proposed regulation. Among the reasons EPA may have decided not to
propose effluent limitations for a pollutant are the following:
(a) The pollutant is deemed not present in Industrial Waste
Combustor wastewater, because it was not detected in the influent
during the Agency's sampling/data gathering efforts with the use of
analytical methods promulgated pursuant to Section 304(h) of the Clean
Water Act or with other state-of-the-art methods.
(b) The pollutant is present in the influent only in trace amounts
and is neither causing nor likely to cause toxic effects.
(c) The pollutant was detected in the effluent from only one or a
small number of samples and the pollutant's presence could not be
confirmed.
(d) The pollutant was effectively controlled by the technologies
used as a basis for limitations on other ``indicator'' pollutants,
including those for which limitations are proposed today, and are
therefore regulated by the limitations for the indicator pollutants or
(e) Insufficient data are available to establish effluent
limitations.
D. Dioxins/Furans in Industrial Waste Combustor Industry
1. Background
Scientific research has identified 210 isomers of chlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDD) and chlorinated dibenzofurans (CDF). EPA
attention has primarily focused on the 2,3,7,8-substituted congeners--a
priority pollutant under the CWA--of which 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-
TCDF are considered the most toxic. Evidence suggests that non-2,3,7,8-
substituted congeners may not be as toxic. Some sources report that
these non-2,3,7,8-substituted congeners may either be broken down or
quickly eliminated by biological systems.
Dioxins and furans are formed as a by-product during many
industrial and combustion activities, as well as during several other
processes. The activities that may create dioxins under certain
conditions may include:
--Combustion of chlorinated compounds, including PCBs;
--Some metals are suspected to serve as catalysts in the formation of
dioxin/furans;
--Metal processing and smelting;
--Petroleum refining.
--Chlorinated organic compound manufacturing.
2. Dioxin/Furans in Industrial Waste Combustor Wastewater
EPA identified a number of dioxin/furan compounds as present in the
untreated wastewater streams at seven of the twelve facilities sampled.
Data from two closed facilities has been excluded. Thus, the following
discussion relates to the data for the ten remaining facilities (a
total of 32 aqueous samples).
It is important to note that EPA did not detect 2,3,7,8-TCDD or
2,3,7,8-PeCDD (the two most toxic congeners of all dioxin/furan
compounds) in any of the raw wastewater samples collected. Furthermore,
the dioxin/furans detected in untreated Industrial Waste Combustor
wastewaters during EPA sampling at 10 sites shows that these dioxin/
furans were all detected at levels significantly (orders of magnitude)
below the ``Universal Treatment Standard'' (40 CFR 268.48) level
established under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act for
dioxins/furans. EPA identified no dioxin/furans in the Industrial Waste
Combustor wastewater effluent.
CDD/CDFs are lipophilic and hydrophobic. As such, they are most
often associated, or have an affinity for, suspended particulates in
wastewater matrices. The more highly chlorinated isomers (i.e. the
hepta- and octa- congeners) are the least volatile and more likely to
be removed through particulate adsorption or filtration. While
recommended treatment technologies differ according to the wastewater
characteristics, there is some evidence that dioxins generally will
bind with suspended solids and some
[[Page 6403]]
sources have asserted that these compounds may be removed by
precipitation and filtration technologies.
Of the three week long sampling episodes, the one from which BPT/
BAT limits were developed had no dioxins detected in the influent or
effluent. At the other two facilities, HpCDD, HpCDF, OCDD, and OCDF
were detected in the influent and none were detected in the effluent.
Both facilities employed a combination of chemical precipitation and
filtration that may have contributed to these removals.
The most toxic congener, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, was never detected in
Industrial Waste Combustor scrubber water during the sampling program;
and the CDD/CDFs detected were neither detected at most facilities
sampled nor found in any significant quantity. The toxic equivalent
(TEQ) values found in the Industrial Waste Combustor wastewater were
low values when compared to other dioxin sources in industry. The
detected congeners were of the highly chlorinated type which may be
treated by the methods recommended by this guideline (chemical
precipitation, filtration). Also, since no dioxins were detected in the
treated effluents at any of the three facilities EPA sampled, this may
be evidence of dioxin removals.
Based on EPA's sampling program, no CDD/CDF meet the criteria for
regulation in today's proposed rule.
The Agency has proposed CDD/CDF emission limits of 0.2 ng/dscm from
the stacks of hazardous waste burning incinerators (see 61 FR 17358 of
April 19, 1996 and 62 FR 24212 of May 2, 1997), and believes that the
incinerators have to operate with good combustion conditions to meet
the proposed emission limits. In the final LDR rulemaking that set
treatment standards for CDD/CDF constituents in non-wastewater and
wastewater forms of EPA Hazardous Waste Number: F032, the Agency has
established (62 FR 26000 of May 12, 1997) incineration as the BDAT,
after which the CDD/CDF constituents do not have to be analyzed in the
effluent. EPA, therefore, considers that dioxins/furans will be
sufficiently destroyed given good combustion practices.
E. Available Technologies
All 11 in-scope Industrial Waste Combustor facilities operate
wastewater treatment systems. The range of treatment technologies used
are similar to those in use at other categorical industries. The
technologies used include physical-chemical treatment, and advanced
wastewater treatment. Based on information obtained from the 1994 Waste
Treatment Industry Phase II: Incinerators Questionnaire and site
visits, EPA has concluded that a significant number of these treatment
systems need to be upgraded to improve effectiveness and to remove
additional pollutants.
Physical-chemical treatment technologies in use are:
Precipitation/Filtration, which converts soluble metal
salts to insoluble metal oxides which are then removed by filtration;
Activated Carbon, which removes pollutants from wastewater
by adsorbing them onto carbon particles;
Multi-media/Sand Filtration, which removes solids from
wastewater by passing it through a porous medium;
Coagulation/Flocculation, which is used to assist
clarification in physical-chemical treatment.
An advanced wastewater treatment technology in use is
ultrafiltration, which is used to remove organic and inorganic
pollutants from wastewater according to the molecule size.
The typical treatment sequence for a facility does not depend upon
the type of waste accepted for treatment. In addition, most facilities
use precipitation/filtration to remove metals.
F. Rationale for Selection of the Technology Basis of the Proposed
Regulations
To determine the technology basis and performance level for the
proposed regulations, EPA developed a database consisting of daily
effluent data collected from the Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire, the
1994 Waste Treatment Industry Phase II: Incinerators Questionnaire,
facility NPDES permits, facility POTW permits, and the EPA wastewater
sampling program. This database was used to develop the BPT, BCT, BAT,
NSPS, PSES, and PSNS effluent limitations and standards proposed today.
1. BPT
a. Introduction. The BPT effluent limitations proposed today would
control identified conventional, priority, and non-conventional
pollutants when discharged from industrial waste combustor facilities.
b. Rationale for BPT Limitations. As previously noted, the
Industrial Waste Combustors receive for combustion large quantities of
hazardous and non-hazardous industrial waste which results in
discharges of a significant quantity of pollutants. The EPA estimates
that 291,000 pounds per year of TSS and metal pollutants are currently
being discharged directly or indirectly to the nations waters.
As previously discussed, Section 304(b)(1)(A) requires EPA to
identify effluent reductions attainable through the application of
``best practicable control technology currently available for classes
and categories of point sources.'' The Senate Report for the 1972
amendments to the CWA explained how EPA must establish BPT effluent
reduction levels. Generally, EPA determines BPT effluent levels based
upon the average of the best existing performances by plants of various
sizes, ages, and unit processes within each industrial category or
subcategory. In industrial categories where present practices are
uniformly inadequate, however, EPA may determine that BPT requires
higher level of control than any currently in place if the technology
to achieve those levels can be practically applied. See A Legislative
History of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972,
U.S. Senate Committee on Public Works, Serial No. 93-1, January 1973,
p. 1468.
In addition, CWA Section 304(b)(1)(B) requires a cost
reasonableness assessment for BPT limitations. In determining BPT
limitations, EPA must consider the total cost of treatment technologies
in relation to the effluent reduction benefits achieved by such
technology. This inquiry does not limit EPA's broad discretion to adopt
BPT limitations that are achievable with available technology unless
the required additional reductions are `'wholly out of proportion to
the costs of achieving such marginal level of reduction.'' See
Legislative History, op.cit.,p. 170. Moreover, the inquiry does not
require the Agency to quantify benefits in monetary terms. See e.g.
American Iron and Steel Institute v. EPA, 526 F. 2d 1027 (3rd Cir.,
1975).
In balancing costs against the benefits of effluent reduction, EPA
considers the volume and nature of expected discharges after
application of BPT, the general environmental effects of pollutants,
and the cost and economic impacts of the required level of pollution
control. In developing guidelines, the Act does not require or permit
consideration of water quality problems attributable to particular
point sources, or water quality improvements in particular bodies of
water. Therefore, EPA has not considered these factors in developing
the limitations being proposed today. See Weyerhaeuser Company v.
Costle, 590 F. 2D 1011 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
EPA concluded that the wastewater treatment performance of the
facilities it surveyed was, with very limited exceptions, inadequate
and that only
[[Page 6404]]
two facilities are using best practicable, currently available
technology. Moreover, EPA only found a significant number of pollutants
at ``treatable levels'' at one of the facilities. Thus, the proposed
BPT effluent limitations will be based on data from this one treatment
system only.
The inadequate pollutant removal performance observed generally for
discharging Industrial Waste Combustor facilities is not unexpected. As
pointed out previously, these facilities are burning highly variable
wastes that, in many cases, are process residuals and sludges from
other point source categories. EPA's review of permit limitations for
the direct dischargers show that, in most cases, the dischargers are
subject to ``best professional judgment'' concentration limitations
which were developed from guidelines for facilities treating and
discharging more specific waste streams (e.g. OCPSF limitations).
The Agency is today proposing BPT limitations for 9 pollutants. EPA
considered two regulatory options to reduce the discharge of pollutants
by Industrial Waste Combustor facilities. For a more detailed
discussion of the basis for the limitations and technologies selected
see the Technical Development Document.
The two currently available treatment systems for which the EPA
assessed performance for BPT are:
Option A--Primary Precipitation, Solid-Liquid Separation,
Secondary Precipitation, and Solid-Liquid Separation. Under Option A,
BPT limitations would be based upon two stages of chemical
precipitation, each followed by some form of separation and sludge
dewatering. The pH's used for chemical precipitation would vary to
promote optimal removal of metals because different metals are
preferentially removed at different pH levels. In addition, the first
stage of chemical precipitation is preceded by chromium reduction, when
necessary. In some cases, BPT limitations would require the current
treatment technologies in place to be improved by use of increased
quantities of treatment chemicals and additional chemical
precipitation/sludge dewatering systems.
Option B--Primary Precipitation, Solid-Liquid Separation,
Secondary Precipitation, Solid-Liquid Separation, and Sand Filtration.
The second option evaluated for BPT for Industrial Waste Combustor
facilities would be based on the same technology as Option A with the
addition of sand filtration at the end of the treatment train.
The Agency is proposing to adopt BPT effluent limitations based on
Option B for the Industrial Waste Combustors. These limitations were
developed based on an engineering evaluation of the average level of
pollutant reduction achieved through application of the best
demonstrated methods to control the discharges of the regulated
pollutants.
EPA's decision to base BPT limitations on Option B treatment
reflects primarily an evaluation of three factors: the degree of
effluent reduction attainable, the total cost of the proposed treatment
technologies in relation to the effluent reductions achieved, and
potential non-water quality benefits. In assessing BPT, EPA considered
the age, size, process, other engineering factors, and non-water
quality impacts pertinent to the facilities treating wastes in this
industry. No basis could be found for identifying different BPT
limitations based on age, size, process or other engineering factors.
Neither the age nor the size of the Industrial waste combustor facility
will significantly affect either the character or treatability of the
Industrial Waste Combustor wastes or the cost of treatment. Further,
the treatment process and engineering aspects of the technologies
considered have a relatively insignificant effect because in most cases
they represent fine tuning or add-ons to treatment technology already
in use. These factors consequently did not weigh heavily in the
development of these guidelines. For a service industry whose service
is combustion, the most pertinent factors for establishing the
limitations are costs of treatment, the level of effluent reductions
obtainable, and non-water quality effects.
Generally, for purposes of defining BPT effluent limitations, EPA
looks at the performance of the best operated treatment system and
calculates limitations from some level of average performance of these
``best'' facilities. For example, in the BPT limitations for the OCPSF
Category, EPA identified ``best'' facilities on a BOD performance
criteria of achieving a 95 percent BOD removal or a BOD effluent level
of 40 mg/1 (54 FR 42535, November 5, 1987). For this industry, as
previously explained, EPA concluded that treatment performance is, in
all but two cases, inadequate. Without two stages of precipitation at
different pH levels, metal removal levels are uniformly inadequate
across the industry. Also, since the specific technologies employed by
these two facilities were not the same, the data from these facilities
could not be combined to determine BPT performance and costs.
Consequently, BPT performance levels are based on data from the one
well-operated system using two stages for metals precipitation at
different pH levels that was sampled by EPA. EPA, of course, welcomes
any additional data which currently operating facilities may have on
the performance of their wastewater treatment operations.
The demonstrated effluent reductions attainable through the Option
B control technology represent the BPT performance attainable through
the application of demonstrated treatment measures currently in
operation in this industry. The Agency is proposing to adopt BPT
limitations based on the performance of the Option B treatment system
for the following reasons. First, these removals are demonstrated by a
facility and can readily be applied to all facilities. The adoption of
this level of control would represent a significant reduction in
pollutants discharged into the environment (from 181,00 to 54,000
pounds of TSS and metals). Second, the Agency assessed the total cost
of water pollution controls likely to be incurred for Option B in
relation to the effluent reduction benefits and determined these costs
were economically reasonable.
