99-18478. Data Availability; Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards and New Source Performance Standards for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning Point Source Category

[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 138 (Tuesday, July 20, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38863-38877]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-18478]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 442

[FRL-6400-4]


Data Availability; Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment 
Standards and New Source Performance Standards for the Transportation 
Equipment Cleaning Point Source Category

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of data availability.

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

SUMMARY: On June 25, 1998 (63 FR 34685), EPA proposed technology-based 
effluent limitations guidelines, pretreatment standards, and new source 
performance standards for the discharge of pollutants into waters of 
the United States and into publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) by 
existing and new facilities that perform transportation equipment 
cleaning operations. Transportation equipment cleaning (TEC) facilities 
are defined as facilities that generate wastewater from cleaning the 
interior of tank trucks, closed-top hopper trucks, rail tank cars, 
closed-top hopper rail cars, intermodal tank containers, inland tank 
barges, closed-top hopper barges, ocean/sea tankers, and other similar 
tanks (excluding drums and intermediate bulk containers) used to 
transport materials or cargos that come into direct contact with the 
tank or container interior.
    This notice presents a summary of data received in comments since 
the proposal and an assessment of the usefulness of the data in EPA's 
analyses; presents new data collected by EPA to support effluent 
limitations in the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory; presents a 
change from the mass-based limits format of the proposal; presents a 
modified subcategorization approach; reviews technology options 
considered for regulation; and discusses other specific issues raised 
by commenters including: selection of pollutants proposed for 
regulation, the costs associated with the regulation, a low flow 
exclusion, and the applicability of the rule. EPA solicits public 
comment on any of the issues or information presented in this notice of 
data availability and in the administrative record supporting this 
notice.

DATES: Submit your comments by September 20, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments to Mr. John Tinger at the following address: 
US EPA, Engineering and Analysis Division (4303), 401 M. St. SW, 
Washington, DC 20460.
    The data and analyses being announced today are available for 
review in the EPA Water Docket at EPA Headquarters at Waterside Mall, 
Room EB-57, 401 M. St. SW, Washington, DC 20460. For access to the 
docket materials, call [phone] between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. 
for an appointment. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional technical information, 
contact Mr. John Tinger at [phone] or at the following e-mail 
address: [e-mail]. For additional economic information 
contact Mr. George Denning at [phone] or at the following e-mail 
address: [e-mail].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Contents of This Document

I. Purpose of This Notice
II. Data Acquired Since the Proposal
III. Concentration-Based Limitations
IV. Modification to Subcategorization Approach
V. Low Flow Exclusion
VI. Revision of Pollutant Loading Estimates
VII. Discussion of Applicability Issues
    A. Coverage of IBCs
    B. Overlap With Other Guidelines
VIII. Modification to Pollutants Selected for Regulation
    A. Oil and Grease and Non-Polar Material as Indicator Parameters
    B. Pass Through of SGT-HEM
IX. Technology Options
    A. Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
    1. BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS for the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum 
Subcategory
    2. PSES and PSNS for the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
    B. Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
    1. BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS for the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum 
Subcategory
    2. PSES and PSNS for the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory

[[Page 38864]]

    C. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
    1. BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS for the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum 
Subcategory
    2. PSES and PSNS for the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
    D. Food Subcategory
    BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS for the Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and 
Barge/Food Subcategories
X. Presentation of Concentration-Based Limitations

I. Purpose of This Notice

    On June 25, 1998 (63 FR 34685), EPA proposed regulations for the 
Transportation Equipment Cleaning Point Source Category. EPA has 
received numerous comments and data submissions concerning the 
proposal. In this document, EPA is making these new data submissions 
available for comment. Additionally, EPA is providing a discussion of 
additional analyses performed relating to specific issues raised by 
commenters. EPA is also presenting a revised approach to several 
aspects of the proposal which received numerous comments. EPA solicits 
comment on all revised approaches that EPA will consider for final 
action.

II. Data Acquired Since the Proposal

    Since proposal, EPA has obtained additional data and information 
from the industry, publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), and the 
Agency's continued data collection activities. The Agency has included 
these data, information, and the preliminary results of EPA's 
evaluation in sections 15 through 22 of the supporting record of this 
document, available for review in the Water Docket (see Addresses 
section). The industry and POTW information and data submittals are 
related to cost of treatment, pass through of pollutants at POTWs, and 
site visit reports from several facilities visited since proposal. The 
specific data, information, and comments provided to EPA are discussed 
in detail throughout the following sections of this document.
    The Agency collected treatment performance data from two additional 
Barge/Chemical & Petroleum facilities operating BPT/BAT treatment. The 
data consisted of effluent self monitoring data for conventional 
pollutants over a one year period from both facilities, and effluent 
self monitoring data for priority pollutants over a one year period 
from one facility, totaling approximately 190 effluent data points. The 
facilities also provided self monitoring data for chemical oxygen 
demand (COD) at the influent to biological treatment over the same time 
period. Complete site visit reports, raw data results, and statistical 
methodology are available for review in sections 17 and 21 of the 
supporting record of this document. EPA recalculated the BPT 
concentration-based effluent limitations and new source performance 
standards for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended 
solids (TSS) based on effluent data from these two facilities.

III. Concentration-Based Limitations

    EPA proposed to establish mass-based rather than concentration-
based limits for the TEC industry, specified as grams of pollutant per 
tank cleaned. Numerous stakeholders have identified potential 
difficulties with implementing mass-based limits as proposed. In 
proposing mass-based limits, the Agency envisioned that the allowable 
discharge by a facility would be based on the average number of tanks 
cleaned at that facility on an annual basis. One of the main 
difficulties with this approach is the high variability in the number 
of tanks cleaned by a facility. The nature of a service industry is 
such that a tank cleaning facility has little control over the number 
of tanks which are brought in to be cleaned on a daily, monthly, or 
yearly basis. It is similarly difficult to predict the number of tanks 
that a facility will clean in an upcoming year. The Agency agrees with 
commenters that this variation may make it difficult to develop 
appropriate mass-based limits for a facility.
    Additionally, the Agency agrees with stakeholders who have stated 
that the amount of wastewater necessary to clean a tank is dependent on 
several factors which may make it difficult for a permitting authority 
to develop appropriate mass based limits. These factors may not have 
been fully accounted for in the Agency's calculation of the regulatory 
flow per tank which was used to establish mass-based limits. For 
example, the amount of water necessary to clean a tank depends on the 
cargos accepted (products such as molasses and tar will require more 
water), the type of tanks cleaned (a tank with an interior frame will 
require more water to clean), and the condition of the tank (some 
barges are only cleaned every few years and may have accumulated 
significant amounts of residue which would require greater volumes of 
water to clean). Because of the variation in the water volumes which 
may be necessary to clean a tank, EPA agrees that the regulatory flow 
per tank developed in the proposal may not be appropriate for some 
facilities. This in turn could lead to inappropriate calculations of 
mass-based limits, since mass-based limits are calculated on the basis 
of flow.
    Based on these comments and due to the potential difficulties of 
implementing mass-based limits, EPA will consider promulgating 
concentration-based limits for the final regulation. Because of this 
possibility, EPA has presented revised effluent limitations, 
pretreatment standards and new source performance standards as 
concentration-based standards for all subcategories in tables at the 
end of this notice.
    Although EPA will consider promulgating concentration-based limits, 
EPA believes that there would remain an economic incentive for 
facilities to use as little water as possible in their cleaning 
operations. In the cost model developed for the proposal, for example, 
EPA has assessed the cost to install water conservation measures as 
well as various end-of-pipe wastewater treatment technologies. EPA has 
determined that the compliance cost to the industry is generally less 
when water conservation measures are employed. EPA has therefore 
continued to cost wastewater flow reduction as a component of treatment 
options in the truck and rail subcategories, even though it may decide 
to promulgate concentration-based limits. For the Barge/Chemical & 
Petroleum Subcategory, however, EPA has eliminated costs for flow 
reduction because of the high variability in wastewater volumes 
required for barge cleaning.
    EPA solicits comment on setting concentration-based limitations.