EPA estimated the cost of installing Option A and B BPT
technologies at the direct discharging facilities. The pretax total
estimated annualized cost in 1992 dollars is approximately $1.736
million (if BPT is Option A) and approximately $1.952 million (if BPT
is Option B). EPA concluded the cost of installation of either of these
control technologies is clearly economically achievable. EPA's
assessment shows that none of the direct discharging facilities will
experience a line closure as a result of the installation of the
necessary technology.
The Agency proposes to reject Option A because, EPA concluded that
not using sand filtration as the final treatment step is not the best
practicable treatment technology currently in operation for the
industry. Consequently, effluent levels associated with this treatment
option would not represent BPT performance levels. Also, Option A was
rejected because the greater removals obtained through addition of sand
filtration at Option B were obtained at a relatively insignificant
increase in costs over Option A.
2. BCT
In today's rule, EPA is proposing effluent limitations guidelines
and standards equivalent to the BPT guidelines for the conventional
pollutants covered under BPT. In developing BCT limits. EPA considered
[[Page 6405]]
whether there are technologies that achieve greater removals of
conventional pollutants that proposed for BPT, and whether those
technologies are cost-reasonable according to the BCT Cost Test. EPA
identified no technologies that can achieve greater removals of
conventional pollutants than proposed for BPT, and accordingly EPA
proposes BCT effluent limitations equal to the proposed BPT effluent
limitations guidelines and standards.
3. BAT
EPA today is proposing BAT effluent limitations for the Industrial
Waste Combustors based on the same technologies selected for BPT. The
BAT effluent limitations proposed today would control identified
priority and non-conventional pollutants discharged from facilities.
EPA has not identified a more stringent treatment technology option
which it considered to represent BAT level of control applicable to
facilities in this industry. EPA considered and rejected zero discharge
as possible BAT technology for the reasons explained below.
4. New Source Performance Standards
As previously noted, under Section 306 of the Act, new industrial
direct dischargers must comply with standards which reflects the
greatest degree of effluent reduction achievable through application of
the best available demonstrated control technologies. Congress
envisioned that new treatment systems could meet tighter controls than
existing sources because of the opportunity to incorporate the most
efficient processes and treatment systems into plant design. Therefore,
Congress directed EPA to consider the best demonstrated process
changes, in-plant controls, operating methods and end-of-pipe treatment
technologies that reduce pollution to the maximum extent feasible.
EPA is proposing NSPS that would control the same conventional,
priority, and non-conventional pollutants proposed for control by the
BPT effluent limitations. The technologies used to control pollutants
at existing facilities are fully applicable to new facilities.
Furthermore, EPA has not identified any technologies or combinations of
technologies that are demonstrated for new sources that are more
effective than those used to establish BPT/BCT/BAT for existing
sources. Therefore, EPA is proposing NSPS limitations that are
identical to those proposed for BPT/BCT/BAT. Again, the Agency is
requesting comments to provide information and data on other treatment
systems that may be pertinent to the development of standards for this
industry.
EPA is specifically considering whether it should adopt BPT/BAT and
NSPS of zero discharge, since so many facilities are currently not
generating or not discharging any wastewater as a result of their
industry waste combustor operations (see action IV.A. of today's
notice). There are two primary means of achieving zero discharge: the
use of dry scrubbing operations or off-site disposal of Industrial
Waste Combustor wastewater. EPA evaluated the cost for facilities to
dispose of their industrial waste combustor wastewater off-site and
found it was less expensive than on-site treatment of the wastewater
for only 3 of the eleven facilities. EPA also evaluated the cost for
facilities to burn the industrial waste combustor wastewater streams
they generated and found that is was also significantly more costly
than wastewater treatment. EPA did not evaluate the cost for all
facilities to replace their wet scrubbing systems with dry scrubbing
systems, as the wet scrubbing systems have been established as the best
performers (according to the HWC proposed regulation) for removing acid
gases and dioxins from effluent gas streams. Also, dry scrubbing
systems have an adverse affect of generating an unstable solid to be
disposed of in a landfill, as opposed to the stable solids generated by
wastewater treatment of air pollution control wastewater. Given the
apparent environmental superiority of wet versus dry scrubbers, EPA has
decided a zero discharge requirement could have unacceptable non-water
quality effects. EPA also did not evaluate the cost of all facilities
to recycle their industrial waste combustor wastewater, as EPA
discovered that only certain types of air pollution control systems
working in conjunction with one another are able to accomplish total
recycle of wastewater. Thus, new air pollution control systems would
have to be costed for all facilities along with recycling systems.
Overall, zero discharge is not being proposed at BPT/BAT because
EPA believes that the cost to facilities of changing current air
pollution control systems are too high. Also, zero discharge is not
being proposed at BPT/BAT or NSPS because the change may cause
unacceptable non-water quality impacts. EPA is requesting comments on
its decision not to propose zero discharge for BPT/BAT and/or NSPS.
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
Indirect dischargers in the Industrial Waste Combustor Industry,
like the direct dischargers, accept for treatment wastes containing
many priority and non-conventional pollutants. As in the case of direct
dischargers, indirect dischargers may be expected to discharge many of
these non-combustible low-volatility pollutants to POTWs at significant
mass and concentration levels. EPA estimates that indirect dischargers
annually discharge approximately 110,000 pounds of TSS and metals to
POTWs.
Section 307(b) of the Act requires EPA to promulgate pretreatment
standards to prevent pass-through of pollutants from POTWs to waters of
the U.S. or to prevent pollutants from interfering with the operation
of POTWs. EPA is establishing PSES for this industry to prevent pass-
through of the same pollutants controlled by BPT/BAT from POTWs to
waters of the U.S.
a. Pass-Through Analysis. Before proposing pretreatment standards,
the Agency examines whether the pollutants discharged by the industry
pass through a POTW or interfere with the POTW operation or sludge
disposal practices. In determining whether pollutants through a POTW,
the Agency compares the percentage of a pollutant removed by POTWs with
the percentage of the pollutant removed by discharging facilities
applying BPT/BAT. A pollutant is deemed to pass through the POTW when
the average percentage removed nationwide by well-operated POTWs (those
meeting secondary treatment requirements) is less than the percentage
removed by facilities complying with BPT/BAT effluent limitation
guidelines for that pollutant.
This approach to the definition of pass-through satisfies two
competing objectives set by Congress: (1) that standards for indirect
dischargers be equivalent to standards for direct dischargers and (2)
that the treatment capability and performance of the POTW be recognized
and taken into account in regulating the discharge of pollutants from
indirect dischargers. Rather than compare the mass or concentration of
pollutants from indirect dischargers. Rather than compare the mass or
concentration of pollutants discharged by the POTW with the mass or
concentration of pollutants discharged by a BPT/BAT facility, EPA
compares the percentage of the pollutants removed by the plant with the
POTW removal. EPA takes this approach because a comparison of mass or
concentration of pollutants in a POTW effluent with pollutants in a
BPT/BAT facility's effluent would not take into account the mass of
pollutants discharged to the POTW from non-industrial sources nor the
dilution of the
[[Page 6406]]
pollutants in the POTW effluent to lower concentrations from the
addition of large amounts of non-industrial wastewater.
For past effluent guidelines, a study of 50 well-operated POTWs was
used for the pass-through analysis. This study is referred to as the
``The Fate of Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works'',
September 1982 [EPA 440/1-82/303]. Because the data collected for
evaluating POTW removals included influent levels of pollutants that
were close to the detection limit, the POTW data were edited to
eliminate influent levels less than 10 times the minimum level and the
corresponding effluent values, except in the cases where none of the
influent concentrations exceeded 10 times the minimum level. In the
latter case, where no influent data exceeded 10 times the minimum
level, the data were edited to eliminate influent values less than 5
times the minimum level. Further, where no influent data exceeded 5
times the minimum level, the data were edited to eliminate influent
values less than 20 g/l and the corresponding effluent values.
These editing rules were used to allow for the possibility that low
POTW removal simply reflected the low influent levels.
EPA then averaged the remaining influent data and also averaged the
remaining effluent data from the 50 POTW database. The percent removals
achieved for each pollutant were determined from these averaged
influent and effluent levels. This percent removal was then compared to
the percent removal for the BPT/BAT option treatment technology. Due to
the large number of pollutants applicable for this industry, additional
data from the EPA Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) database
(Now renamed the National Risk Management Research Laboratory database)
was used to augment the POTW database for the pollutants not covered by
the 50 POTW Study. Based on this analysis, all of the pollutants
regulated under BPT/BAT Options A and B passed through POTWs and are
proposed for regulation for PSES.
b. Options Considered. EPA considered the same two regulatory
options as in the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis to reduce the discharge of
pollutants by Industrial Waste Combustor facilities. For a more
detailed discussion of the basis for the limitations and technologies
selected see the Technical Development Document. The Agency is
proposing to adopt PSES effluent limitations based on Option A for the
Industrial Waste Combustors. The technology for Options A and B are the
same except that option A does not require the use of sand filtration
as the last treatment step.
In assessing PSES, EPA considered the age, size, process, other
engineering factors, and non-water quality impacts pertinent to the
facilities treating wastes in this subcategory. No basis could be found
for identifying different PSES limitations based on age, size, process
or other engineering factors.
These proposed standards would apply to existing facilities in the
Industrial Waste Combustor Industry that discharge wastewater to
publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs). PSES set at these points would
prevent pass-through of pollutants and help control sludge
contamination.
EPA estimated the cost and economic impact of installing Option A
and B PSES technologies at the indirect discharging facilities. The
pretax total estimated annualized cost in 1992 dollars is approximately
$758 thousand (if PSES is Option A) and approximately $798 thousand (if
PSES is Option B). EPA concluded the cost of installation of either of
these control technologies is clearly economically achievable. EPA's
assessment shows that only one of the indirect discharging facilities
will experience a line closure as a result of the installation of the
necessary technology.
EPA is not, however, proposing PSES based on Option B for the
following reasons. EPA has determined that, after achieving Option A
treatment levels, the regulated BAT pollutants do not pass through in
amounts that would justify requiring the additional Option B treatment
step, sand filtration. The additional removals obtained by sand
filtration are small, less than 57 lb.eq. per year discharged to
receiving streams. POTW removals for the regulated pollutants range
from 59 percent to 90 percent. The total additional removals associated
with the Option B technology represents less than one percent of total
lb.eq. removals. Consequently, requiring PSES limits based on the
Option B technology is not justified by the small quantity of
pollutants involved.
EPA is asking for comment on whether it should adopt Option B as
PSES for this subcategory, given that annual costs are not
significantly higher than Option A. Further information is provided in
the Economic Analysis.
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources
Section 307(c) of the Act requires EPA to promulgate pretreatment
standards for new sources (PSNS) at the same time it promulgates new
source performance standards (NSPS). New indirect discharging
facilities, like new direct discharging facilities, have the
opportunity to incorporate the best available demonstrated
technologies, including process changes, in-facility controls, and end-
of-pipe treatment technologies.
As set forth in Section VI.F.5(a) of this notice, EPA determined
that all of the pollutants selected for regulation for the Industrial
Waste Combustor Industry pass through POTWs. The same technologies
discussed previously for PSES are available as the basis for PSNS.
EPA is proposing that pretreatment standards for new sources be set
equal to PSES for priority and non-conventional pollutants. The Agency
is proposing to establish PSNS for the same priority and non-
conventional pollutants as are being proposed for PSES. EPA is
requesting comment on whether it should adopt PSNS based on Option B,
given the increased removals that would be achieved by the addition of
sand filtration.
EPA considered the cost of the proposed PSNS technology for new
facilities. EPA concluded that such costs are not so great as to
present a barrier to entry, as demonstrated by the fact that currently
operating facilities are using these technologies. The Agency
considered energy requirements and other non-water quality
environmental impacts and found no basis for any different standards
than the selected PSNS.
G. Development of Numerical Limitations
The proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards in
today's notice are based upon statistical procedures. This section
describes the assumptions used as the basis for developing these
numerical limitations.
The assumptions are: (1) Individual pollutant effluent measurements
are delta-lognormal in probability distribution, (2) on a long-term
average basis, good engineering practice will allow appropriately
designed and well-operated wastewater treatment systems to perform at
least as well as the observed performance of the system whose data were
used to develop the limitations, (3) an allowance for the observed
process variability will allow for the normal process variation
associated with both combustion and a well-designed and operated
treatment system, and (4) process variation within certain classes of
pollutants, such as metals, are approximately equal.
The proposed pollutant limitations for each option, as presented in
today's
[[Page 6407]]
notice, are provided as daily maximums and maximums for monthly
averages. For total suspended solids, the maximum for monthly average
limitation is based on a monitoring frequency of 20 samples per month,
that is roughly one sample per weekday. In all other cases, the maximum
for monthly average limitation is based on a monitoring frequency of
four samples per month, that is one sample per week. The limitations
were based upon pollutant concentrations collected from EPA sampling
episodes. Data sources are described in Sections IV.B. A detailed
explanation of the statistical procedures is provided in the
statistical support document. The actual limitations are presented in
the regulatory text following the preamble.
Because EPA is assuming that TSS will be monitored daily, the
limitation based on the probability distribution of 20-day averages. If
concentrations measured on consecutive days are correlated, then
autocorrelation would have an effect on this probability distribution.
However, the combustion data used to calculate the variability of the
20-day average was consecutive daily measurements from a 5-day sampling
episode. Therefore, at this time, EPA does not have sufficient data to
examine in detail and incorporate (if statistically significant) any
autocorrelation between concentrations measured on adjacent days.
However, EPA believes that autocorrelation may not be present in daily
measurements of wastewater from this industry. Unlike other industries,
where the industrial processes are expected to produce the same type of
wastewater from one day to the next, the wastewater from the Industrial
Waste Combustion industry is generated by treating wastes from
different sources and industrial processes. The wastes treated on a
given day will often be different than the waste treated on the
following day. Because of this, autocorrelation is not expected to be
present in measurements of wastewater from the Industrial Waste
Combustion industry. In Section IX.B.7., EPA requests additional
wastewater monitoring data. EPA will use these data to further evaluate
autocorrelation in the TSS data.
VII. Costs and Impacts of Regulatory Alternative
A. Costs
The Agency estimated the cost for Industrial Waste Combustor
facilities to achieve each of the effluent limitations and standards
proposed today. These estimated costs are summarized in this section
and discussed in more detail in the TDD. All cost estimates in this
section are expressed in terms of 1992 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 costs for
discharge monitoring, and costs for facilities to modify existing RCRA
permits. In Section VII.C., costs are expressed in terms of a different
cost component, total annualized cost. The total annualized cost, which
is used to estimate economic impacts, better describes the actual
compliance cost that a company will incur, allowing for interest,
depreciation, and taxes. A summary of the economic analysis for the
proposed regulation is contained in Section VII.C. of today's notice.
1. BPT Costs
The Agency estimated the cost of implementing the proposed BPT
effluent limitations by calculating the engineering costs of meeting
the required effluent reductions for each direct discharging Industrial
Waste Combustor facility. This facility-specific engineering cost
assessment for BPT began with a review of present waste treatment
technologies. For facilities without treatment technology in-place
equivalent to the BPT technology, EPA estimated the cost to upgrade its
treatment technology, to use additional treatment chemicals to achieve
the new discharge standards, and to employ additional personnel, where
applicable for the option. The only facilities given no cost for
compliance were facilities with the treatment-in-place prescribed for
that option. The Agency believes that this approach overestimates the
costs to achieve the proposed BPT because many facilities can achieve
BPT level discharges without using all of the components of the
technology basis described in Section VI.E. The Agency solicits comment
on these costing assumptions. Table VII.A-1 summarizes the capital
expenditures and annual O&M costs for implementing BPT. The capital
expenditures for the process change component of BPT are estimated to
be $6.346 million with annual O&M costs of $1.255 million for
Regulatory Option B. A complete discussion of the costs for Regulatory
Options A and B may be found in the TDD.
Table VII.A-1.--Cost of Implementing BPT Regulations
[In millions of 1992 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Annual O&M
Regulatory option facilities Capital costs costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Option B............................................. 8 6.346 1.255
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. BCT/BAT Costs
The Agency estimated that there would be no cost of compliance for
implementing BCT/BAT, because the technology and effluent limitations
are identical to BPT and the costs are included with BPT.
3. PSES Costs
The Agency estimated the cost for implementing PSES with the same
assumptions and methodology used to estimate cost of implementing BPT/
BAT. A complete discussion of the costs for Regulatory Options A and B
may be found in the TDD. Table VII.A-2 summarizes the capital
expenditures and annual O&M costs for implementing PSES. Costs are
presented only for the selected option, Option A. The capital
expenditures for the process change component of PSES are estimated to
be $2.090 million with annual O&M costs of $0.528 million for
Regulatory Option A.
[[Page 6408]]
Table VII.A-2.--Cost of Implementing PSES Regulations
[In millions of 1992 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Annual O&M
Option facilities Capital costs costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option A........................................................ 3 2.090 0.528
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Pollutant Reductions
The Agency estimated the reduction in the mass of pollutants that
would be discharged from Industrial Waste Combustor facilities after
the implementation of the regulations being proposed today.
1. Conventional Pollutant Reductions
EPA has calculated how much adoption of the proposed BPT/BCT
limitations would reduce the total quantity of conventional pollutants
that are discharged. To do this, the Agency developed an estimate of
the long-term average loading (LTA) of TSS that would be discharged
after the implementation of BPT. Next, the BPT/BCT LTA for TSS was
multiplied by 1992 wastewater flows for each direct discharging
facility to calculate BPT/BCT mass discharge loadings for TSS for each
facility. The BPT/BCT mass discharge loading was subtracted from the
estimated current loadings to calculate the pollutant reductions for
each facility. The Agency estimates that the proposed regulations will
reduce TSS discharges by approximately 88 thousand pounds per year for
Regulatory Option A (two-stage chemical precipitation) and by 120
thousand pounds per year for Regulatory Option B (Regulatory Option A
followed by sand filtration).
2. Priority and Nonconventional Pollutant Reductions
a. Methodology. Today's proposal, if promulgated, will also reduce
discharges of priority and non-conventional pollutants. Applying the
same methodology used to estimate conventional pollutant reductions
attributable to application of BPT/BCT control technology, EPA has also
estimated priority and non-conventional pollutant reductions for each
facility. Because EPA has proposed BAT limitations equivalent to BPT,
there are no further pollutant reductions associated with BAT
limitations.
Current loadings were estimated by using the following data
sources: the Waste Treatment Industry Phase II: Incinerators
Questionnaire; the Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire; the Agency field
sampling program; and, facility wastewater permit information. For many
facilities, data were not available for all pollutants of concern or
without the addition of other out-of-scope Industrial Waste Combustor
wastewater. Therefore, methodologies were developed to estimate current
performance by assessing performance of on-site treatment technologies,
and by comparing combustion unit types to other facilities for which
data was available, as described in Section VI.B.
b. Direct Facility Discharges (BPT/BAT). The estimated reductions
in pollutants directly discharged in treated final effluent resulting
from implementation of BPT/BAT are listed in Table VII.B-1. Pollutant
reductions are presented only for the selected Option, Option B. Data
for the other regulatory option considered, Option A, may be found in
the TDD. The Agency estimates that proposed BPT/BAT regulations will
reduce direct facility discharges of priority, and non-conventional
pollutants by about 7 thousand pounds per year for Option B.
Table VII.B-1.--Reduction in Direct Discharge of Priority and
Nonconventional Pollutants After Implementation of BPT/BAT Regulations
(units = lbs/year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metal Organic
Option compounds compounds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option B................................ 6,767 0 \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The organic compounds pollutant reduction was estimated to be 0,
because no facilities had the treatment-in-place for removal of
organic compounds and treatment for the removal of organic compounds
was not costed.
c. PSES Effluent Discharges to POTWs. The estimated reductions in
pollutants indirectly discharged to POTWs resulting from implementation
of PSES are listed in Table VII.B-2. Pollutant reductions are presented
only for the selected Option, Option A. Data for the other regulatory
option considered, Option B, may be found in the TDD. The Agency
estimates that proposed PSES regulations will reduce indirect facility
discharge to POTWs by 47 thousand pounds per year for Option A.
Table VII.B-2.--Reduction in Indirect Discharge of Priority and
Nonconventional Pollutants to POTWs After Implementation of PSES
Regulations (Units = lbs/year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metal Organic
compounds compounds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option A................................ 47,276 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 6409]]
C. Economic Analysis
I. Introduction and Overview
This section of the notice reviews EPA's analysis of the economic
impacts of the regulation. EPA's detailed economic impact assessment
can be found in the report titled ``Economic Analysis and Cost-
Effectiveness Analysis of the Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Standards for Industrial Waste Combustors'' (hereafter ``EA''). The
report estimates the economic effect on the industry of compliance with
the regulation in terms of facility closures (severe impacts) and
financial impacts short of closure (moderate impacts). The report also
includes an analysis of the effects of the regulation on new Industrial
Waste Combustor facilities and detailed impacts on small businesses and
other small entities. A section of the EA presents an analysis of the
cost-effectiveness of the proposed regulation.
The total costs for the proposed regulatory options are presented
in Table VII.C-1. The proposed regulatory option for BPT/BCT/BAT is
Option B (see Section VI.F.), which is estimated to have a total post-
tax annualized cost of $1,381,000. The proposed regulatory option for
PSES is Option A (see Section VI.F.), which is estimated to have a
total post-tax annualized cost of $531,000.
Table VII.C-1.--Total Costs of Proposed Regulatory Options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total post-tax
Total capital Total O&M annualized
Proposed options costs (mil costs (mil costs (mil
1992$) 1992$) 1992$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPT/BCT/BAT=Option B............................................ 6.346 1.255 1.381
PSES=Option A................................................... 2.090 0.529 0.531
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Baseline Conditions
The first step in the development of an economic analysis is the
definition of the baseline state from which any changes are to be
measured. The baseline should be the best assessment of the way the
industry would look absent the proposed regulation. In this case, the
baseline has been set by assuming the status quo will continue absent
the enactment of the regulation.
In the course of the regulatory development, EPA found that six
potentially affected facilities had either closed entirely or
discontinued burning waste. The six facilities were extracted from the
analysis. An after tax cash flow test was conducted on the remaining
facilities for which sufficient data was available. The test consisted
of calculating the after tax cash flows for each facility for both 1991
and 1992. If a facility experienced negative after tax cash flows in
both years, the facility was deemed to be a baseline closure. No
facilities failed the test, thus no facilities were deemed to be
baseline closures.
In recent years, Industrial Waste Combustors have been affected by
a number of opposing forces. Declines in waste volumes and disposal
prices have been attributed to waste minimization by waste generators,
intense price competition driven by overcapacity, and changes in the
competitive balance between cement kilns (and other commercial BIFs)
and commercial incinerators. The noted negative trends have been offset
by factors such as increased overall waste generation as part of
general economic improvement, Industrial Waste Combustors'
consolidation, and reductions in on-site combustion. The Agency
solicits information and data on the current size of the industry and
trends related to the growth or decline in the need for the services
provided by these facilities.
The Agency recognizes that its data base, which represents
conditions in 1992, may not precisely reflect current conditions in the
industry today. EPA recognizes that the questionnaire data were
obtained several years ago and thus may not precisely mirror present
conditions at every facility. Nevertheless, EPA concludes that the data
provide a sound and reasonable basis for assessing the overall ability
of the industry to achieve compliance with the regulations. The purpose
of the analysis is to characterize the impact of the proposed
regulation for the industry as a whole.
3. Methodology
EPA applies two financial tests to determine facility level
economic impacts. The first is the after tax cash flow test. This test
examines whether a facility loses money on a cash basis. The second
test is the ratio of the facility's estimated compliance costs to the
facility's revenue. These two tests were conducted at one of two
levels: if the majority of the facility revenue is derived from
combustion services, the tests are conducted at the facility level;
however, if revenues from combustion services, the tests are conducted
at the facility level; however, if revenues from combustion are not the
majority of facility revenue, then the tests are conducted at waste
treatment operations level if the data is available, and at the
facility level as well.
The economic impact analysis measures three types of primary
impacts: severe impacts (facility closures), moderate impacts (facility
impacts short of closure), and job losses. Each impact analysis measure
is reviewed briefly below.
Severe Impacts: Severe impacts, defined as facility
closures or cessation of waste treatment operations, were assessed on
the finding that the regulation would be expected to cause a facility
to incur, on average, negative after tax cash flow over the two-year
period of analysis.
Moderate Impacts: Moderate impacts were defined as a
financial impact short of entire facility closure. All facilities were
assessed for the incurrence of total annualized compliance costs
exceeding five percent of facility revenue.
Employment losses: Possible employment losses were
assessed for facilities estimated to close or discontinue waste
treatment operations as a result of regulation.
The economic impact analysis for the proposed Industrial Waste
Combustor regulation assumes that Industrial Waste Combustor facilities
would not be able to pass the costs of compliance on to their customers
through price increases. While a zero cost pass-through assumption is
typically characterized as a conservative assumption, in this case, it
is presumably an accurate assumption as the affected facilities
represent only a portion of the broader combustion services industry.
4. Cost Reasonableness and Economic Impacts of Proposed BPT/BCT/BAT
The statutory requirements for the assessment of BPT options are
that the total cost of treatment options must not be wholly
disproportionate to the additional effluent benefits obtained. EPA
evaluates treatment options by first calculating pre-tax total
annualized
[[Page 6410]]
costs and total pollutant removals in pounds. The ratio of the costs to
the removals for each option is then evaluated relative to one another.
The selected option is then compared to the range of ratios in previous
regulations to gauge its impact. The results of the analysis are
presented in Table VII.C-2. Option A has a ratio of $19 per lb. while
option B has a ratio of $15 per lb. Option B provides significant
additional pollutant removals at a relatively low cost, thus it is the
selected option. Option B is also found to be within the historical
bounds of BPT cost to removal ratios.
Table VII.C-2.--BPT Cost Reasonableness Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-tax total Average cost
Option annualized costs Total removals reasonableness
(mil 1992$) (lbs) (1992 $/lb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A...................................................... $1,736 93,443 $19
B...................................................... 1,952 126,435 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed regulatory option for BPT/BCT/BAT is option B. The
postcompliance analysis under option B projects no severe or moderate
impacts to any of the affected facilities. The analysis estimates no
facility closures, no cessation of waste burning operations, and no
associated job losses resulting from compliance with the proposed
option.
Table VII.C-3.--Impacts of Evaluated BPT/BCT/BAT Options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-tax Moderate
total Severe impacts Employment
Option annualized impacts (TAC/ losses
costs (mil (closures) revenues (FTEs)
1992$) >5%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A........................................................... $1.232 0 0 0
B........................................................... 1.381 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Economic Impacts of Proposed PSES
The proposed regulatory option for PSES is Option A. The
postcompliance analysis under the selected option projects one facility
will discontinue waste burning operations. The facility as a whole is
projected to remain open. The waste burning operations of this facility
represent significantly less than 10 percent of total facility revenue.