IV. Modification to Subcategorization Approach

    In the proposal, the Agency solicited comment on an approach to 
subcategorization that would combine the chemical and petroleum 
subcategories.
    The majority of stakeholders submitting comments supported 
combining the petroleum and chemical subcategories in order to 
facilitate implementation of the rule. Stakeholders have identified 
several specific examples of products and situations where it may be 
difficult to clearly determine whether a facility would be subject to 
the chemical or petroleum limitations. EPA agrees that the proposed 
definition of the petroleum and chemical subcategories are not as clear 
as the Agency would prefer.
    One option to address this would be for EPA to clarify the 
definitions of the petroleum and chemical subcategories, and therefore 
to clarify the definitions of

[[Page 38865]]

``petroleum'' and ``chemical'' cargos. In this instance, EPA would have 
to make the definitions much more specific to address the numerous 
applicability issues raised in comments by amending the definition or 
by specifically listing a significant number of products. EPA believes 
that this may not be the best approach because it may increase 
confusion by creating a set of unwieldy definitions which still may not 
be able to address all potential regulatory circumstances.
    In addition, many parties requested that EPA simplify the TEC rule 
so as to create as little ambiguity as possible. Of particular concern 
to affected parties was that EPA provide unambiguous, straightforward 
definitions which provide clear direction for implementation. 
Therefore, EPA does not believe that augmenting the definition of the 
petroleum and chemical subcategories would be the best option.
    Due to concerns with implementing the subcategorization approach as 
proposed and the support for this change by commenters, EPA will 
consider combining the petroleum and chemical subcategories. EPA 
believes that this approach may provide the most unambiguous and 
implementable subcategorization scheme.
    However, EPA realizes that combining these subcategories would have 
the consequence of bringing 37 petroleum facilities which the Agency 
had previously concluded did not merit regulation under coverage of the 
TEC rule. In the proposal, EPA tentatively decided not to establish 
limits for the petroleum subcategories due to the low pollutant 
loadings associated with this segment of the industry. One of the 
greatest differences in wastewater characteristics between the chemical 
and petroleum subcategories was the amount of wastewater generated from 
tank cleaning. Generally, petroleum facilities generate significantly 
less water than chemical facilities. For example, 288 truck chemical 
facilities generated 708 million gallons per year of interior cleaning 
wastewater (average of 2.5 million gallons per facility per year), 
compared to 34 truck petroleum facilities which generated 2.5 million 
gallons per year (average of 74,000 gallons per facility per year). For 
the rail facilities, 38 chemical grade facilities generated 91 million 
gallons per year (average of 2.4 million gallons per facility per year) 
compared to three petroleum facilities which generated 2,800 gallons 
per year (average of 930 gallons per facility per year). The low 
pollutant loadings associated with the petroleum subcategories can be 
predominantly attributed to the low wastewater volumes generated from 
cleaning petroleum products. As discussed in Section V of this notice, 
EPA is also considering a low flow exclusion of 100,000 gallons per 
year of regulated TEC process wastewater. As stated above, one reason 
for not regulating facilities in the petroleum subcategories was due to 
the low pollutant loads generated by this subcategory. Twenty eight of 
the 37 facilities in the proposed Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum 
Subcategories discharge less than 100,000 gallons of wastewater per 
year. These facilities also generate much less than 1% of the industry 
loadings calculated for proposal. Thus, EPA continues to believe that 
the majority of petroleum facilities do not merit regulation. EPA 
believes that the approach of excluding facilities on the basis of flow 
rather than on the basis of cargo would result in a more implementable 
regulation, and that these changes would be consistent with the 
rationale and conclusions reached in the proposal.
    The combined result of the revised subcategorization approach and 
low flow exclusion is that one model facility (representing nine 
facilities) excluded at proposal would be added to the Truck/Chemical & 
Petroleum Subcategory. This model facility was evaluated as a small 
business in the impacts analysis and Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) panel report and review (section 12, 
DCN T10301 of the proposed record) and dischargers approximately 
200,000 gallons per year of TEC wastewater. This facility does not 
experience closure as a result of compliance costs in the Truck/
Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. In addition, one model facility 
(representing 11 facilities) previously regulated in the Truck/Chemical 
Subcategory would be excluded from the regulation.
    In the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, two model facilities 
(representing 8 facilities) previously covered at proposal would be 
excluded from the regulation if EPA adopts the low flow exclusion. The 
complete revised costs, loads, and impacts for the subcategories are 
discussed in section IX of this document.
    In addition to combining the chemical and petroleum subcategories, 
EPA will also consider combining the Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/
Food Subcategories. In the proposal, subcategorization was necessary 
because the truck, rail, and barge facilities had different regulatory 
flows per tank which resulted in different mass-based limits for each 
subcategory. However, if EPA decides to promulgate concentration-based 
limits, subcategorization by transportation mode is unnecessary and EPA 
will likely promulgate one set of limits for all food subcategories.
    EPA solicits comments on the alternative subcategorization approach 
that combines the chemical and petroleum subcategories for rail and 
truck cleaning facilities.

V. Low Flow Exclusion

    In the proposal, EPA considered establishing a minimum flow level 
for defining the scope of the regulation. EPA conducted an analysis of 
the loads discharged by low flow facilities, but concluded that these 
facilities discharged proportional loadings and therefore EPA did not 
propose a low flow exclusion.
    Several commenters noted that the lowest flow level EPA considered 
for an exclusion was 2,000 gallons per day. They suggested that the 
Agency consider a flow exclusion based on a lower level of wastewater 
generation. The commenters noted that several POTWs have successfully 
implemented low flow exclusions of 300 to 500 gallons per day. In order 
to address these comments, EPA conducted an analysis to determine the 
effect of a low flow exclusion at 100,000 gallons per year of regulated 
TEC process wastewater. This equates to approximately 400 gallons per 
day (assuming 250 days of operation), as was suggested by the 
commenters. EPA believes that an exclusion based on annual flow is more 
appropriate than daily flow due to the potential daily variation in 
wastewater generation rates.
    Based on this analysis, EPA found that 28 of 37 facilities in the 
proposed Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories would qualify 
for the low flow exclusion. Additionally, 11 indirect discharging 
Truck/Chemical facilities and eight indirect discharging Rail/Chemical 
facilities would qualify for the exclusion. One model direct 
discharging Barge/Chemical & Petroleum facility (representing three 
facilities) would be excluded because the majority of wastewater 
generated at this facility is subject to another categorical standard, 
and the facility generates a small amount of TEC wastewater incidental 
to its main business.
    As discussed in section IV, EPA will consider combining the 
chemical and petroleum subcategories for the Truck and Rail segments of 
the industry. EPA therefore analyzed the low flow exclusion in terms of 
this combined

[[Page 38866]]

subcategorization. EPA determined that the loads from the facilities 
discharging less than 100,000 gallons per year generated much less than 
1% of the total loads for the entire truck and rail subcategories.
    Due to the very low loadings associated with facilities discharging 
less than 100,000 gallons per year, EPA will consider adopting a low 
flow exclusion from this regulation for the TEC guideline. 
Additionally, EPA has received comments from commercial and 
manufacturing facilities that may clean a small number of tanks which 
may not clearly qualify for the exclusion of manufacturing facilities. 
EPA believes that the adoption of a low flow exclusion will have the 
benefit of providing flexibility to these facilities which may be 
unsure of their regulatory status under the TEC guideline.
    EPA envisions that the low flow exclusion would apply to any 
facility which discharges less than 100,000 gallons per year of 
regulated TEC process wastewater. Regulated TEC wastewater includes 
only wastewater generated from a regulated TEC subcategory. Process 
wastewater includes all wastewaters associated with cleaning the 
interiors of tanks including, but not limited to: tank trucks; rail 
tank cars; intermodal tank containers; inland tank barges; and ocean/
sea tankers used to transport commodities or cargos that come into 
direct contact with the tank or container interior. TEC process 
wastewaters also include wastewater generated from washing vehicle 
exteriors, equipment and floor washings, and TEC-contaminated 
stormwater. The revised costs and loads discussed in section IX of this 
document reflect the deletion of model facilities that discharge less 
than 100,000 gallons per year of regulated TEC process wastewater.
    Facilities discharging less than 100,000 gallons per year of 
regulated TEC process wastewater will remain subject to limitations and 
standards established on a case by case basis using best professional 
judgement by the permitting authority.
    EPA requests comment on the low flow exclusion from this regulation 
of 100,000 gallons per year. EPA additionally requests comment on 
alternative low flow exclusions between 100,000 and 500,000 gallons per 
year. EPA notes that an exclusion set at 200,000 gallons per year would 
exclude the one remaining model facility in the Truck/Chemical & 
Petroleum Subcategory that EPA did not originally intend to regulate as 
part of the proposed Truck/Petroleum Subcategory. EPA will analyze the 
economic and environmental effects of an exclusion set at this flow 
level and may consider such an exclusion for the final rule.