The cessation of waste burning operations are estimated to cause 27 job
losses on a full-time equivalent basis (FTE). No other facilities are
projected to suffer either severe or moderate impacts.
Table VII.C-4.--Impacts of Evaluated PSES Options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-tax Moderate
total Severe impacts Employment
Option annualized impacts (TAC/ losses
costs (mil (closures) revenues (FTEs)
1992$) >5%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A........................................................... $0.531 1 0 27
B........................................................... 0.559 1 0 27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Economic Impacts of Proposed NSPS and PSNS
EPA is establishing NSPS limitations equivalent to the limitations
that are established for BPT/BCT/BAT. BPT/BCT/BAT limitations are found
to be economically achievable; therefore, NSPS limitations will not
present a barrier to entry for new facilities.
EPA is setting PSNS equal to PSES limitations for existing sources.
In general, EPA believes that new sources will be able to comply at
costs that are similar to or less than the costs for existing sources,
because new sources can apply control technologies more efficiently
than sources that need to retrofit for those technologies. As a result,
given EPA's finding of economic achievability for the PSES regulation,
EPA also finds that the PSNS regulation will be economically achievable
and will not constitute a barrier to entry for new sources.
7. Firm-Level Impacts
The firm level analysis evaluates the effects of regulatory
compliance on firms owning one or more affected Industrial Waste
Combustor facilities. It also serves to identify impacts not captured
in the facility level analysis. For example, some companies might be
too weak financially to undertake the investment in the required
effluent treatment, even though the investment might seem financially
feasible at the facility level. Such circumstances can exist at
companies owning more than one facility subject to regulation.
The firm-level analysis assesses the impacts of compliance costs at
all facilities owned by the firm. These impacts are assessed using
ratio analysis, which employs two indicators of financial viability:
the rate of return on assets (ROA) and the interest coverage ratio
(ICR). ROA is a measure of the profitability of a company's capital
assets. It is computed as the earnings before interest and taxes minus
taxes divided by total assets. ICR is a measure of the financial
leverage of a company. It is computed as the earnings before interest
and taxes divided by interest expense.
[[Page 6411]]
Two firms each own three affected Industrial Waste Combustor
facilities and are subjected to the ratio analysis. The first step is
to calculate the baseline ROA and ICR for each company absent the
proposed regulation. The post-compliance analysis then calculates the
ratios after the projected investment in wastewater treatment equipment
and the associated compliance costs. One firm experiences no measurable
effect as the result of compliance with the proposed regulation.
Neither the ROA nor the ICR changes between the baseline and
postcompliance analysis. The second firm experiences an insignificant
decline in ROA and a minor decline in ICR. The decline in ICR, while
significant in percentage terms, is an artifact of the firm's extremely
low level of debt. As a result, the two firms are found to be not
significantly impacted by the proposed regulation.
8. Community Impacts
Community impacts are assessed by estimating the expected change in
employment in communities with combustors that are affected by the
proposed regulation. Possible community employment effects include the
employment losses in the facilities that are expected to close because
of the regulation and the related employment losses in other businesses
in the affected community. In addition to these estimated employment
losses, employment may increase as a result of facilities' operation of
treatment systems for regulatory compliance. It should be noted that
job gains will mitigate community employment losses only if they occur
in the same communities in which facility closures occur.
The proposed regulation is estimated to result in the
postcompliance closure of the waste burning operations of one facility.
The postcompliance closure results in the direct loss of 27 Full-Time
Equivalent (FTE) positions. Secondary employment impacts are estimated
based on multipliers that relate the change in employment in a directly
affected industry to aggregate employment effects in linked industries
and consumer businesses whose employment is affected by changes in the
earnings and expenditures of the employees in the directly and
indirectly affected industries. The application of the state specific
multiplier of 5.334 to the 27 direct FTE losses leads to an estimated
community impact of 144 total FTE losses as the result of the proposed
rule. The county in which the closure is projected to occur has a
current employment of 173,242 FTEs dispersed among 9,922
establishments. The direct and secondary job losses represent 0.08
percent of current employment in the affected county.
The FTE losses are mitigated by the job gains associated with the
operation of control equipment which are estimated to be 9 FTEs
nationally. The secondary and indirect effects can be estimated at the
national level by using the average multiplier of 4.049, resulting in
an estimate of 36 total FTE gains associated with the pollution control
equipment.
9. Foreign Trade Impacts
The EA does not project any foreign trade impacts as a result of
the effluent limitations guidelines and standards. Because most of the
affected Industrial Waste Combustor facilities treat waste that is
considered hazardous under RCRA, international trade in Industrial
Waste Combustor services for treatment of hazardous wastes is virtually
nonexistent.
10. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
EPA also performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of the proposed
BPT/BCT/BAT and PSES regulatory options. (A more detailed discussion
can be found in the cost-effectiveness analysis section of the EA.) The
cost-effectiveness analysis compares the total annualized cost incurred
for a regulatory option to the corresponding effectiveness of that
option in reducing the discharge of pollutants.
Cost-effectiveness calculations are used during the development of
effluent limitations guidelines and standards to compare the efficiency
of one regulatory option in removing pollutants to another regulatory
option. Cost-effectiveness is defined as the incremental annual cost of
a pollution control option in an industry subcategory per incremental
pollutant removal. The increments are considered relative to another
option or to a benchmark, such as existing treatment. In cost-
effectiveness analysis, pollutant removals are measured in toxicity
normalized units called ``pound-equivalents.'' The cost-effectiveness
value, therefore, represents the unit cost of removing an additional
pound-equivalent (lb. eq.) of pollutants. In general, the lower the
cost-effectiveness value, the more cost-efficient the regulation will
be in removing pollutants, taking into account their toxicity. While
not required by the Clean Water Act, cost-effectiveness analysis is a
useful tool for evaluating regulatory options for the removal of toxic
pollutants. Cost-effectiveness analysis does not take into account the
removal of conventional pollutants (e.g., oil and grease, biochemical
oxygen demand, and total suspended solids).
For the cost-effectiveness analysis, the estimated pound-
equivalents of pollutants removed were calculated by multiplying the
number of pounds of each pollutant removed by the toxic weighting
factor for each pollutant. The more toxic the pollutant, the higher
will be the pollutant's toxic weighting factor; accordingly, the use of
pound-equivalents gives correspondingly more weight to pollutants with
higher toxicity. Thus, for a given expenditure and pounds of pollutants
removed, the cost per pound-equivalent removed would be lower when more
highly toxic pollutants are removed than if pollutants of lesser
toxicity are removed. Annual costs for all cost-effectiveness analyzes
are reported in 1981 dollars so that comparisons of cost-effectiveness
may be made with regulations for other industries that were issued at
different times.
The results of the cost-effectiveness analysis for the potential
BPT/BCT/BAT options are presented in Table VII.C-5. The results for
these options are presented for strictly illustrative purposes, as the
selected option is to be proposed as BPT, which is subject to a cost
reasonableness evaluation rather than the cost-effectiveness
evaluation. The selected option is option B, which has an average cost-
effectiveness of $65 per lb.eq. and an incremental (to option A) cost-
effectiveness of $57 per lb.eq. This result reinforces the selection of
option B for BPT/BCT/BAT as a significant incremental removal of toxic
pollutants is achieved for a relatively low incremental cost.
Table VII.C-5.--BPT/BCT/BAT Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-tax
total Total Average cost- Incremental
Option annualized removals effectiveness cost-
costs (mil (lb.eq.) ($/lb.eq.) effectiveness
1981$) ($/lb.eq.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A....................................................... $1.231 18,581 $66 .............
[[Page 6412]]
B....................................................... 1.384 21,265 65 $57
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the cost-effectiveness analysis for the PSES
regulatory options are presented in Table VII.C-6. The selected option
is option A, which has an average and incremental cost-effectiveness of
$85 per lb.eq. Option B has an average cost-effectiveness of $88 per
lb.eq., but has an incremental (to option A) cost-effectiveness of $509
per lb.eq.
Table VII.C-6.--PSES Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-tax Total
total removals Average cost- Incremental
Option annualized (lb.eq.), effectiveness cost-
costs (mil net of POTW ($/lb.eq.) effectiveness
1981$) removals ($/lb.eq.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A....................................................... $0.538 6,349 $85 .............
B....................................................... 0.566 6,405 88 $509
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Water Quality Analysis and Other Environmental Benefits
1. Characterization of Pollutants
EPA evaluated the environmental benefits of controlling the
discharges of 17 toxic and nonconventional pollutants from Industrial
Waste Combustor facilities to surface waters and POTWs in national
analyses of direct and indirect discharges. Discharges of these
pollutants into freshwater and estuarine ecosystems may alter aquatic
habitats, adversely affect aquatic biota, and adversely impact human
health through the consumption of contaminated fish and water.
Furthermore, these pollutants may also interfere with POTW operations
in terms of inhibition of activated sludge or biological treatment and
contamination of sewage sludges, thereby limiting the available method
of disposal and thereby raising its costs. Many of these pollutants
have at least one toxic effect (human health carcinogen and/or systemic
toxicant or aquatic toxicant). In addition, many of these pollutants
bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms and persist in the environment.
The Agency did not evaluate the effects of three non-conventional
pollutants since the analysis focused on toxic and nonconventional
pollutants. However, the discharge of conventional pollutants such as
total suspended solids (TSS), chemical oxygen demand (COD), and total
dissolved solids (TDS), can have adverse effects on human health and
the environment. For example, habitat degradation can result from
increased suspended particulate matter that reduces light penetration,
and thus primary productivity, or from accumulation of sludge particles
that alter benthic spawning grounds and feeding habitats. High COD
levels can deplete oxygen levels, which can result in mortality or
other adverse effects on fish.
2. Direct Discharges
EPA evaluated the potential effect on aquatic life and human health
of direct wastewater discharges to receiving waters at current levels
of treatment and at proposed BPT/BAT treatment levels. EPA predicted
steady-state in-stream pollutant concentrations after complete
immediate mixing with no loss from the system, and compared these
levels to EPA-published water quality criteria guidance or to
documented toxic effect levels (i.e., lowest reported or estimated
toxic concentration) for those chemicals for which EPA has not
published water quality criteria. (In performing this analysis, EPA
used its published guidance documents that recommend numeric human
health and aquatic life water quality criteria for numerous pollutants.
States often consult these guidance documents when adopting water
quality criteria as part of their water quality standards. However,
because those State-adopted criteria may vary, EPA used the nationwide
criteria guidance as the most representative value). In addition, EPA
assessed the potential benefits to human health by estimating the risks
(carcinogenic and systemic effects) associated with reducing pollutant
levels in fish tissue and drinking water from current to proposed
treatment levels. EPA estimated risks for recreational and subsistence
anglers and their families, as well as the general population. EPA
performed these analyses for the eight direct Industrial Waste
Combustor facilities currently in operation, modeling their discharge
of 17 pollutants to eight receiving streams.
Current pollutant loadings (in pounds) of the 17 toxic and
nonconventional pollutants modeled are reduced by 29 percent by the
proposed BPT/BAT regulatory option. In-stream concentrations for nine
pollutants are projected to exceed acute or chronic aquatic life
criteria or toxic effect levels in four of the eight receiving streams.
The proposed BPT/BAT will eliminate excursions of the acute criteria
for one pollutant and the chronic criteria of a second pollutant.
Current instream concentrations or toxic effect levels exceed human
health criteria in, depending on how defined, at as many as half of the
receiving streams. The proposed BPT/BAT limitations reduces these
excursions to a limited extent.
The excess annual cancer cases at current pollutant loadings are
projected to be much less than 0.5 from the ingestion of contaminated
fish and drinking water by all populations evaluated. No benefits due
to the reduction of cancer cases are projected to be achieved by the
regulation. Systemic toxicant effects are projected for subsistence
anglers in three of the receiving streams nationwide from three
pollutants at current discharge levels. The proposed BPT/BAT regulated
discharge levels will reduce the systemic toxicant effects to
subsistence anglers on a single receiving stream and
[[Page 6413]]
pollutant, reducing the exposed population by 47 percent.
3. Indirect Dischargers
EPA also evaluated the aquatic life and human health impacts of
POTW wastewater discharges of 17 pollutants on receiving stream water
quality at current and proposed pretreatment levels for the three
indirect discharging Industrial Waste Combustor facilities currently in
operation. These three facilities discharge to three POTWs with
outfalls located on three receiving streams. EPA predicted steady-
state-in-stream pollutant concentrations after complete immediate
mixing with no loss from the system, and compared these levels to EPA-
published water quality criteria or to documented toxic effect levels
(i.e., lowest reported or estimated toxic concentration) for those
chemicals for which EPA has not published water quality criteria.
Nationwide criteria guidance were used as the most representative
value. In addition, the potential benefits to human health were
evaluated by estimating the potential reduction of carcinogenic risk
and systemic effects from consuming contaminated fish and drinking
water. Risks were again estimated for recreational and subsistence
anglers and their families as well as the general population.
Current loadings (in pounds) of the 17 pollutants evaluated for
water quality impacts are reduced 97 percent by the proposed
pretreatment regulatory options.
EPA projects that in-stream concentrations of one pollutant will
exceed human health criteria or toxic effect levels in one receiving
stream at current discharge levels. The proposed pretreatment
regulatory option eliminates this excursion. EPA also projects a single
receiving stream with in-stream concentrations for one pollutant
projected to exceed chronic aquatic life criteria or toxic effect
levels at current discharge levels. This stream will no longer have
this excursion under the proposed pretreatment. Estimates of the
increase in value of recreational fishing to anglers as a result of
this improvement range from $78,600 to $281,000 annually (1992
dollars).