VI. Revision of Pollutant Loading Estimates

    In the proposal, the Agency calculated pollutant loadings for each 
regulatory option in each subcategory based on the set of pollutants 
effectively removed by the treatment technology. These loadings were 
then used for evaluating the various technology options in each 
subcategory.
    In order to determine the list of pollutants effectively removed, 
EPA used a set of editing criteria to identify pollutants of interest 
in the subcategory, and to determine which pollutants were effectively 
treated by the regulatory option. In general, pollutants were only 
included in the analysis if they were detected in raw wastewater 
samples from more than one facility, were detected at an average 
concentration at least five times the minimum level of quantification 
(ML), and were removed by 50% or more in the proposed treatment option. 
These criteria were used to ensure that the pollutants were present at 
treatable concentrations in raw wastewaters, and that the presence of 
the pollutant was representative of the industry's wastewater, as 
described in section VIII.C of the proposal.
    In the proposal, EPA described that it used a modified set of 
editing criteria for pesticide and herbicide pollutants than was used 
for the other pollutants. Due to the relative toxicity of some 
pesticides and herbicides even at low levels, the Agency proposed that 
any pesticide or herbicide detected in any raw wastewater sample be 
considered a pollutant of interest. No other editing criteria were used 
to determine if a pesticide or herbicide was a pollutant of interest 
for the industry.
    Many commenters were concerned that the pesticides and herbicides 
account for a large portion of the toxic loads in the Truck/Chemical 
and Rail/Chemical Subcategories. Several commenters disagreed with the 
adoption of modified screening criteria and questioned whether these 
pesticides and herbicides were actually present in raw wastewaters. 
Specifically, several of the pesticides and herbicides which 
contributed a significant portion of the toxic loadings were detected 
at only one or two facilities, and/or were found at levels only 
slightly above the ML. Also, commenters noted in several instances that 
the laboratory results from the primary and secondary columns differed 
by more than a factor of three, thereby resulting in a ``best 
obtainable'' qualification of these data. Notably, the detects for 
coumaphos and azinphos ethyl, which accounted for 74% of the pound 
equivalent removals in the Truck/Chemical Subcategory Option II, both 
had this data qualifier. In these instances, commenters argued that the 
presence of the pesticides and herbicides in the analytical samples may 
be the result of matrix interference due to the low quantification 
levels.
    Consequently, EPA reviewed the data to confirm that the target 
analytes were appropriately identified and quantified. EPA reviewed 
laboratory calculations; compared the database, summary hard copy, and 
raw data results for transcription errors; double checked all QC data; 
and evaluated the chromatograms and other raw data. EPA concluded that 
all calculations were correct and no transcription errors were present 
among the raw data, summary level, and database results. Blank results 
showed no signs of contamination, and all calibration verification and 
ongoing precision and recovery results were within acceptable limits. 
In addition, surrogate standards, which are spiked into each of the 
field samples, generated acceptable recoveries. An evaluation of the 
chromatograms for these samples confirmed that azinphos ethyl and 
coumophos were appropriately identified within the respective retention 
time windows of both the primary and secondary columns. The results of 
this analysis, including the chromatograms, are available for review in 
section 17.2 of the supporting record for this document.
    In instances where the values obtained from the primary and 
secondary columns differed, the final result reported in the database 
and used for all Agency calculations is the lower of the two values. 
This only affected raw wastewater values because effluent wastewater 
concentrations were generally found below the quantification level, and 
were therefore set at the ML. Therefore, EPA has consistently used the 
lowest of the potential sampling values for determining the raw 
wastewater concentrations, and has used the highest of the potential 
sampling values for effluent concentrations. This is a conservative 
approach that likely results in a low bias in subsequent pollutant 
reduction estimates.
    Although the Agency has confirmed the presence of these analytes in 
wastewater samples, the Agency agrees with commenters that there are 
concerns about the level of certainty that can be achieved when such 
low quantification levels are involved. This is a particular concern 
due to the significant impact that pesticide and

[[Page 38867]]

herbicide removals had on the calculation of toxic loadings. Therefore, 
the Agency is considering applying the same editing criteria to 
pesticides and herbicides as were established in the proposal for all 
other pollutants.
    In this case, EPA would only consider those pollutants detected at 
more than one wastewater characterization sample and at an average 
concentration at least five times the ML as a potential pollutant 
effectively removed. Although EPA has concluded that pollutants such as 
azinphos ethyl and coumophos are indeed present in TEC wastewaters, EPA 
also believes that it may be appropriate to utilize the same criteria 
for pesticide/herbicide pollutants as were used in the proposal for all 
non-pesticide/herbicide parameters.
    EPA has therefore re-evaluated its list of pollutants effectively 
removed for each subcategory, applying the applicable criteria to 
pesticides and herbicides. Under this approach, several pesticides and 
herbicides would be deleted from the list of pollutants effectively 
removed. This would in turn significantly decreased the toxic pound 
equivalents attributed to raw and treated TEC wastewaters.
    In section VIII of the proposal, EPA also discussed analytical 
results for dioxins and furans in raw wastewater for the TEC industry. 
EPA did not include dioxins and furans in the loadings calculations 
because EPA assumed that these were isolated, site-specific instances. 
EPA received several comments disagreeing with the Agency's assumption. 
In response to this, EPA re-evaluated the presence of dioxins and 
furans in wastewater based on the standard editing criteria described 
above. EPA found that several pollutants met the editing criteria to be 
considered a pollutant effectively removed, and EPA has therefore 
included several dioxin and furan removals in the loadings 
calculations.
    The revised removals of toxic pound equivalents by each technology 
option are presented in section IX of this document. EPA solicits 
comment on the revised methodology for calculating pollutant removals.

VII. Discussion of Applicability Issues

A. Coverage of IBCs

    In the proposal, EPA indicated that it did not intend to regulate 
wastewater generated from Intermediate Bulk Containers (IBCs) for 
several reasons discussed in the preamble and in the report prepared by 
the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel. IBCs were defined in the 
proposal as portable containers with 450 liters (119 gallons) to 3000 
liters (793 gallons) capacity. Although EPA did not have data to 
calculate the loads associated with IBC cleaning, EPA assumed that the 
loadings generated from IBC cleaning were not a significant portion of 
the loadings of the TEC industry. EPA based this assumption on several 
data comparisons. First, based on responses to the 1994 detailed 
questionnaire (section 6.3. DCN T09842 of the proposed record), EPA 
estimated that 84,500 IBCs per year were cleaned by the TEC industry. 
This accounted for only 3% of the units cleaned at TEC facilities. 
Second, EPA assumed that wastewater generated from IBCs is similar to 
that of the drum reconditioning industry. EPA reasoned that IBCs were 
being used as a replacement for 55 gallon drums, and that the cargos 
being transported in IBCs were similar to those being transported in 
drums. Therefore, resulting IBC wastewater would be expected to be 
similar to that of drum reconditioning wastewater. EPA had conducted 
The Preliminary Data Summary for the Drum Reconditioning Industry (EPA 
440/1-89/101 September 1989), and EPA concluded at that time that the 
industry did not merit national regulation. Drum reconditioning 
facilities were therefore not considered within the scope of the TEC 
guideline, and EPA concluded that IBCs should also be excluded from the 
scope of this guideline.
    EPA has received comments which have both agreed and disagreed with 
the Agency's proposal to exclude IBCs from the scope of the TEC 
regulation. The most significant comments received on the IBC issue 
have described the changes in the industry since EPA's data collection 
efforts. In 1989, the Preliminary Data Summary for the Drum 
Reconditioning Industry did not collect any data on IBCs because so few 
IBCs were being used by the industry. By 1994, according to responses 
to the detailed questionnaire for the TEC industry, over 84,000 IBCs 
were being cleaned at TEC facilities. Data submitted by commenters have 
shown that IBC cleanings have increased dramatically in each year since 
EPA's survey. Based on data provided in comments, EPA now believes that 
there are up to several million IBCs being cleaning annually.
    In the preamble, EPA solicited comment on the loads associated with 
IBC cleaning, and on the assumption that IBC wastewater was similar to 
drum reconditioning wastewater. Although no commenters provided data on 
the raw wastewater characteristics of IBC cleaning wastewater, several 
commenters did provide information on the amount of heel associated 
with IBCs as compared to that from drums and tank trucks. As several 
commenters noted, most IBCs are cleaned at facilities which have 
historically cleaned either drums or tank trucks, and IBC wastewater is 
therefore commingled with drums or tank truck cleaning wastewater. For 
this reason, EPA was unable to obtain wastewater sampling data which 
would be representative of wastewater generated solely from cleaning 
IBCs.
    In terms of the amount of heel contained in an IBC, one commenter 
who supports coverage of IBCs said that IBCs typically contain between 
0.5 to two gallons of heel. In comparison, a tank truck typically 
contains one to two gallons of heel, but may contain up to five to 10 
gallons of heel for more viscous products. Another commenter who 
supports no regulation for IBCs noted that IBCs that have carried 
hazardous waste must contain less than one gallon of residue to be 
processed by a reconditioner, less than one inch of heel (typically 1.6 
gallons) for more viscous products for containers less than 110 
gallons, or less than 0.3% residue for containers greater than 110 
gallons (approximately 0.83 gallons for a 275-gallon IBC) to be 
considered RCRA empty.
    The 1994 questionnaire for the TEC industry gave similar results, 
with tank trucks containing <1 to="" 9="" gallons="" of="" heel="" for="" non-food="" grade="" products,="" and="" ibcs="" containing=""><1 to="" 2="" gallons="" of="" heel.="" epa="" has="" not="" received="" any="" comments="" on="" whether="" or="" not="" the="" cargos="" transported="" in="" ibcs="" are="" similar="" or="" dissimilar="" to="" those="" transported="" by="" drum="" or="" tank="" truck.="" based="" on="" site="" visits="" and="" conversations="" with="" the="" national="" tank="" truck="" carriers="" association,="" epa="" believes="" that="" all="" truck="" facilities="" which="" clean="" ibcs="" treat="" ibc="" and="" tank="" washwater="" in="" the="" same="" wastewater="" treatment="" system,="" indicating="" that="" ibc="" and="" tank="" washwater="" contain="" similar="" constituents="" in="" terms="" of="" treatability.="" personnel="" at="" these="" sites="" also="" indicated="" that="" they="" see="" no="" significant="" difference="" in="" the="" types="" of="" cargos="" transported="" in="" ibcs="" or="" tank="" trucks.="" epa="" believes="" that="" all="" drum="" reconditioning="" facilities="" that="" clean="" ibcs="" also="" treat="" ibc="" and="" drum="" washwater="" in="" the="" same="" wastewater="" treatment="" system.="" based="" on="" the="" increase="" in="" ibc="" cleaning="" and="" on="" the="" heel="" generation="" rate="" from="" ibcs,="" epa="" no="" longer="" believes="" that="" wastewater="" generated="" from="" ibc="" cleanings="" represents="" an="" insignificant="" amount="" of="" pollutant="" loadings.="" the="" association="" of="" container="" reconditioners="" argued="" that="" ibcs="" should="" be="" considered="" industrial="" packaging="" units="" and="" should="" be="" regulated="" similarly="" to="" drums="" because="" ibcs="" are="" closer="" in="" nature="" [[page="" 38868]]="" to="" drums="" than="" to="" tank="" trucks.="" the="" commenter="" argued="" that="" ibcs="" (typically="" 275="" gallons)="" are="" closer="" in="" volume="" to="" drums="" (55="" gallons)="" than="" tank="" trucks="" (typically="" 3,000="" gallons),="" and="" that="" ibcs="" are="" replacing="" drums,="" not="" tank="" trucks,="" in="" the="" industry="" because="" of="" their="" increased="" efficiency="" and="" ability="" to="" be="" re-used.="" the="" commenter="" further="" stated="" that="" this="" designation="" is="" consistent="" with="" policies="" developed="" by="" the="" department="" of="" transportation,="" which="" includes="" ibcs="" with="" drums="" as="" industrial="" packaging="" units.="" epa="" agrees="" that="" ibcs="" are="" more="" similar="" to="" drums="" than="" transportation="" equipment,="" and="" continues="" to="" believe="" that="" wastewater="" generated="" from="" ibc="" cleaning="" is="" outside="" the="" scope="" of="" this="" guideline.="" however,="" epa="" does="" agree="" with="" commenters="" that="" ibc="" wastewater="" may="" represent="" more="" loadings="" than="" was="" originally="" considered="" at="" proposal.="" due="" to="" this,="" epa="" is="" conducting="" a="" preliminary="" evaluation="" of="" the="" industrial="" repackaging="" industry,="" which="" includes="" cleaning="" drums="" and="" ibcs,="" to="" determine="" if="" this="" industry="" merits="" development="" of="" national="" categorical="" wastewater="" regulation="" at="" a="" later="" date.="" wastewater="" generated="" from="" ibc="" cleaning="" will="" remain="" subject="" to="" limitations="" and="" standards="" established="" on="" a="" case="" by="" case="" basis="" using="" best="" professional="" judgement="" by="" the="" permitting="" authority.="" one="" issue="" that="" was="" raised="" in="" comments="" by="" the="" national="" tank="" truck="" carriers="" association="" (nttc)="" as="" a="" result="" of="" epa="" proposing="" to="" exclude="" ibcs="" was="" the="" issue="" of="" market="" competition.="" nttc="" argues="" that="" tank="" truck="" cleaners="" would="" suffer="" a="" competitive="" disadvantage="" from="" the="" ibc="" cleaning="" business="" if="" tank="" trucks="" were="" required="" to="" comply="" with="" the="" regulation="" but="" ibcs="" were="" not="" covered="" by="" the="" regulation.="" the="" commenter="" argued="" that="" a="" tank="" truck="" facility="" would="" be="" subject="" to="" effluent="" guidelines="" and="" that="" ibc="" wastewater="" generated="" at="" the="" facility="" would="" therefore="" also="" be="" subject="" to="" the="" guidelines,="" thereby="" increasing="" the="" cost="" of="" ibc="" cleaning="" at="" tank="" truck="" facilities="" as="" compared="" to="" the="" cost="" at="" drum="" reconditioning="" facilities.="" epa="" agrees="" that="" most="" tank="" truck="" facilities="" commingle="" wastewater="" generated="" from="" ibc="" and="" tank="" cleaning="" for="" treatment,="" and="" that="" ibc="" wastewater="" would="" therefore="" be="" subjected="" to="" guidelines="" established="" for="" the="" tec="" industry.="" nttc="" further="" argues="" that="" a="" facility="" not="" subject="" to="" the="" tec="" guideline,="" such="" as="" a="" drum="" reconditioning="" facility,="" is="" not="" subject="" to="" national="" effluent="" guidelines="" and="" therefore="" may="" not="" incur="" a="" similar="" cost="" increase="" for="" ibc="" cleaning.