The excess annual cancer cases at current pollutant loadings are
projected to be much less than 0.5 from the ingestion of contaminated
fish and drinking water by all populations evaluated. No benefits due
to the reduction of cancer cases are projected to be achieved by the
regulation. Systemic toxicant effects (non-cancer adverse health
effects including reproductive toxicity) are projected for subsistence
anglers in one receiving stream for two pollutants at current discharge
levels. No systemic toxicant effects are projected at the proposed
pretreatment level.
4. POTWs
EPA also evaluated the potential adverse impacts on POTW operations
(inhibition of microbial activity during biological treatment) and
contamination of sewage sludge at the three POTWs that received
wastewater from Industrial Waste Combustors. Inhibition of POTW
operations is estimated by comparing predicted POTW influent
concentrations to available inhibition levels. Inhibition values were
obtained from Guidance Manual for Preventing Interference at POTWs
(U.S. EPA, 1987) and CERCLA Site Discharges to POTWs: Guidance Manual
(U.S. EPA, 1990). Potential contamination of sewage sludge was
estimated by comparing projected pollutant concentrations in POTW
sewage sludge to available EPA criteria. The Standards for the Use or
Disposal of Sewage Sludge (40 CFR Part 503) contain limits on the
concentrations of pollutants in sewage sludge that is used or disposed.
For the purpose of this analysis, the sewage sludge is considered
contaminated if the concentration of a pollutant in sewage sludge
exceeds the limits presented in 40 CFR Part 503 for land application of
the slude or surface disposal.
EPA was able to evaluate 12 pollutants for potential POTW operation
inhibition and seven pollutants for potential sewage sludge
contamination. At current discharge levels, EPA projects inhibition
problems at one of the POTWs, caused by one pollutant. At the proposed
pretreatment regulatory option, EPA projects no inhibition problems at
the POTW. The Agency projects sewage sludge contamination at two of the
POTWs, caused by three pollutants at current discharge levels. At the
proposed pretreatment regulatory option, EPA projects no biosolids
contamination problems at these POTWs. EPA estimates that the savings
in biosolids disposal costs to these POTWs is about $7,400 (1992
dollars) annually.
The POTW inhibition values used in this analysis are not, in
general, regulatory values. EPA based these values upon engineering and
health estimates contained in guidance or guidelines published by EPA
and other sources. Therefore, EPA does not intend to base its
regulatory approach for proposed pretreatment discharge levels upon the
finding that some pollutants interfere with POTWs by impairing their
treatment effectiveness. Of course, as explained above. EPA did find
that certain pollutants would pass through a basis for establishing
pretreatment standards. Still, the values used in this analysis help
indicate the potential benefits for POTW operations that may result
from the compliance with proposed pretreatment discharge levels.
EPA evaluated the benefits of reducing contamination of sewage
sludge in its analysis of projected POTW sewage sludge disposal
practices at current and proposed pretreatment levels. Current levels
resulted in two POTWs whose sewage sludge may not be land applied,
although more expensive alternatives are available for disposal. EPA's
analyses showed that of these two POTWs, one will shift into qualifying
for land application of POTW sewage sludge under the proposed
pretreatment regulatory option. Land application quality sewage sludge
meets ceiling pollutant concentration limits, class B pathogen
requirements, and vector attraction reduction requirements. Because
costs for land application tend to be lower than those for other
disposal methods, this shift away from incineration, co-disposal, and
surface disposal results in a cost savings. The other POTW will upgrade
from land application pollutant ceiling levels to the more stringent
land application pollutant concentration limits. This POTW is expected
to benefit through reduced record-keeping requirements and exemption
from certain POTW biosolids management practices. However, EPA has not
estimated a monetary value for these more modest benefits.
E. Non-water Quality Environmental Impacts
The elimination or reduction of one form of pollution may create or
aggravate other environmental problems. Therefore, Sections 304(b) and
306 of the Act call for EPA to consider non-water quality environmental
impacts of effluent limitations guidelines and standards. Accordingly,
EPA has considered the effect of these regulations on air pollution,
waste treatment residual generation, and energy consumption.
1. Air Pollution
Industrial Waste Combustor facilities treat wastewater streams
which contain very low concentrations of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs). Specifically, the concentrations of VOCs are typically below
treatable levels in industrial Waste Combustor wastewater streams.
Since there are only low concentrations of VOCs in Industrial
[[Page 6414]]
Waste Combustor wastewater, no significant air emissions could be
generated by the proposed treatment technologies. Thus, EPA does not
expect adverse air impacts due to the proposed regulations.
2. Waste Treatment Residuals
Waste treatment residuals would be generated due to the following
technologies, if implemented, to meet proposed regulations: metals
precipitation and sand filtration. The waste treatment residuals
generated due to the implementation of the technologies discussed above
were costed for off-site disposal in Subtitle C and D landfills. These
costs were included in the economic evaluation of the proposed
technologies.
EPA estimates that an additional 1.3 million pounds of sludge will
be generated annually by 11 facilities from metals precipitation and
sand filtration operations. EPA believes that the disposal of this
filter cake would not have an adverse effect on the environment or
result in the release of pollutants in the filter cake to other media.
The disposal of these wastes into controlled Subtitle C or D landfills
are strictly regulated by the RCRA program.
3. Energy Requirements
EPA estimates that the attainment of BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and
PSNS will increase energy consumption by a small increment over present
industry use. Overall, and increase of 1,840 thousand Kilowatt hours
per year would be required for the proposed regulation which equates to
1,031 barrels of oil per year. The United States consumed 19 million
barrels of oil per day in 1994.
VIII. Related Acts of Congress and Executive Orders
A. Paperwork Reduction Act
The proposed effluent guidelines and standards contain no
information collection activities and, therefore, no information
collection request (ICR) has been submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and approval under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
provides that, whenever an agency is required to publish general notice
of rulemaking for a proposed rule, the agency generally must prepare
(and make available for public comment) an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis (IRFA). The agency must prepare an IRFA for a
proposed rule unless the head of the agency certifies that it will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. EPA is today certifying, pursuant to section 605(b) of the
RFA, that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities Therefore, the Agency did not
prepare an IRFA.
While EPA has so certified today's rule, the Agency nonetheless
prepared a regulatory flexibility assessment equivalent to that
required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act as modified by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. The assessment
for this rule is detailed in the ``Economic Analysis of Proposed
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Industrial Waste
Combustors''.
The proposal, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following
reasons. The RFA defines ``small entity'' to mean a small business,
small organization or small governmental jurisdiction. Today's proposal
would establish requirements applicable only to commercial Industrial
Waste Combustors. As previously explained, the eleven facilities that
would be subject to the proposal if adopted, are all owned by large
entities with firm revenues in excess of $230 million per year.
Consequently, there are no small businesses that would be affected by
the proposal. Therefore, the proposed rule, if promulgated, will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially 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 has 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. EPA has estimated total annualized costs of the
proposed rule as $2.16 million (1996$, post-tax). Thus, today's rule is
not subject to the requirements of Sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of
Section 203 of the UMRA.
D. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or 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
[[Page 6415]]
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive
Order.
It has been determined that this rule is a not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is
therefore not subject to OMB review.
E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act, the Agency is required to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices,
etc.) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard
bodies. Where available and potentially applicable voluntary consensus
standards are not used by EPA, the Act requires the Agency to provide
Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, an explanation
of the reasons for not using such standards.
EPA is not proposing any new analytical test methods as part of
today's proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards. EPA
performed literature searches to identify any analytical methods from
industry, academia, voluntary consensus standard bodies and other
parties that could be used to measure the analytes in today's proposed
rulemaking. The results of this search confirm EPA's determination to
continue to rely on its existing analytical tests methods for the
analytes for which effluent limitations and pretreatment standards are
proposed. Although the Agency initiated data collection for these
effluent guidelines many years prior to enactment of the NTTAA,
traditionally, analytical test method development has been analogous to
the Act's requirements for consideration and use of voluntary consensus
standards.
The proposed rule would require dischargers to monitor for TSS, pH,
arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, silver, titanium,
and zinc. Methods for monitoring these pollutants are specified in
tables at 40 CFR Part 136. When available, methods published by
voluntary consensus standards bodies are included in the list of
approved methods in these tables. Specifically, voluntary consensus
standards from the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
are approved for pH, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury,
and zinc. Further, EPA has approved the use of voluntary consensus
standards from the 18th edition of Standard Methods (published jointly
by the American Public Health Association, the American Water Works
Association and the Water Environment Federation) for TSS, arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, silver, titanium, and zinc.
In addition, EPA's regulation authorizes the use of USGS methods for
TSS, pH, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, silver, and
zinc.
EPA requests comments on the discussion of NTTAA, on the
consideration of various voluntary consensus standards, and on the
existence of other voluntary consensus standards that EPA may not have
found.
IX. Solicitation of Data and Comments
A. Introduction and General Solicitation
EPA invites and encourages public participation in this rulemaking.
The Agency asks that comments address any perceived deficiencies in the
record of this proposal and that suggested revisions or corrections be
supported by data.
To ensure that EPA can read, understand and therefore properly
respond to comments, the Agency would prefer that commenters cite,
where possible the paragraph(s) or sections in the notice or supporting
documents to which each comment refers. Commenters should use a
separate paragraph for each issue discussed.
The Agency invites all parties to coordinate their data collection
activities with EPA to facilitate mutually beneficial and cost-
effective data submissions. EPA is interested in participating in study
plans, data collection and documentation. Please refer to the For
Further Information section at the beginning of today's document for
technical contracts at EPA.
B. Specific Data and Comment Solicitations
EPA has solicited comments and data on many individual topics
throughout this preamble. The Agency incorporates each and every such
solicitation here, and reiterates its interest in receiving data and
comments on the issues addressed by those solicitations. EPA
particularly requests comments and data on the following issues:
1. Exclusion of Captive and Intracompany Facilities From the Scope the
Regulation
Most facilities which only burn waste from off-site facilities
under the same corporate structure (intracompany facility) and/or only
burn waste generated on-site (captive facility) are already subject to
national effluent guidelines based on the manufacturing operations at
the facility. Specifically, 107 of the 156 captive and intracompany
facilities which received a screener survey and generated wastewater as
a result of their combustion operations either completed a
questionnaire for an effluent guidelines regulation or stated that they
were subject to effluent guidelines. Three of these 156 facilities
identified themselves as zero dischargers. Finally, only 46 of these
156 facilities did not identify an effluent guideline for their
discharge. Of these facilities, it is likely that some are zero
dischargers and some are already subject to effluent guidelines,
although the respondent was unaware of that fact. In addition, 83
percent of all captive facilities and 73 percent of all intracompany
facilities reported that the combustion unit wastewaters made up less
than 20 percent of the final wastewater stream discharged from the
facility. The Agency is requesting comment on not including captive and
intracompany facilities in today's proposed rule as well as any
additional data on the treatment of IWC wastewater at such operations.
This would include information demonstrating that the IWC wastewater is
commingled for treatment and subject to effluent limitations or
pretreatment standards under regulations for other point source
categories.
As described above, today's proposal would apply to all commercial
IWC's and not to so-called ``captive'' and ``intra-company''
combustors--combustors that burn wastes either generated on-site or
received from off-site facilities that are owned in common with the
combustor. So long as these combustors do not burn wastes received from
off-site from facilities that are not subject to common ownership, the
effluent generated from the treatment of IWC wastewater at such
combustors would not be subject to the proposal. Essentially, as
explained above, EPA has concluded that such wastewater is generally
commingled for treatment with wastewater generated in the primary
industrial process at the site and subject to effluent limitations and
standards for that industrial category. However, EPA recognizes that
there may be circumstances in which this is not the case. For example,
there may be stand-alone combustors burning wastes received from
facilities under common ownership without other, on-site industrial
operations. Further, even
[[Page 6416]]
where a combustor is operated in conjunction with on-site industrial
activities, the IWC wastewater may be treated and discharged separately
from that generated in other operations (or treated separately and
mixed before discharge). Under these conditions, EPA is not certain
that the wastewater should, in fact, be treated differently from that
of commercial IWC wastewater. EPA specifically solicits comments and
data on whether or not to include such facilities within the scope of
the final rule. Following proposal, EPA will be collecting further data
on such facilities.
2. De Minimis Level for Scope of Regulation
The Agency solicits comment on including an exclusion from the
scope of this regulation for industrial waste combustors located at
manufacturing facilities that accept a de minimis quantity of waste
from other facilities not within the same corporate umbrella due to
possible management practices at manufacturing facilities.
Manufacturers may receive small quantities of waste from off-site to
burn due to a site's ability to handle the waste properly in comparison
to the site at which the waste is generated. Information collected from
the 1994 Waste Treatment Industry Phase II: Incinerators Questionnaire
was not designed to collect this information due to the method of
creating the mailing list. EPA solicits additional data to determine if
a de minimis level should be established and information on the
appropriate level.
3. Subcategorization of Industrial Waste Combustors
Based on analysis of the Industrial Waste Combustor Industry, EPA
has determined that it should not further subcategorize the Industrial
Waste Combustors. EPA invites comment on whether the Industrial Waste
Combustors should be divided into subcategories, including the basis of
the subcategorization. Specifically, the Agency is requesting comments
on whether it is necessary to subcategorize the industry based on the
types of wastewater generated at an Industrial Waste Combustor
facility.
4. Methodology for Estimating Current Performance
The Agency is soliciting comments on the approaches used to
calculate the current performance as well as requesting any monitoring
data available before the addition of non-contaminated stormwater or
other industrial wastewater.