="" epa="" realizes="" that,="" even="" if="" the="" agency="" decides="" to="" establish="" effluent="" limitations,="" guidelines="" and="" standards="" for="" the="" container="" reconditioning="" industry,="" there="" may="" be="" an="" interim="" period="" where="" wastewater="" from="" ibc="" cleaning="" at="" tank="" truck="" facilities="" may="" incur="" additional="" costs="" while="" wastewater="" from="" ibc="" cleaning="" at="" drum="" reconditioning="" facilities="" would="" not="" incur="" this="" cost.="" this="" may="" have="" an="" impact="" on="" the="" market="" for="" ibc="" cleaning="" if="" the="" costs="" are="" significant.="" epa="" conducted="" a="" market="" analysis="" based="" on="" the="" tec="" cost="" model,="" data="" submitted="" in="" comments,="" and="" data="" gathered="" by="" epa="" since="" the="" proposal.="" the="" complete="" analysis="" can="" be="" found="" in="" section="" 20="" of="" the="" regulatory="" record="" in="" support="" of="" this="" document.="" epa="" does="" not="" have="" sufficient="" data="" to="" compare="" the="" number="" of="" ibc="" cleanings="" conducted="" by="" tec="" affected="" tank="" truck="" facilities="" to="" the="" number="" of="" ibc="" cleanings="" conducted="" at="" facilities="" unaffected="" by="" the="" guideline.="" therefore,="" epa="" relied="" on="" an="" analysis="" of="" the="" incremental="" compliance="" cost="" of="" ibc="" cleaning="" that="" would="" result="" from="" this="" rule,="" and="" compared="" that="" to="" the="" potential="" market="" effects="" that="" this="" increase="" would="" have="" on="" tec="" facilities.="" in="" order="" to="" determine="" the="" incremental="" cost="" per="" gallon="" of="" wastewater="" treated="" as="" a="" result="" of="" the="" tec="" regulation,="" epa="" divided="" the="" facility-="" specific="" annualized="" compliance="" costs="" by="" the="" facility's="" annual="" baseline="" wastewater="" flow.="" the="" incremental="" cost="" for="" ibc="" cleaning="" was="" determined="" by="" assuming="" that="" 100="" gallons="" of="" wastewater="" generated="" per="" ibc="" cleaning="" would="" be="" treated="" at="" the="" facility's="" treatment="" system.="" epa="" estimated="" 100="" gallons="" per="" cleaning="" based="" on="" facility="" site="" visits,="" comments="" received="" on="" the="" proposal,="" and="" the="" 308="" detailed="" questionnaire.="" the="" incremental="" costs="" are="" a="" result="" of="" the="" additional="" operation="" and="" maintenance="" costs="" associated="" with="" this="" wastewater="" flow.="" this="" is="" consistent="" with="" an="" assumption="" that="" the="" primary="" business="" of="" tec="" facilities="" is="" cleaning="" tank="" trucks,="" and="" that="" capital="" equipment="" for="" wastewater="" pollutant="" control="" is="" installed="" for,="" and="" effluent="" monitoring="" is="" performed="" for,="" tank="" truck="" cleaning.="" based="" on="" this="" analysis,="" epa="" estimates="" that="" the="" average="" cost="" increase="" incurred="" by="" tank="" truck="" facilities="" to="" clean="" an="" ibc="" as="" a="" result="" of="" this="" regulation="" would="" be="" $0.38="" per="" ibc.="" this="" represents="" a="" cost="" increase="" of="" less="" than="" 1%="" for="" ibc="" cleaning="" at="" tec="" facilities,="" assuming="" an="" average="" cost="" per="" cleaning="" of="" $65="" to="" $100.="" for="" a="" sensitivity="" analysis,="" epa="" also="" looked="" at="" the="" total="" post-tax="" annualized="" compliance="" costs="" (including="" annualized="" capital="" and="" monitoring="" costs="" in="" addition="" to="" operating="" and="" maintenance="" costs)="" to="" determine="" an="" upper="" bound="" estimate="" of="" incremental="" ibc="" cleaning="" costs.="" for="" this="" analysis,="" epa="" found="" that="" the="" full="" compliance="" costs="" of="" installing="" capital="" equipment="" and="" monitoring="" requirements="" to="" treat="" ibc="" wastewater="" would="" increase="" by="" a="" maximum="" of="" $1.10="" per="" cleaning,="" representing="" less="" than="" 2%="" cost="" increase="" for="" the="" most="" conservative="" assumption.="" based="" on="" this="" analysis,="" epa="" believes="" that="" the="" cost="" increase="" to="" clean="" ibcs="" will="" not="" have="" a="" significant="" impact="" on="" the="" competitive="" ability="" of="" tank="" truck="" carriers="" to="" compete="" for="" the="" ibc="" cleaning="" market.="" epa="" solicits="" comment="" on="" the="" assumptions,="" methodology,="" and="" conclusions="" of="" the="" market="" analysis="" conducted="" by="" epa="" on="" the="" effect="" of="" not="" including="" ibcs="" within="" the="" scope="" of="" the="" tec="" regulation.="" epa="" solicits="" any="" information="" on="" the="" price="" of="" ibc="" cleaning,="" the="" volume="" of="" wastewater="" generated="" from="" ibcs,="" the="" economic="" importance="" of="" ibc="" cleaning="" to="" affected="" facilities,="" and="" the="" relative="" market="" shares="" of="" different="" types="" of="" facilities="" engaged="" in="" ibc="" cleaning.="" b.="" overlap="" with="" other="" guidelines="" epa="" has="" received="" numerous="" comments="" from="" industrial="" facilities="" that="" are="" concerned="" that="" they="" may="" be="" affected="" by="" the="" tec="" guideline.="" in="" the="" proposal,="" epa="" noted="" that="" there="" may="" be="" instances="" when="" the="" tec="" guideline="" may="" overlap="" with="" other="" categorical="" effluent="" guidelines.="" in="" the="" proposal,="" epa="" explained="" that="" it="" does="" not="" intend="" to="" cover="" manufacturing="" facilities="" which="" clean="" their="" own="" transportation="" equipment="" and="" treat="" the="" wastewater="" in="" their="" treatment="" system.="" epa="" has="" outlined="" its="" rationale="" for="" the="" exclusion="" of="" manufacturing="" facilities="" in="" the="" proposal.="" this="" rationale="" includes:="" (1)="" that="" wastewater="" generated="" from="" tank="" cleaning="" operations="" at="" manufacturing="" facilities="" is="" typically="" a="" very="" small="" percentage="" of="" the="" total="" flow,="" (2)="" that="" tank="" cleaning="" wastewater="" is="" typically="" included="" in="" the="" coverage="" of="" the="" applicable="" categorical="" standard,="" and="" (3)="" that="" the="" characteristics="" of="" the="" tank="" cleaning="" wastewater="" are="" similar="" in="" treatability="" to="" the="" wastewater="" generated="" at="" the="" rest="" of="" the="" facility.="" epa="" has="" proposed="" to="" define="" the="" exclusion="" for="" manufacturing="" facilities="" by="" excluding="" those="" facilities="" covered,="" or="" proposed="" to="" be="" covered,="" under="" other="" clean="" water="" act="" categorical="" standards.="" this="" has="" excluded="" most="" manufacturing="" facilities="" in="" operation,="" including="" facilities="" covered="" under="" organic="" chemicals,="" plastics="" and="" synthetic="" fibers="" (ocpsf)="" (40="" cfr="" part="" 414);="" centralized="" waste="" treatment="" (cwt)="" (proposed="" 40="" cfr="" part="" 437,="" 60="" fr="" 5464,="" january="" 27,1995;="" supplemental="" proposal="" 64="" fr="" 8,="" january="" 13,="" 1999);="" dairy="" products="" processing="" point="" source="" category="" (40="" cfr="" part="" 405);="" inorganic="" chemicals="" manufacturing="" point="" source="" category="" [[page="" 38869]]="" (40="" cfr="" part="" 415);="" and="" petroleum="" refining="" point="" source="" category="" (40="" cfr="" part="" 415).="" based="" on="" the="" data="" collected="" in="" preliminary="" studies="" for="" certain="" industries="" (e.g.,="" chemical="" formulators,="" packagers,="" and="" repackagers,="" paint="" formulators),="" epa="" determined="" that="" development="" of="" effluent="" guidelines="" was="" not="" necessary.="" tec="" wastewaters="" generated="" by="" these="" facilities="" in="" these="" industries="" are="" excluded="" from="" the="" applicability="" of="" this="" rule.="" in="" addition,="" epa="" further="" qualified="" the="" exclusion="" by="" stating="" that="" the="" exclusion="" applies="" only="" to="" facilities="" which="" clean="" ``tanks="" containing="" cargos="" or="" commodities="" generated="" or="" used="" on-site,="" or="" by="" a="" facility="" under="" the="" same="" corporate="" structure.''="" epa="" used="" this="" qualifier="" to="" ensure="" that="" a="" manufacturing="" facility="" does="" not="" become="" a="" commercial="" tec="" operation="" without="" being="" subject="" to="" this="" rulemaking,="" and="" that="" the="" excluded="" facility="" only="" cleans="" those="" cargos="" which="" are="" compatible="" with="" the="" existing="" wastewater="" treatment="" system.="" based="" on="" comments="" received="" on="" the="" proposed="" rule,="" epa="" believes="" that="" it="" should="" consider="" making="" the="" exclusion="" somewhat="" broader="" in="" order="" to="" encompass="" tec="" activities="" which="" fall="" within="" epa's="" rationale="" for="" exclusion,="" yet="" which="" may="" fall="" outside="" the="" definition="" of="" ``on-site''="" or="" ``same="" corporate="" structure.''="" commenters="" have="" identified="" several="" areas="" which="" epa="" intends="" to="" address="" in="" this="" exclusion:="" product="" stewardship="" activities,="" tolling="" or="" contract="" manufacturing="" operations,="" and="" manufacturing="" agreements="" that="" are="" part="" of="" divestitures,="" partnerships,="" or="" joint-ventures.="" several="" commenters="" to="" the="" proposed="" rule="" indicated="" that="" product="" stewardship="" activities="" are="" intended="" to="" promote="" recycling="" and="" reuse="" of="" products,="" and="" to="" reduce="" the="" environmental="" impact="" of="" chemical="" products.