Many facilities in the Industrial Waste Combustor Industry
commingle waste receipts from off-site with other on-site generated
wastewater, such as non-contaminated stormwater and other industrial
wastewater, prior to discharging. This mixing of waste may occur prior
to or after treatment of the waste receipts. Because the commingling
occurs prior to the discharge point, monitoring data collected by
facilities at the discharge point cannot be used to estimate the
current treatment performance of certain wastewater treatment
operations. Under the approach EPA is proposing, in the case of the
introduction of stormwater after treatment but before discharge, the
allowable discharges from such a facility would be based on the
guideline limitations and standards before the introduction of the
stormwater. In the case of the stormwater or other wastes introduced
before treatment, as discussed previously, the EPA used several methods
to estimate current industry performance. EPA solicits comment on the
methodologies used to estimate current discharge performance. EPA also
requests discharge monitoring data from facilities prior to commingling
the Industrial Waste Combustor wastewater with other sources of
wastewater. These data will be used to assess current discharge
performance and to statistically analyze the autocorrelation of
concentrations measured on consecutive days (See Section VI.G. for an
explanation of autocorrelation). Before submitting discharge monitoring
data, please contact Samantha Hopkins at (202) 260-7149 to ensure that
the data include information to support its use for calculating current
performance and possible limitations.
5. Additional Technologies for the Control of Wastes Containing a Large
Variety of Metal in Continually Changing Concentrations
The BPT effluent limitations and standards for the control of
metals is based on the use of two stages of chemical precipitation and
sand filtration. An additional treatment technology was sampled in the
process of developing the proposed regulation. Performance by this
treatment technology was adequate for the metals found in the
wastewater at treatable levels. The additional treatment technology
sampled is proprietary information. EPA solicits information on
additional treatment technologies applicable to the treatment of wastes
containing a large variety of metal in continually changing
concentrations that are commercially available.
6. Options Selection
EPA is asking for comment on whether it should adopt Option B as
PSES for this subcategory, given that annual costs are very close to
Option A. Additional information is provided in the EA. Option A is:
Primary Precipitation, Solid-Liquid Separation, Secondary
Precipitation, and Solid-Liquid Separation.
Option B is: Primary Precipitation, Solid-Liquid Separation,
Secondary Precipitation, Solid-Liquid Separation, and Sand Filtration.
7. Costing Methodology
The only facilities given no cost for compliance were facilities
with the treatment-in-place prescribed for that option. The Agency
believes that this approach overestimates the costs to achieve the
proposed BPT because many facilities can achieve BPT level discharges
without using all of the components of the technology basis described
in Section VI.E. The Agency solicits comments on these costing
assumptions. Table VII.A-1 summarizes the capital expenditures and
annual O&M costs for implementing BPT. The capital expenditures for the
process change component of BPT are estimated to be $5.924 million with
annual O&M costs of $1.085 million for Regulatory Option B.
8. Estimation of Industry Size
From the information obtained from the 1994 Waste Treatment
Industry Phase II: Incinerators Questionnaire, EPA estimated that there
are 84 facilities in the Industrial Waste Combustor Industry. However,
only 11 of these facilities are currently operating and discharging
Industrial Waste Combustor wastewater to a POTW or water body. EPA's
estimation of the industry size is based on data provided from
questionnaire mailed to facilities that EPA identified using
information available in 1992. As stated earlier, facilities names were
gathered from various sources, and no listing of non-hazardous waste
combustion units was available. Therefore, there may have been
Industrial Waste Combustor facilities not included on the questionnaire
mailing list. EPA solicits information on the number, name, and
location of facilities within the industry.
9. Treatment of Incidental Organic Pollutants Detected in the
Industrial Waste Combustor Industry
During the EPA sampling program, EPA collected analytical data on
the presence of organic pollutants in the Industrial Waste Combustor
wastewater.
[[Page 6417]]
Various organic pollutants were detected at low concentrations in the
untreated Industrial Waste Combustor wastewater. EPA sampled treatment
technologies to control the discharge of inorganic pollutants for
Industrial Waste Combustors. In most circumstances, the organic
pollutants detected at low concentrations in the treatment facility
influent were found at non-detectable levels prior to any treatment for
the organic pollutants. Because the initial concentrations of organic
pollutants were very low, the effect of the addition of treatment
chemicals and other sources of wastewater is to cause the
concentrations to become lower and thereby non-detectable. EPA solicits
comment on the necessity of control on low level organic pollutants for
the Industrial Waste Combustors and technologies appropriate for the
control of low level organics as well as analytical data to
characterize the performance of such treatment technologies.
10. Concentration Limitations vs. Production-based Limitations
EPA is requesting comments on the decision to use concentration
limitations as opposed to production-based limitations. EPA based the
decision on the fact that Industrial Waste Combustors do not make a
product. However, the limitations could potentially be based upon how
much waste is burned rather than product generation. EPA sees the
concentration limitations as a potential problem in that facilities
could generate more process water to comply with the limitations rather
than treating the process water sufficiently. For example, a facility
could increase the volume of scrubber water by decreasing the amount of
scrubber water that is recycled for reuse. EPA is requesting comments
on this issue.
11. Zero-discharge Standards for BPT/BAT and NSPS
EPA is specifically considering whether it should adopt BPT/BAT and
NSPS of zero discharge, since so many facilities are currently not
generating or not discharging any wastewater as a result of their
Industrial Waste Combustor operations (see section IV.A. of today's
notice). Zero discharge is primarily accomplished through the use of
dry scrubbing operations or through off-site disposal of Industrial
Waste Combustor wastewater. EPA evaluated the cost for facilities to
dispose of their Industrial Waste Combustor wastewater off-site and
found it was less expensive than on-site treatment of the wastewater
for only 3 of the eleven facilities. EPA also evaluated the cost for
facilities to burn the Industrial Waste Combustor wastewater streams
they generated and found that it was significantly more costly than
wastewater treatment. EPA did not evaluate the cost for all facilities
to replace their wet scrubbing systems with dry scrubbing systems, as
the wet scrubbing systems have been established as the best performers
(according to the Hazardous Waste Combustion proposed regulation) for
removing acid gages and dioxins from effluent gas streams. Also, dry
scrubbing systems have an adverse affect of generating an unstable
solid to be disposed of in a landfill, as opposed to the stable solids
generated by wastewater treatment of air pollution control wastewater.
EPA also did not evaluate the cost for all facilities to recycle their
Industrial Waste Combustor wastewater, as EPA discovered that only
certain types of air pollution control systems working in conjunction
with one another are able to accomplish total recycle of wastewater.
Thus, new air pollution control systems would have to be costed for all
facilities along with recycling systems. Overall, zero discharge at
BPT/BAT or NSPS is not being proposed because EPA believes that the
cost to facilities of changing current air pollution control systems
are probably too high for BPT/BAT and because the change may cause
unacceptable non-water quality impacts. EPA is requesting comments on
its decision not to propose zero discharge for BPT/BAT and/or NSPS.
X. Regulatory Implementation
A. Applicability
While today's proposal represents EPA's best judgment a this time,
the promulgated effluent limitations and standards may change based on
additional information or data submitted by commenters or developed by
the Agency. Consequently, the permit writer may consider the proposed
limits and data provided in the Technical Support Document in
developing permit limits. Although the information provided in the
Development Document may provide useful information and guidance to
permit writers in determining best professional judgment permit limits,
the permit writer will still need to justify any permit limits based on
the conditions at the individual facility until EPA promulgates final
limitations.
B. Upset and Bypass Provisions
A ``bypass'' is an intentional diversion of waste 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 are set forth at 40 CFR 122.41(m) and
(n).
C. Variances and Modifications
The CWA requires application of the effluent limitations
established pursuant to Section 301 or the pretreatment standards of
Section 307 to all direct and indirect discharges. However, the statute
provides for the modification of these requirements in a limited number
of circumstances. Moreover, the Agency has established administrative
mechanisms to provide an opportunity for relief from the application of
national effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards for
categories of existing sources for priority, conventional and non-
conventional pollutants.
EPA will develop effluent limitations or standards different from
the otherwise applicable requirements if an individual existing
discharging facility is fundamentally different with respect to factors
considered in establishing the limitations or 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 FDF modifications from
BPT effluent limitations, BAT limitations for priority and non-
conventional pollutants and BCT limitation for conventional pollutants
for direct dischargers. For indirect dischargers, EPA provided for FDF
modifications from pretreatment standards for existing facilities. FDF
variances for priority pollutants were challenged judicially and
ultimately sustained by the Supreme Court (Chemical Manufacturers Ass'n
v. NRDC. 479 U.S. 116 (1985)).
Subsequently, in the Water Quality Act of 1987, Congress added new
Section 301(n) of the Act explicitly to authorize modification of the
otherwise applicable BAT effluent limitations or categorical
pretreatment standards for existing sources if a facility is
fundamentally different with respect to the factors specified in
Section 304 (other than costs) from those considered by EPA in
establishing the effluent limitations or pretreatment standard. Section
301(n) also defined the conditions under which EPA may establish
alternative requirements. Under Section 301(n), an application for
approval of FDF variance must be based
[[Page 6418]]
solely on (1) information submitted during the 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 not less stringent than justified by the
difference and not result in markedly more adverse non-water quality
environmental impacts than the national limitation or standard.
EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 125 Subpart D, authorizing the
Regional Administrators to establish alternative limitations and
standards, further detail the substantive criteria used to evaluate FDF
variance request for existing 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 the EPA in developing the nationally applicable
effluent guidelines. The regulation also lists four factors (e.g.,
infeasibility of installation within the time allowed or a discharger's
ability to pay) that may not provide a basis for an FDF variance. In
addition, under 40 CFR 125.31(b)(3), a request for limitations less
stringent than the national limitation may be approved only if
compliance with the national limitations would result in either (a) a
removal cost wholly out of proportion to the removal cost considered
during development of the national limitations, or (b) a non-water
quality environmental impact (including energy requirements )
fundamentally more adverse than the impact considered during
development of the national limits. EPA regulations provide for an FDF
variance for existing indirect discharger at 40 CFR 403.13. The
conditions for approval of a request to modify applicable pretreatment
standards and factors considered are the same as those for indirect
discharges.
The legislative history of Section 301(n) underscores the necessity
for the FDF variance applicant to establish eligibility for the
variance. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 125.32(b)(1) are explicit in
imposing this burden upon the applicant. The applicant must show that
the factors relating to the discharge controlled by the applicant's
permit which are claimed to be fundamentally different are, in fact,
fundamentally different from those factors considered by the EPA in
establishing the applicable guidelines. The pretreatment regulations
incorporate a similar requirement at 40 CFR 403.13(h)(9).
An FDF variance is not available to a new source subject to NSPS or
PSNS
2. Water Quality Variances
Section 301(g) of the CWA authorizes a variance from BAT effluent
guidelines for certain nonconventional pollutants due to localized
environmental factors. These pollutants include ammonia, chlorine,
color, iron, and total phenols.
3. Permit Modifications
Evens after EPA (or an authorized State) has issued a final permit
to a direct discharger, the permit may still be modified under certain
conditions. (When a permit modification is under consideration,
however, all other permit conditions remain in effect.) A permit
modification may be triggered in several circumstances. These could
include a regulatory inspection or information submitted by the
permittee that reveals the need for modification. Any interested person
may request that a permit modification be made. There are two
classifications of modifications: major and minor. From a procedural
standpoint, they differ primarily with respect to the public notice
requirements. Major modifications require public notice while minor
modifications do not. Virtually any modifications that results in less
stringent conditions is treated as a major modifications, with
provisions for public notice and comment. Conditions that would
necessitate a major modification of a permit are described in 40 CFR
122.62. Minor modifications are generally non-substantive changes. The
conditions for minor modifications are described in 40 CFR 122.63.
4. Removal credits
The CWA establishes a discretionary program for POTWs to grant
``removal credits'' to their indirect dischargers. This credit in the
form of a less stringent pretreatment standard, allows an increased
concentration of a pollutant in the flow from the indirect discharger's
facility to the POTW. See 40 CFR 403.7. EPA has promulgated removal
credit regulations as part of its pretreatment regulations. Under EPA's
pretreatment regulations, the availability of a removal credit for a
particular pollutant is linked to the POTW method of using or disposing
of its sewage sludge. The regulations provide that removal credits are
only available for certain pollutants regulated in EPA's 40 CFR Part
503 sewage sludge regulations (58 FR 9386). The pretreatment
regulations at 40 CFR Part 403 provide that removal credits may be made
potentially available for the following pollutants:
(1) If a POTW applies its sewage sludge to the land for beneficial
uses, disposes of it on surface disposal sites or incinerates it,
removal credits may be available, depending on which use or disposal
method is selected (so long as the POTW complies with the requirements
in Part 503). When sewage sludge is applied to land, removal credits
may be available for ten metals. When sewage sludge is disposed of on a
surface disposal site, removal credits maybe available for three
metals. When these sewage sludge is incinerated, removal credits maybe
available for seven metals and for 57 organic pollutants (40 CFR
403.7(a)(3)(iv)(A)).
(2) In addition, when sewage sludge is used on land or disposed of
on a surface disposal site or incinerated, removal credits may also be
available for additional pollutants so long as the concentration of the
pollutant in sludge does not exceed a concentration level established
in Part 403. When sewage sludge is applied to land, removal credits may
be available for two additional metals and 14 organic pollutants. When
the sewage sludge is disposed of on a surface disposal site, removal
credits may be available for seven additional metals and 13 organic
pollutants. When the sewage sludge is incinerated, removal credits may
be available for three other metals (40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(iv)(B)).
(3) When a POTW disposes of its sewage sludge in a municipal solid
waste landfill (MSWLF) that meets the criteria of 40 CFR Part 258,
removal credits may be available for any pollutant in the POTW's sewage
sludge (40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(iv)(C)). Thus, given compliance with the
requirements of EPA's removal credit regulations,\2\ following
promulgation of the pretreatment standards being proposed today,
removal credits may be authorized for any pollutant subject to
pretreatment standards if the applying POTW disposes of its sewage
sludge in a MSWLF that meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 258. If
the POTW uses or disposes of its sewage sludge by land application,
surface disposal or incineration, removal credits may be available for
the following metal pollutants (depending on the method of use or
disposal): arsenic, cadmium,
[[Page 6419]]
chromium, copper, iron, lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium and
zinc. Given compliance with Section 403.7, removal credits may be
available for the following organic pollutants (depending on the method
of use or disposal) if the POTW uses or disposes of its sewage sludge:
benzene, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,2-dibromoethane, ethylbenzene, methylene
chloride, toluene, tetrachloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,1,2-
trichloroethane and trans-1,2-dichloroethene.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Under Section 403.7, a POTW is authorized to give removal
credits only under certain conditions. These include applying for,
and obtaining, approval from the Regional Administrator (or Director
of a State NPDES program with an approved pretreatment program), a
showing of consistent pollutant removal and an approved pretreatment
program. See 40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(i), (ii), and (iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some facilities may be interested in obtaining removal credit
authorization for other pollutants being considered for regulation in
this rulemaking for which removal credit authorization would not
otherwise be available under Part 403. Under Sections 307(b) and 405 of
the CWA, EPA may authorize removal credits only when EPA determines
that, if removal credits are authorized, that the increased discharges
of a pollutant to POTWs resulting from removal credits will not affect
POTW sewage sludge use or disposal adversely. As discussed in the
preamble to amendments to the Part 403 regulations (58 FR 9382-83), EPA
has interpreted these sections to authorize removal credits for a
pollutant only in one of two circumstances. Removal credits may be
authorized for any categorical pollutant (1) for which EPA have
established a numerical pollutant limit in Part 503, or (2) which EPA
has determined will not threaten human health and the environment when
used or disposed of in sewage sludge. The pollutants described in
paragraphs (1)-(3) above include all those pollutants that EPA either
specifically regulated in Part 503 or evaluated for regulation and
determined would not adversely affect sludge use and disposal.
Consequently, in the case of a pollutant for which EPA did not
perform a risk assessment in developing its Round One sewage sludge
regulations, removal credit for pollutants will only be available when
the Agency determines either a safe level for the pollutant in sewage
sludge or that regulation of the pollutant is unnecessary to protect
public health and the environment from the reasonably anticipated
adverse effects of such a pollutant.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In the Round One sewage sludge regulation, EPA concluded, on
the basis of risk assessments, that certain pollutants (see Appendix
G to Part 403) did not pose an unreasonable risk to human health and
the environment and did not require the establishment of sewage
sludge pollutant limits. As discussed above, so long as the
concentration of these pollutant in sewage sludge are lower than a
prescribed level, removal credits are authorized for such
pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has concluded that a POTW discharge of a particular pollutant
will not prevent sewage sludge use (or disposal) so long as the POTW is
complying with EPA's part 503 regulations and so long as the POTW
demonstrates that use or disposal of sewage sludge containing that
pollutant will not adversely affect public health and environment.
Thus, if the POTW meets these two conditions, a POTW may obtain removal
credit authority for pollutants other than those specifically regulated
in the part 503 regulations. What is necessary for a POTW to
demonstrate that a pollutant will not adversely affect public health
and the environment will depend on the particular pollutant, the use or
disposal means employed by the POTW and the concentration of the
pollutant in the sewage sludge. Thus, depending on the circumstances,
this effort could vary from a complete 14-pathway risk assessment
modeling exercise to a simple demonstration that available scientific
data show that, at the levels observed in the sewage sludge, the
pollutant at issue is not harmful. As part of its initiative to
simplify and improve its regulations, at the present time, EPA is
considering whether to propose changes to its pretreatment regulations
so as to provide for case-by-case removal credit determinations by the
POTWs' permitting authority.
EPA has already begun the process of evaluating several pollutants
for adverse potential to human health and the environment when present
in sewage sludge. In November 1995, pursuant to the terms of the
consent decree in the Gearhart case, the Agency notified the United
States District Court for the District of Oregon that, based on the
information when available at that time, it intended to propose only
two pollutants for regulation in the Round Two sewage sludge
regulations dioxins/dibenzofurans (all monochloro to octochloro
congeners) and polychlorinated biphenyls.
The Round Two sludge regulations are not scheduled for proposal
until December 1999 and promulgation in December 2001. However, given
the necessary factual showing, as detailed above, EPA could propose
that removal credits should be authorized for identified pollutants
before promulgation of the Round Two sewage sludge regulations.
However, given the Agency's commitment to promulgation of effluent
limitations and guidelines under court-supervised deadlines, it may not
be possible to complete review of removal credit authorization requests
by the time EPA must promulgate these guidelines and standards.
5. Relationship of Effluent Limitations to NPDES Permits and Monitoring
Requirements
Effluent limitations act as a primary mechanism to control the
discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States. These
limitations are applied to individual facilities through NPDES permits
issued by the EPA or authorized States under Section 402 of the Act.
The Agency has developed the limitations and standards for today's
proposed rule to cover the discharge of pollutants for this industrial
subcategory. In specific cases, the NPDES permitting authority may
elect to establish technology-based permit limits for pollutants not
covered by this proposed regulation. In addition, if State water
quality standards or other provisions of State or Federal Law require
limits on pollutants not covered by this regulation (or require more
stringent limits on covered pollutants), the permitting authority must
apply those limitations.
For determination of effluent limits where there are multiple
categories and subcategories, the effluent guidelines are applied using
a flow-weighted combination of the appropriate guideline for each
category or subcategory. Where a facility treats an Industrial Waste
Combustor waste stream and process wastewater from other industrial
operations, the effluent guidelines would be applied by using a flow-
weighted combination of the BPT/BAT/PSES limit for the Industrial Waste
Combustors and the other industrial operations to derive the
appropriate limitations. However, as stated above, 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 on covered pollutants), the permitting authority must
apply those limitations regardless of the limitation derived using the
flow-weighted combinations.
Working in conjunction with the effluent limitations are the
monitoring conditions set out in a NPDES permit. An integral part of
the monitoring conditions is the point at which a facility must monitor
to demonstrate compliance. The point at which a sample is collected can
have a dramatic effect on the monitoring results for that facility.
Therefore, it may be necessary to require internal monitoring points in
order to assure compliance. Authority to address internal waste streams
is provided in 40 CFR 122.44(i)(1)(iii) and 122.45(h). Permit writers
may establish additional internal monitoring points to
[[Page 6420]]
the extent consistent with EPA's regulations.
Appendix 1--Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations
Administrator--The Administrator of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Agency--The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
BAT--The best available technology economically achievable, as
described in Sec. 304(b)(2) of the CWA.
BCT--The best conventional pollutant control technology, as
described in Sec. 304(b)(4) of the CWA.
BOD5--Biochemical oxygen demand, Five Day. A measure
of biochemical decomposition of organic matter in a water sample. It
is determined by measuring the dissolved oxygen consumed by
microorganisms to oxidize the organic contaminants in a water sample
under standard laboratory conditions of five days and 70 deg.C.
BOD5 is not related to the oxygen requirements in
chemical combustion.
Boiler--An enclosed device using controlled flame combustion and
having the following characteristics:
(1)(i) The unit must have physical provisions for recovering and
exporting thermal energy in the form of steam, heated fluids, or
heated gases; and
(ii) The unit's combustion chamber and primary energy recovery
section(s) must be of integral design. To be of integral design, the
combustion chamber and the primary energy recovery section(s) (such
as waterwalls and superheaters) must be physically formed into one
manufactured or assembled unit. A unit in which the combustion
chamber and the primary energy recovery section(s) are joined only
by ducts or connections carrying flue gas is not integrally
designed; however, secondary energy recovery equipment (such as
economizers or air preheaters) need not be physically formed into
the same unit as the combustion chamber and the primary energy
recovery section. The following units are not precluded from being
boilers solely because they are not of integral design: process
heaters (units that transfer energy directly to a process stream),
and fluidized bed combustion units; and
(iii) While in operation, the unit must maintain a thermal
energy recovery efficiency of at least 60 percent, calculated in
terms of the recovered energy compared with the thermal value of the
fuel; and
(iv) The unit must export and utilize at least 75 percent of the
recovered energy, calculated on an annual basis. In this
calculation, no credit shall be given for recovered heat used
internally in the same unit. (Examples of internal use are the
preheating of fuel or combustion air, and the driving of induced or
forced draft fans or feedwater pumps); or
(2) The unit is one which the Regional Administrator has
determined, on a case-by-case basis, to be a boiler, after
considering the standards in Section 260.32.
BPT--The best practicable control technology currently
available, as described in Sec. 304(b)(1) of the CWA.
Captive--Used to describe a facility that only accepts waste
generated on site and/or by the owner operator at the facility.
Centralized waste treatment facility--Any facility that treats
any hazardous or non-hazardous industrial wastes received from off-
site by tanker truck, trailer/roll-off bins, drums, barge, pipeline,
or other forms of shipment. A ``centralized waste treatment
facility'' includes (1) a facility that treats waste received from
off-site exclusively and (2) a facility that treats wastes generated
on-site as well as waste received from off-site.
Clarification--A treatment designed to remove suspended
materials from wastewater--typically by sedimentation.
Clean Water Act (CWA)--The Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), as amended, inter alia,
by the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-217) and the Water
Quality Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-4).
Closed--A facility or portion thereof that is currently not
receiving or accepting wastes and has undergone final closure.
Combustion unit--A device for waste treatment which uses
elevated temperatures as the primary means to change the chemical,
physical, biological character or composition of the waste. Examples
of combustion units are incinerators, fuel processors, boilers,
industrial furnaces, and kilns.
Commercial facility--Facilities that accept waste from off-site
for treatment from facilities not under the same ownership as their
facility. Commercial operations are usually made available for a fee
or other remuneration. Commercial waste treatment does not have to
be the primary activity at a facility for an operation or unit to be
considered ``commercial.''
Conventional pollutants--The pollutants identified in Sec.
304(a)(4) of the CWA and the regulations thereunder (biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD5), total suspended solids (TSS), oil
and grease, fecal coliform, and pH).
Direct discharger--A facility that discharges or may discharge
treated or untreated pollutants into waters of the United States.
Disposal--Intentional placement of waste or waste treatment
residual into or on any land where the material will remain after
closure. Waste or residual placed into any water is not defined as
disposal, but as discharge.
EA--Economic Analysis
Effluent--Wastewater discharges.
Effluent limitation--Any restriction, including schedules of
compliance, established by a State or the Administrator on
quantities, rates, and concentrations of chemical, physical,
biological, and other constituents which are discharged from point
sources into navigable waters, the waters of the contiguous zone, or
the ocean. (CWA Sections 301(b) and 304(b).)
EPA--The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Facility--A facility is all contiguous property owned, operated,
leased or under the control of the same person. The contiguous
property may be divided by public or private right-of-way.
Fuel Blending--The process of mixing organic waste for the
purpose of generating a fuel for reuse.
Hazardous Waste--Any waste, including wastewaters defined as
hazardous under RCRA, Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), or any
state law.
Incinerator--means any enclosed device that:
(1) Uses controlled flame combustion and neither meets the
criteria for classification as a boiler, sludge dryer, or carbon
regeneration unit, nor is listed as an industrial furnace; or
(2) Meets the definition of infrared incinerator or plasma arc
incinerator.
Indirect discharger--A facility that discharges or may discharge
pollutants into a publicly-owned treatment works.
Industrial Furnace--means any of the following enclosed devices
that are integral components of manufacturing processes and that use
thermal treatment to accomplish recovery of materials or energy:
(1) Cement kilns
(2) Lime kilns
(3) Aggregate kilns
(4) Phosphate kilns
(5) Coke ovens
(6) Blast furnaces
(7) Smelting, melting and refining furnaces (including
pyrometallurgical devices such as cupolas, reverberator furnaces,
sintering machine, roasters, and foundry furnaces)
(8) Titanium dioxide chloride process oxidation reactors
(9) Methane reforming furnaces
(10) Pulping liquor recovery furnaces
(11) Combustion devices used in the recovery of sulfur values
from spent sulfuric acid
(12) Halogen acid furnaces (HAFs) for the production of acid
from halogenated hazardous waste generated by chemical production
facilities where the furnace is located on the site of a chemical
production facility, the acid product has a halogen acid content of
at least 3 percent, the acid product is used in a manufacturing
process, and except for hazardous waste burned as fuel, hazardous
waste fed to the furnace has a minimum halogen content of 20 percent
as generated.
(13) Such other devices as the Administrator may, after notice
and comment, add to this list on the basis of one or more of the
following factors:
(i) The design and use of the device primarily to accomplish
recovery of material products;
(ii) The use of the device to burn or reduce raw materials to
make a material product;
(iii) The use of the device to burn or reduce secondary
materials as effective substitutes for raw materials, in processes
using raw materials as principal feedstocks;
(iv) The use of the device to burn or reduce secondary materials
as ingredients in an industrial process to make a material product;
(v) The use of the device in common industrial practice to
produce a material product; and,
(vi) Other factors, as appropriate.
Industrial Waste--Hazardous or non-hazardous waste generated
from industrial operation. This definition excludes refuse and
infectious wastes.