="" product="" stewardship="" activities="" may="" include="" taking="" back:="" spent,="" used,="" or="" unused="" products;="" containers="" (i.e.,="" those="" used="" for="" shipping)="" with="" product="" residues;="" off-specification="" products;="" and="" waste="" materials="" from="" use="" of="" products.="" where="" possible,="" these="" materials="" are="" recovered="" and="" reused="" in="" chemical="" processes="" at="" the="" manufacturing="" plants.="" returned="" materials="" that="" are="" not="" reusable,="" or="" residues="" that="" remain="" after="" reuse,="" are="" usually="" treated="" or="" disposed="" in="" the="" existing="" on-site="" wastewater="" treatment="" system,="" incinerator,="" or="" placed="" in="" an="" appropriately="" regulated="" landfill.="" tolling="" or="" contract="" manufacturing="" operations="" are="" described="" by="" commenters="" as="" an="" arrangement="" used="" in="" the="" chemical="" industry="" to="" enable="" a="" company="" to="" contract="" with="" a="" second="" company="" (i.e.,="" a="" ``toller'')="" to="" engage="" in="" specified="" production="" activities="" on="" behalf="" of="" the="" first="" company.="" toll="" manufacturers="" often="" perform="" one="" step="" in="" a="" customer's="" multi-step="" process,="" such="" as="" production="" of="" an="" intermediate,="" and="" are="" often="" an="" integral="" part="" of="" the="" supply="" chain="" for="" the="" customer's="" final="" product.="" raw="" materials="" used="" by="" toll="" manufacturers="" are="" often="" provided="" by="" the="" primary="" manufacturer="" and="" the="" toller="" returns="" the="" intermediate="" along="" with="" any="" by-products="" and="" waste="" materials.="" commenters="" also="" provided="" input="" on="" manufacturing="" agreements="" that="" are="" part="" of="" divestitures,="" partnerships,="" or="" joint-ventures.="" commenters="" felt="" that="" manufacturing="" complexes="" that="" have="" individual="" operating="" units="" or="" have="" created="" joint="" venture="" partnerships="" under="" separate="" legal="" ownership="" should="" still="" be="" considered="" ``on-site''="" for="" the="" purposes="" of="" the="" tec="" rulemaking,="" provided:="" the="" facilities="" continue="" to="" manufacture="" the="" same="" products="" and="" generate="" the="" same="" wastewater="" destined="" for="" the="" same="" on-site="" treatment="" system,="" including="" tec="" wastewater.="" any="" infrastructure="" operations="" such="" as="" waste="" treatment="" and="" tec="" operations="" continue="" to="" be="" provided="" to="" the="" new="" company="" per="" an="" agreement="" established="" at="" the="" time="" of="" divestiture="" or="" formation="" of="" the="" joint="" venture="" partnership.="" in="" each="" of="" these="" cases,="" commenters="" believe="" that="" the="" wastewaters="" generated="" from="" performing="" tec="" activities="" is="" very="" similar="" to="" that="" generated="" by="" the="" primary="" manufacturing="" facility.="" if="" tec="" wastewaters="" are="" returned="" to="" the="" primary="" manufacturing="" facility,="" or="" tec="" wastewaters="" are="" generated="" from="" cleaning="" tanks="" containing="" materials="" returned="" to="" the="" primary="" manufacturer,="" these="" facilities="" should="" be="" considered="" under="" the="" control="" of="" the="" primary="" manufacturer="" and="" excluded="" from="" the="" tec="" regulation.="" epa="" believes="" that="" these="" activities="" satisfy="" the="" proposed="" exclusion="" rationale="" because:="" (1)="" tec="" wastewater="" comprises="" a="" very="" small="" percentage="" of="" flow,="" (2)="" tec="" wastewater="" is="" typically="" included="" in="" the="" coverage="" of="" the="" applicable="" categorical="" standard,="" and="" (3)="" tec="" wastewater="" characteristics="" are="" similar="" in="" treatability="" to="" wastewater="" generated="" by="" other="" facility="" operations.="" therefore,="" epa="" will="" consider="" excluding="" tec="" wastewater="" generated="" at="" manufacturing="" facilities="" which="" have="" resulted="" from="" product="" stewardship="" activities,="" tolling="" or="" contract="" manufacturing="" operations,="" and="" manufacturing="" agreements="" that="" are="" part="" of="" divestitures,="" partnerships,="" or="" joint-ventures.="" however,="" epa="" is="" rejecting="" the="" comment="" that="" all="" manufacturing="" facilities="" simply="" be="" excluded="" from="" the="" tec="" guideline.="" epa="" does="" not="" believe="" that="" a="" manufacturing="" facility="" which="" accepts="" off="" site="" cargos="" for="" cleaning="" should="" be="" excluded="" because="" the="" wastewater="" generated="" from="" these="" cargos="" may="" not="" be="" compatible="" with="" the="" treatment="" system="" in="" place="" and="" may="" not="" be="" compatible="" with="" the="" existing="" discharge="" limitations="" established="" for="" that="" facility.="" additionally,="" this="" blanket="" exclusion="" could="" allow="" a="" manufacturing="" facility="" to="" become="" a="" for-profit="" tank="" cleaner="" without="" comparable="" environmental="" controls.="" although="" epa="" is="" not="" providing="" a="" blanket="" exclusion="" for="" manufacturing="" facilities,="" epa="" will="" consider="" a="" low="" flow="" exclusion="" of="" 100,000="" gallons="" per="" year="" for="" tec="" wastewaters="" as="" discussed="" in="" section="" v.="" epa="" believes="" the="" exclusion="" would="" provide="" some="" flexibility="" to="" manufacturing="" facilities="" which="" clean="" small="" numbers="" of="" tanks="" which="" may="" not="" fit="" into="" the="" strict="" definition="" given="" for="" the="" exclusion="" of="" tank="" cleaning="" operations="" at="" manufacturing="" facilities.="" epa="" is="" considering="" the="" following="" language="" to="" exclude="" these="" manufacturing="" facilities:="" ``the="" final="" tec="" limitations="" do="" not="" apply="" to="" wastewaters="" associated="" with="" tank="" cleanings="" operated="" in="" conjunction="" with="" other="" industrial="" or="" commercial="" operations="" so="" long="" as="" the="" facility="" only="" cleans="" tanks="" that="" have="" contained="" raw="" materials,="" by-products="" and="" finished="" products="" that="" are="" associated="" with="" the="" facility's="" on-site="" processes.''="" on-site="" means="" the="" contiguous="" and="" non-contiguous="" property="" within="" the="" established="" boundary="" of="" a="" facility.="" with="" regard="" to="" the="" overlap="" with="" the="" metal="" products="" and="" machinery="" (mp&m)="" guideline,="" epa="" has="" also="" received="" numerous="" comments,="" many="" of="" them="" asking="" the="" agency="" to="" more="" clearly="" distinguish="" an="" mp&m="" facility="" from="" a="" tec="" facility.="" in="" the="" proposal,="" epa="" stated="" that="" facilities="" which="" are="" predominately="" engaged="" in="" mp&m="" operations="" and="" clean="" barges,="" railcars,="" or="" tank="" trucks="" as="" part="" of="" those="" activities="" are="" proposed="" to="" be="" regulated="" by="" the="" mp&m="" guideline="" and="" are="" excluded="" from="" this="" guideline.="" epa="" has="" received="" numerous="" comments="" asking="" epa="" to="" more="" clearly="" define="" what="" is="" meant="" by="" ``predominantly="" engaged.''="" one="" commenter="" suggested="" that="" epa="" use="" flow="" as="" a="" basis="" for="" the="" determination;="" facilities="" should="" be="" covered="" under="" the="" guideline="" that="" generates="" the="" largest="" flow="" volume.="" although="" this="" would="" be="" a="" relatively="" straightforward="" definition,="" epa="" does="" not="" believe="" that="" flow="" volume="" represents="" the="" best="" method="" for="" determining="" tec="" or="" mp&m="" applicability.="" epa="" believes="" that="" the="" activities="" performed="" at="" the="" site="" (both="" tank="" cleaning="" and="" maintenance="" and="" repair),="" and="" the="" objective="" of="" those="" [[page="" 38870]]="" activities,="" have="" a="" more="" significant="" impact="" on="" the="" total="" final="" effluent="" loads="" and="" wastewater="" characteristics="" than="" the="" actual="" flow="" volume="" generated.="" however,="" epa="" does="" agree="" with="" commenters="" that="" the="" agency="" needs="" to="" further="" clarify="" when="" a="" facility="" is="" to="" be="" subject="" to="" the="" tec="" guidelines="" or="" the="" mp&m="" guidelines.="" therefore,="" epa="" has="" attempted="" to="" further="" define="" wastewaters="" subject="" to="" the="" tec="" guideline,="" according="" to="" the="" following:="" wastewater="" generated="" from="" cleaning="" tank="" interiors="" for="" the="" purposes="" of="" maintenance="" and="" repair="" on="" the="" tank="" is="" considered="" mp&m="" process="" wastewater="" and="" is="" subject="" to="" the="" mp&m="" guideline.="" facilities="" which="" clean="" tank="" interiors="" solely="" for="" the="" purposes="" of="" repair="" and="" maintenance="" would="" be="" solely="" regulated="" under="" the="" mp&m="" guideline.="" wastewater="" generated="" from="" cleaning="" tank="" interiors="" for="" purposes="" of="" shipping="" products="" (i.e.,="" cleaned="" for="" purposes="" other="" than="" maintenance="" and="" repair)="" is="" considered="" tec="" process="" wastewater="" and="" is="" subject="" to="" the="" tec="" guideline.="" if="" epa="" promulgates="" a="" 100,000="" gallons="" per="" year="" low="" flow="" exclusion,="" only="" facilities="" which="" discharge="" more="" than="" 100,000="" gallons="" per="" year="" of="" tec="" process="" wastewater="" would="" be="" subject="" to="" the="" tec="" guideline.="" it="" is="" possible="" that="" a="" facility="" may="" be="" subject="" to="" both="" the="" tec="" regulations="" and="" the="" mp&m="" regulations.="" if="" a="" facility="" generates="" wastewater="" from="" mp&m="" activities="" which="" are="" subject="" to="" the="" mp&m="" guideline="" and="" also="" discharges="" wastewater="" from="" cleaning="" tanks="" for="" purposes="" other="" than="" repair="" and="" maintenance="" of="" those="" tanks,="" then="" that="" facility="" may="" be="" subject="" to="" both="" guidelines.="" at="" the="" time="" of="" proposal,="" epa="" included="" all="" facilities="" which="" would="" potentially="" be="" covered="" by="" the="" mp&m="" guideline="" in="" the="" analysis="" of="" costs="" and="" impacts="" due="" to="" the="" uncertainty="" of="" the="" classification="" of="" these="" facilities.="" based="" on="" the="" new="" definition,="" which="" epa="" believes="" more="" clearly="" defines="" an="" mp&m="" facility,="" epa="" has="" collected="" additional="" data="" on="" those="" facilities="" which="" indicated="" in="" the="" 308="" survey="" that="" they="" perform="" a="" predominant="" amount="" of="" mp&m="" activities.="" based="" on="" this="" data,="" epa="" determined="" that="" several="" facilities="" proposed="" to="" be="" covered="" by="" the="" tec="" rule="" would="" now="" not="" be="" affected="" by="" the="" tec="" rule.="" these="" facilities="" have="" been="" excluded="" from="" epa's="" analyses,="" the="" results="" of="" which="" are="" described="" in="" section="" ix="" of="" this="" document.="" epa="" solicits="" comment="" on="" the="" revised="" applicability="" language="" of="" the="" rule,="" including="" the="" definition="" ``mp&m="" generated="" wastewaters.''="" viii.="" modification="" to="" pollutants="" selected="" for="" regulation="" in="" the="" proposal,="" epa="" solicited,="" and="" has="" received,="" numerous="" comments="" from="" stakeholders="" on="" the="" pollutants="" selected="" for="" regulation="" in="" each="" subcategory.="" epa="" is="" considering="" several="" changes="" based="" on="" the="" comments="" received.="" the="" tables="" in="" section="" x="" present="" limitations="" and="" standards="" for="" the="" revised="" set="" of="" pollutants="" epa="" will="" consider="" for="" regulation.="" epa="" solicits="" comment="" on="" the="" list="" of="" analytes="" being="" considered="" for="" regulation="" in="" all="" subcategories.="" a.="" oil="" and="" grease="" and="" non-polar="" material="" as="" indicator="" parameters="" epa="" has="" revised="" the="" name="" of="" ``total="" petroleum="" hydrocarbons''="" in="" method="" 1664="" to="" ``non-polar="" material''="" to="" indicate="" that="" the="" new="" test="" method="" is="" different="" from="" previous="" versions.="" (64="" fr="" 26315,="" may="" 14,="" 1999).="" non-polar="" materials="" are="" measured="" by="" silica-gel="" treated="" n-hexane="" extractable="" material="" (sgt-hem).="" oil="" and="" grease="" continues="" to="" be="" synonymous="" with="" the="" method="" 1664="" for="" n-hexane="" extractable="" material="" (hem).="" epa="" received="" numerous="" comments="" from="" potws,="" industry="" trade="" associations,="" and="" affected="" facilities="" suggesting="" that="" epa="" use="" oil="" and="" grease="" (measured="" as="" hem)="" and="" total="" petroleum="" hydrocarbons="" (now="" referred="" to="" as="" ``non-polar="" materials''="" measured="" as="" sgt-hem)="" as="" indicator="" pollutants="" for="" straight="" chain="" hydrocarbons="" proposed="" for="" regulation.="" in="" the="" proposal,="" epa="" proposed="" to="" regulate="" hem="" for="" direct="" discharging="" facilities,="" and="" sgt-hem="" for="" indirect="" discharging="" facilities.="" as="" discussed="" in="" section="" xiii.g="" of="" the="" proposal,="" epa="" recognizes="" the="" distinction="" between="" edible="" oils="" (such="" as="" animal="" fats="" and="" vegetable="" oils)="" included="" in="" the="" hem="" analysis,="" and="" petroleum="" based="" oils="" as="" measured="" by="" the="" sgt-hem="" analysis.="" as="" discussed="" in="" section="" viii.b="" of="" this="" document,="" epa="" has="" deemed="" sgt-hem="" to="" pass="" through="" a="" potw="" due="" to="" the="" prevalence="" of="" petroleum="" based="" compounds.="" many="" commenters="" argued="" that="" straight="" chain="" hydrocarbons="" are="" components="" of="" hem="" and="" sgt-hem,="" and="" that="" their="" regulation="" would="" be="" redundant="" and="" would="" impose="" additional,="" unnecessary="" costs="" on="" the="" industry.="" epa="" agrees="" with="" the="" commenters="" that="" hem="" and="" sgt-hem="" are="" good="" indicator="" parameters="" for="" a="" number="" of="" pollutants="" proposed="" for="" regulation.="" epa="" believes="" that="" the="" following="" pollutants="" would="" be="" adequately="" controlled="" through="" the="" regulation="" of="" hem="" and="" sgt-hem:="" n-="" hexadecane,="" n-tetradecane,="" n-decane,="" n-docosane,="" n-dodecane,="" n-="" eicosane,="" n-octadecane,="" n-tetracosane,="" and="" n-tetradecane.="" epa="" has="" primarily="" made="" this="" determination="" based="" on="" the="" similar="" chemical="" structure="" of="" these="" parameters="" which="" indicate="" that="" they="" will="" behave="" similarly="" in="" a="" treatment="" system.="" epa="" believes="" that="" hem="" and="" sgt-hem="" are="" the="" best="" indicators="" for="" demonstrating="" treatment="" effectiveness="" for="" this="" range="" of="" pollutants="" with="" similar="" chemical="" characteristics.="" epa="" has="" reviewed="" the="" treatment="" effectiveness="" data="" collected="" in="" support="" of="" this="" regulation,="" and="" has="" found="" that="" the="" treatment="" effectiveness="" of="" these="" parameters="" is="" strongly="" correlated="" to="" the="" treatment="" effectiveness="" of="" hem="" and="" sgt-hem.="" in="" cases="" where="" hem="" and="" sgt-="" hem="" were="" effectively="" controlled,="" all="" of="" the="" previously="" discussed="" pollutants="" were="" treated="" to="" very="" low="" levels,="" often="" at="" the="" detection="" limit.="" for="" example,="" pses/psns="" option="" ii="" in="" the="" rail/chemical="" &="" petroleum="" subcategory,="" consisting="" of="" oil/water="" separation="" and="" dissolved="" air="" flotation.="" this="" system="" achieved="" a="" 98%="" removal="" for="" hem="" and="" 97%="" removal="" for="" sgt-hem.="" treatment="" effectiveness="" for="" the="" straight="" chain="" hydrocarbons="" listed="" above="" averaged="" 98%="" across="" the="" same="" system="" and="" were="" all="" treated="" to="" non-detect="" levels.="" treatment="" effectiveness="" in="" the="" barge/="" chemical="" &="" petroleum="" subcategory="" demonstrated="" similar="" results.="" additionally,="" epa="" reviewed="" data="" collected="" for="" the="" effluent="" limitations="" guidelines="" and="" pretreatment="" standards="" for="" the="" industrial="" laundries="" point="" source="" category="" (62="" fr="" 242,="" december="" 17,="" 1997,="" proposed="" 40="" cfr="" part="" 441),="" which="" conducted="" a="" characterization="" study="" of="" the="" hem="" and="" sgt-hem="" test="" methods.="" this="" study="" was="" performed="" to="" determine="" what="" individual="" constituents="" are="" measured="" by="" the="" analytical="" methods,="" and="" is="" available="" for="" review="" in="" section="" 16="" of="" the="" regulatory="" record="" for="" the="" industrial="" laundries="" effluent="" guideline.="" this="" data="" demonstrates="" that="" the="" previously="" mentioned="" pollutants="" were="" found="" to="" be="" measured="" by="" the="" hem="" and="" sgt-hem="" test="" methods,="" thus="" supporting="" epa's="" conclusion="" that="" hem="" and="" sgt-hem="" are="" good="" indicators="" of="" these="" pollutants.="" b.="" pass="" through="" of="" sgt-hem="" epa="" received="" one="" comment="" which="" disagreed="" with="" the="" agency's="" pass="" through="" conclusion="" for="" sgt-hem.="" the="" commenter="" stated="" that="" sgt-hem="" is="" adequately="" treated="" by="" potws="" or="" does="" not="" pass="" through="" and="" thus="" should="" not="" be="" regulated.="" in="" the="" proposal,="" epa="" did="" not="" have="" actual="" data="" for="" removals="" of="" sgt-="" hem="" in="" a="" potw.="" instead,="" epa="" relied="" on="" the="" methodology="" developed="" in="" the="" industrial="" laundries="" proposal,="" which="" [[page="" 38871]]="" calculated="" a="" removal="" rate="" based="" on="" sgt-hem="" constituents.="" one="" commenter,="" the="" county="" sanitation="" districts="" of="" los="" angeles="" county,="" disagreed="" with="" this="" approach="" and="" submitted="" five="" days="" of="" influent="" and="" effluent="" sgt-hem="" using="" method="" 1664.="" this="" information="" was="" also="" submitted="" and="" evaluated="" for="" the="" proposed="" effluent="" limitations,="" guidelines,="" and="" standards="" for="" the="" industrial="" laundries="" point="" source="" category="" (62="" fr="" 242,="" december="" 17,="" 1997).="" of="" the="" five="" days="" of="" data,="" only="" three="" of="" the="" days="" contained="" usable="" paired="" data="" for="" calculating="" sgt-hem="" removals.="" two="" of="" the="" five="" days="" of="" data="" could="" not="" be="" used="" because="" one="" day="" had="" an="" effluent="" value="" greater="" than="" the="" influent="" value,="" and="" the="" other="" day="" did="" not="" have="" a="" reported="" influent="" concentration.