[[Page 6421]]
Industrial Waste Combustor facility--Any thermal unit that burns
any hazardous or non-hazardous industrial wastes received from off-
site from facilities not under their same corporate structure or
subject to the same ownership. This term includes the following: a
facility that burns waste received from off-site exclusively as well
as a facility that burns wastes generated on-site and waste received
from off-site. Examples of a commercial industrial waste combustor
facility include: rotary kiln incinerators, cement kilns, aggregate
kilns, boilers, etc.
Industrial Waste Combustor wastewater--Water used in air
pollution control systems of industrial waste combustion operations
or water used to quench flue gas or slag generated as a result of
industrial waste combustion operations.
Intracompany--A facility that treats, disposes, or recycles/
recovers wastes generated by off-site facilities under the same
corporate ownership. The facility may also treat on-site generated
wastes. If any waste from other facilities not under the same
corporate ownership is accepted for a fee or other remunerations,
the facility is considered commercial.
LTA--Long-term average. For purposes of the effluent guidelines,
average pollutant levels achieved over a period of time by a
facility, subcategory, or technology option. LTAs were used in
developing the limitations and standards in today's proposed
regulation.
Minimum level--The level at which an analytical system gives
recognizable signals and an acceptable calibration point.
Municipal Facility--A facility which is owned or operated by a
municipal, county, or regional government.
New Source--``New source'' is defined at 40 CFR 122.2 and 122.29
for direct discharging facilities and at 40 CFR 403.3 for facilities
discharging to a POTW.
Non-commercial facility--Facilities that accept waste from off-
site for treatment only from facilities under the same ownership as
their facility.
Non-conventional pollutants--Pollutants that are neither
conventional pollutants nor priority pollutants listed at 40 CFR
Part 401.
Non-detect value--A concentration-based measurement reported
below the sample specific detection limit that can reliably be
measured by the analytical method for the pollutant.
Non-hazardous waste--All waste not defined as hazardous under
federal or state law.
Non-water quality environmental impact--An environmental impact
of a control or treatment technology, other than to surface waters.
NPDES--The Natural Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
authorized under Sec. 402 of the CWA. NPDES requires permits for
discharge of pollutants from any point source into waters of the
United States.
NSPS--New Source Performance Standards.
OCPSF--Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers
Manufacturing Effluent Guideline (40 CFR Part 414).
Off-Site--``Off-site'' means outside the boundaries of a
facility.
On-site--``On-site'' means within the boundaries of a facility.
Outfall--The mouth of conduit drains and other conduits from
which a facility effluent discharges into receiving waters or POTWs.
Point source category--A category of sources of water
pollutants.
Pollutant (to water)--Dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator
residue, filter backwash sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions,
chemical wastes, biological materials, certain radioactive
materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar
dirt, and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged
into water.
POTW or POTWs--Publicly-owned treatment works, as defined at 40
CFR 403.3(o).
Pretreatment standard--A regulation that establishes industrial
wastewater effluent quality required for discharge to a POTW. (CWA
Section 307(b).)
Priority pollutants--The pollutants designated by EPA as
priority in 40 CFR Part 423 Appendix A.
Process wastewater--``Process wastewater'' is defined at 40 CFR
122.2.
PSES--Pretreatment standards for existing sources of indirect
discharges, under Sec. 307(b) of the CWA.
PSNS--Pretreatment standards for new sources of indirect
discharges, under Sec. 307(b) and (c) of the CWA.
RCRA--Resource Conventional and Recovery Act (Public Law 94-580)
of 1976, as amended.
Residuals--The material remaining after a natural or
technological process has taken place, e.g., the sludge remaining
after initial wastewater treatment.
Sewage Sludge--Sludge generated by a sewage treatment plant or
POTW.
SIC--Standard Industrial Classification (SIC). A numerical
categorization system used by the U.S. Department of Commerce to
catalogue economic activity. SIC codes refer to the products, or
group of products, produced or distributed, or to services rendered
by an operating establishment. SIC codes are used to group
establishments by the economic activities in which they are engaged.
SIC codes often denote a facility's primary, secondary, tertiary,
etc. economic activities.
Sludge--The accumulated solids separated from liquids during
processing.
Small business--Businesses with annual sales revenues less than
$6 million. This is the Small Business Administration definition of
small business for SIC code 4953, Refuse Systems (13 CFR Ch.I,
Sec. 121.601).
Solidification--The addition of agents to convert liquid or
semi-liquid hazardous waste to a solid before burial to reduce the
leaching of the waste material and the possible migration of the
waste or its constituents from the facility. The process is usually
accompanied by stabilization.
Solids--For the purpose of this notice, a waste that has a very
low moisture content, is not free-flowing, and does not release free
liquids. This definition deals with the physical state of the waste,
not the RCRA definition.
Stabilization--A hazardous waste process that decreases the
mobility of waste constituents by means other than solidification.
Stabilization techniques include mixing the waste with sorbents such
as fly ash to remove free liquids. For the purpose of this rule,
chemical precipitation is not a technique for stabilization.
Treatment--Any activity designed to change the character or
composition of any waste so as to prepare it for transportation,
storage, or disposal; render it amenable for recycling or recovery;
or reduce it in volume.
TSS--Total Suspended Solids. A measure of the amount of
particulate matter that is suspended in a water sample. The measure
is obtained by filtering a water sample of known volume. The
particulate material retained on the filter is then dried and
weighed.
Waste Receipt--Wastes received for treatment or recovery.
Wastewater treatment system--A facility, including contiguous
land and structures, used to receive and treat wastewater. The
discharge of a pollutant from such a facility is subject to
regulation under the Clean Water Act.
Waters of the United States--See 40 CFR 122.2.
Zero discharge--No discharge of pollutants to waters of the
United States or to a POTW. Also included in this definition are
``alternative'' discharge of pollutants by way of evaporation, deep-
well injection, off-site transfer, and land application.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 444
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Incineration, Waste
treatment and disposal, Water pollution control.
Dated: November 26, 1997.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
Accordingly, 40 CFR part 444 is proposed to be added to read as
follows:
PART 444--WASTE COMBUSTORS POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
Subpart A--Industrial Waste Combustor Subcategory
General Provisions
Sec.
444.1 Definitions.
444.2 Scope of this part.
444.3 Monitoring requirements for the Industrial Waste Combustors.
Limitations and Standards for Existing Industrial Waste Combustor
Facilities
444.10 Proposed effluent limitations for existing Industrial Waste
Combustor facilities that discharge Industrial Waste Combustor
wastewater to navigable waters.
444.11 Proposed pretreatment standards for existing Industrial
Waste Combustor facilities that introduce Industrial Waste Combustor
wastewater into a POTW.
[[Page 6422]]
Limitations and Standards for New Industrial Waste Combustor
Facilities
444.20 Proposed effluent limitations for new Industrial Waste
Combustor facilities that will discharge Industrial Waste Combustor
wastewater directly into navigable waters.
444.21 Proposed pretreatment standards for new Industrial Waste
Combustor facilities that will introduce Industrial Waste Combustor
wastewater into a POTW.
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, and 1361.
Subpart A--Industrial Waste Combustor Subcategory
General Provisions
Sec. 444.1 Definitions.
EPA's regulations in this part may use words and phrases that are
unfamiliar to you. To help you understand its regulations in this part,
EPA has defined some of these. You should look at 40 CFR parts 122 and
401 when reading the regulations in this part. In addition to the
definitions in 40 CFR parts 122 and 401, the following definitions
apply specifically to this part:
Conventional pollutants. Section 304 of the CWA requires EPA to
identify conventional pollutants and how much effluent reduction may be
obtained through use of best conventional control technology for
categories of dischargers. EPA has identified the following as
conventional pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5),
total suspended solids (TSS), oil and grease, pH, and fecal coliform.
Facility means all contiguous property owned, operated, leased or
under the control of the same person or entity. The contiguous property
may be divided by public or private right-of-way.
Industrial waste means hazardous or non-hazardous waste generated
from industrial operations. Refuse and infectious wastes are not
industrial waste.
Industrial Waste Combustor facility means any thermal unit that
burns any hazardous or non-hazardous industrial wastes received from
off-site from facilities not under their same corporate structure or
subject to the same ownership. This term includes the following: a
facility that burns waste received from off-site exclusively as well as
a facility that burns wastes generated on-site and waste received from
off-site. Examples of a commercial industrial waste combustor facility
include: rotary kiln incinerators, cement kilns, lime kilns, aggregate
kilns, and boilers.
Industrial Waste Combustor wastewater means water used in air
pollution control systems of industrial waste combustion operations or
water used to quench flue gas or slag generated as a result of
industrial waste combustion operations.
Non-conventional pollutants means pollutants that are neither
conventional pollutants nor priority pollutants.
Off-site means outside the boundaries of a facility.
On-site means within the boundaries of a facility.
POTW. Publicly-owned treatment works as defined at 40 CFR 403.3(o).
Priority pollutants means the pollutants designated by EPA as
priority in 40 CFR part 423, Appendix A.
You means the owner or operator of a commercial industrial waste
combustor facility.
Sec. 444.2 Scope of this part.
(a) Subchapter N of title 40 of the Code of Federal Register
contains EPA's CWA effluent guidelines and standards regulations. The
provisions of this part apply only to the discharge of Industrial Waste
Combustor wastewater. The discharge of other wastewater may be subject
to other applicable provisions of this subchapter N.
(b) The provisions of this part apply to you if:
(1) You operate a commercial, Industrial Waste Combustor facility
that receives industrial waste from off-site for burning; and
(2) You discharge Industrial Waste Combustor wastewater.
(c) The provisions of this part do not apply to you if you operate
an Industrial Waste Combustor facility that only burns wastes that are
generated exclusively on-site and/or burns wastes received exclusively
from off-site from other facilities that are under the same corporate
ownership.
Sec. 444.3 Monitoring requirements for the Industrial Waste
Combustors.
You must monitor to demonstrate compliance with the limitations or
standards. Here are your monitoring requirements: The ``monthly
average'' regulatory values are the basis for the monthly average
effluent limitations in direct discharge permits and pretreatment
standards. You must comply with the monthly average discharge limit
regardless of the number of samples you average.
Limitations and Standards for Existing Industrial Waste Combustor
Facilities
Sec. 444.10 Proposed effluent limitations for existing Industrial
Waste Combustor facilities that discharge Industrial Waste Combustor
wastewater to navigable waters.
The provisions of this section apply to existing direct dischargers
of Industrial Waste Combustor wastewater. If you discharge Industrial
Waste Combustor wastewater, except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through
125.32, you must achieve the effluent limitations listed as follows:
(a) Effluent limitations attainable through the best practicable
control technology currently available (BPT). The following table
specifies the effluent limitations attainable through the best
practicable control technology currently available (BPT):
BPT Effluent Limitations (mg/l)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant parameter for any Monthly
one day average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional Pollutants:
TSS............................................... 24.3 7.46
pH................................................ ........ (\1\)
Priority and Non-Conventional Pollutants:
Arsenic........................................... 0.0166 0.0162
Cadmium........................................... 0.137 0.0493
Chromium.......................................... 0.0205 0.013
Copper............................................ 0.0224 0.0131
Lead.............................................. 0.0957 0.0606
Mercury........................................... 0.00409 0.00259
Silver............................................ 0.0102 0.00648
Titanium.......................................... 0.0442 0.0159
Zinc.............................................. 0.0532 0.0354
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Within the range 6.0 to 90. pH units.
(b) Effluent limitations attainable through the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT). The BCT effluent limitations for
the conventional pollutants, TSS and pH, are the same as those
specified in the table in paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) Effluent limitations attainable through the best available
technology economically achievable (BAT). The BAT effluent limitations
are the same as those specified for BPT for the priority and non-
conventional pollutants in the table in paragraph (a) of this section.
Sec. 444.11 Proposed pretreatment standards for existing Industrial
Waste Combuster facilities that introduce Industrial Waste Combustor
wastewater into a POTW.
The provisions of this section apply to any existing Industrial
Waste Combustor facility that introduces Industrial Waste Combustor
wastewater into a publicly-owned treatment works (POTW). Except as
provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing Industrial Waste
Combustor facility subject to this part must comply with 40 CFR part
403 and the following pretreatment standards for existing sources
(PSES):
[[Page 6423]]
Pretreatment Standards (mg/l)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant parameter for any Monthly
one day average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority and Non-Conventional Pollutants:
Arsenic........................................... 0.0323 0.0172
Cadmium........................................... 0.484 0.160
Chromium.......................................... 0.0203 0.013
Copper............................................ 0.0684 0.0322
Lead.............................................. 0.0968 0.062
Mercury........................................... 0.00536 0.00343
Silver............................................ 0.0193 0.0123
Titanium.......................................... 0.0131 0.00614
Zinc.............................................. 0.248 0.159
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitations and Standards for New Industrial Waste Combustor
Facilities
Sec. 444.20 Proposed effluent limitations for new Industrial Waste
Combustor facilities that will discharge Industrial Waste Combustor
wastewater directly into navigable waters.
Any Industrial Waste Combustor facilities subject to this part that
is a new source must comply with new source performance standards
(NSPS). NSPS is the same as specified in the table in Sec. 444.10(a).
Sec. 444.21 Proposed pretreatment standards for new Industrial Waste
Combustor facilities that will introduce Industrial Waste Combustor
Wastewater into a POTW .
The provisions of this section apply to any industrial Waste
Combustor facility subject to this part that is a new source and
introduces pollutants into a publicly-owned treatment works. Except as
provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new industrial Waste Combustor source
must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and achieve the pretreatment standards
for new sources (PSNS). PSNS is the same as specified in the table in
Sec. 444.11.
[FR Doc. 98-3086 Filed 2-5-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