="" a="" limitation="" of="" the="" three="" remaining="" paired="" data="" sets="" that="" were="" used="" to="" calculate="" the="" percent="" removal="" for="" sgt-hem="" was="" that="" the="" sets="" did="" not="" result="" in="" a="" precise="" estimate,="" but="" only="" a="" lower="" bound="" estimate.="" because="" the="" effluent="" concentrations="" were="" below="" the="" method="" detection="" level,="" a="" percent="" removal="" could="" only="" be="" calculated="" as="" ``greater="" than''="" some="" value.="" the="" greater="" than="" values="" ranged="" from="" 37.5="" percent="" to="" 73.7="" percent.="" for="" the="" purpose="" of="" this="" document,="" epa="" used="" the="" daily="" data="" with="" the="" highest="" influent="" concentration,="" resulting="" in="" a="" percent="" removal="" estimate="" of="" 74="" percent="" for="" the="" revised="" pass-through="" evaluation.="" the="" percent="" removal="" for="" sgt-hem="" using="" one="" day="" of="" data="" from="" la="" county="" (the="" day="" with="" the="" highest="" influent="" concentration)="" is="" 74="" percent,="" compared="" to="" 65="" percent="" potw="" removal="" used="" in="" the="" proposed="" rule.="" this="" value="" is="" still="" significantly="" lower="" than="" the="" 99%="" removal="" achieved="" by="" preferred="" bpt="" treatment="" technologies="" evaluated="" in="" the="" rail/chemical="" &="" petroleum="" and="" barge/chemical="" &="" petroleum="" subcategories.="" epa="" believes="" sgt-hem="" has="" been="" demonstrated="" to="" pass="" through,="" and="" that="" sgt-hem="" is="" a="" good="" indicator="" parameter="" for="" a="" number="" of="" toxic="" and="" nonconventional="" pollutants="" as="" discussed="" in="" section="" viii.b.="" in="" addition,="" the="" use="" of="" a="" relatively="" inexpensive="" monitoring="" method="" for="" sgt-hem="" justifies="" regulating="" sgt-hem="" rather="" than="" individually="" regulating="" the="" host="" of="" pollutants="" controlled="" by="" such="" a="" limitation.="" additionally,="" several="" commenters="" from="" industry="" as="" well="" as="" potw="" representatives="" have="" requested="" that="" epa="" use="" oil="" and="" grease="" and="" sgt-hem="" as="" indicator="" parameters="" for="" a="" number="" of="" other="" pollutants.="" as="" discussed="" above,="" epa="" has="" reviewed="" the="" data="" from="" sampling="" episodes,="" and="" believes="" that="" the="" data="" clearly="" demonstrates="" a="" correlation="" between="" oil="" and="" grease="" and="" the="" pollutants="" listed="" in="" section="" viii.b.="" therefore,="" epa="" believes="" that="" sgt-hem="" does="" pass="" through="" a="" potw,="" and="" furthermore="" that="" hem="" and="" sgt-hem="" can="" be="" used="" as="" effective="" indicator="" parameters.="" ix.="" technology="" options="" in="" the="" proposal,="" epa="" considered="" establishing="" 11="" sets="" of="" effluent="" limitations,="" pretreatment="" standards="" or="" new="" source="" performance="" standards="" for="" six="" subcategories.="" epa="" received="" many="" comments="" suggesting="" that="" epa="" simplify="" the="" proposal="" in="" order="" to="" ease="" the="" implementation="" burden="" of="" the="" rule.="" in="" this="" document,="" epa="" has="" described="" several="" regulatory="" alternatives,="" including="" the="" use="" of="" concentration-based="" limits,="" a="" low="" flow="" exclusion,="" combining="" the="" chemical="" and="" petroleum="" subcategories="" and="" combining="" the="" truck/food,="" rail/food,="" and="" barge/food="" subcategories,="" which="" epa="" believes="" will="" simplify="" the="" tec="" rule.="" epa="" has="" also="" considered="" the="" effects="" of="" clarification="" of="" scope="" in="" evaluating="" costs="" and="" loadings="" and="" in="" evaluating="" the="" proposed="" technology="" options.="" a.="" truck/chemical="" &="" petroleum="" subcategory="" as="" mentioned="" previously,="" epa="" will="" consider="" combining="" the="" proposed="" truck/chemical="" and="" truck/petroleum="" subcategories.="" epa="" will="" also="" consider="" a="" low="" flow="" exclusion="" of="" 100,000="" gallons="" per="" year.="" the="" results="" presented="" in="" this="" section="" reflect="" these="" potential="" changes.="" epa="" is="" re-evaluating="" the="" proposed="" options="" in="" this="" subcategory="" in="" response="" to="" comments="" received="" on="" the="" proposal.="" the="" major="" changes="" that="" have="" affected="" this="" analysis="" include="" revising="" the="" list="" of="" pollutants="" effectively="" removed="" and="" adjusting="" the="" cost="" model.="" revisions="" to="" the="" cost="" model="" were="" made="" based="" on="" comments="" received="" and="" based="" on="" a="" thorough="" review="" of="" the="" model="" by="" epa.="" the="" complete="" list="" of="" revisions="" to="" the="" cost="" model="" can="" be="" found="" in="" section="" 19.1="" of="" the="" regulatory="" record.="" in="" summary,="" epa="" increased="" several="" cost="" factors,="" increased="" capital="" and="" annual="" costs="" for="" activated="" carbon,="" increased="" the="" size="" (and="" associated="" costs)="" of="" equalization="" tanks,="" corrected="" several="" cost="" model="" inaccuracies="" identified="" in="" the="" proposal="" rulemaking="" record,="" revised="" the="" methodology="" to="" credit="" treatment="" in="" place,="" and="" removed="" flow="" reduction="" for="" some="" facilities.="" epa="" also="" significantly="" reduced="" the="" monitoring="" costs="" associated="" with="" compliance="" due="" to="" the="" selection="" of="" indicator="" parameters="" (further="" discussed="" in="" section="" viii.b)="" to="" replace="" specific="" pollutants="" proposed="" for="" regulation,="" and="" use="" of="" less="" expensive="" analytical="" methods.="" 1.="" bpt,="" bct,="" bat="" and="" nsps="" for="" the="" truck/chemical="" &="" petroleum="" subcategory="" in="" the="" proposal,="" epa="" evaluated="" the="" following="" treatment="" options:="" option="" i:="" flow="" reduction,="" equalization,="" oil/water="" separation,="" chemical="" oxidation,="" neutralization,="" coagulation,="" clarification,="" biological="" treatment,="" and="" sludge="" dewatering.="" option="" ii:="" flow="" reduction,="" equalization,="" oil/water="" separation,="" chemical="" oxidation,="" neutralization,="" coagulation,="" clarification,="" biological="" treatment,="" activated="" carbon="" adsorption,="" and="" sludge="" dewatering.="" epa="" proposed="" to="" establish="" bpt="" limits="" based="" on="" option="" ii,="" and="" to="" establish="" bct,="" bat,="" and="" nsps="" equivalent="" to="" bpt.="" in="" the="" proposal,="" epa="" stated="" that="" all="" model="" facilities="" have="" equalization,="" coagulation/="" clarification,="" biological="" treatment,="" and="" activated="" carbon="" in="" place.="" two="" of="" the="" three="" facilities="" in="" the="" cost="" model="" have="" sufficient="" treatment="" in="" place="" and="" only="" costs="" for="" additional="" monitoring="" are="" attributed="" to="" these="" facilities.="" the="" third="" facility="" was="" costed="" for="" flow="" reduction,="" sludge="" dewatering,="" and="" monitoring.="" flow="" reduction="" and="" sludge="" dewatering="" generates="" net="" cost="" savings="" for="" the="" facility's="" entire="" treatment="" train.="" in="" addition,="" these="" net="" cost="" savings="" are="" larger="" than="" the="" monitoring="" costs="" incurred="" by="" the="" other="" two="" facilities.="" epa="" is="" not="" considering="" any="" changes="" to="" the="" option="" selected="" for="" this="" subcategory.="" the="" revised="" concentration-based="" limits="" for="" option="" ii="" are="" presented="" in="" section="" x="" of="" this="" document.="" 2.="" pses="" and="" psns="" for="" the="" truck/chemical="" &="" petroleum="" subcategory="" in="" the="" proposal,="" epa="" evaluated="" two="" treatment="" options,="" consisting="" of:="" option="" i:="" flow="" reduction,="" equalization,="" oil/water="" separation,="" chemical="" oxidation,="" neutralization,="" coagulation,="" clarification,="" and="" sludge="" dewatering.="" option="" ii:="" flow="" reduction,="" equalization,="" oil/water="" separation,="" chemical="" oxidation,="" neutralization,="" coagulation,="" clarification,="" activated="" carbon="" adsorption,="" and="" sludge="" dewatering.="" in="" response="" to="" comment,="" epa="" is="" presenting="" the="" following="" additional="" option="" in="" this="" notice:="" option="" a:="" flow="" reduction,="" equalization,="" oil/water="" separation.="" option="" a="" was="" determined="" to="" have="" a="" post="" tax="" annualized="" cost="" of="" $5.5="" million="" ($8.6="" million="" pre-tax)="" for="" 286="" affected="" facilities.="" option="" i="" cost="" $9.1="" million="" [[page="" 38872]]="" ($14.3="" million="" pre-tax)="" and="" option="" ii="" cost="" $19.9="" million="" ($31.2="" million="" pre-tax)="" annualized.="" epa="" projects="" that="" there="" will="" be="" no="" adverse="" economic="" impacts="" for="" any="" option="" when="" a="" positive="" cost="" pass="" through="" assumption="" is="" made.="" however,="" epa="" has="" also="" looked="" at="" the="" conservative="" assumption="" of="" no="" cost="" pass="" through,="" which="" resulted="" in="" seven="" closures="" at="" option="" ii="" and="" no="" closures="" at="" option="" i.="" option="" a="" is="" projected="" to="" remove="" 1,700="" toxic="" pound-equivalents,="" while="" option="" i="" removes="" 26,000="" and="" option="" ii="" removes="" 42,000="" toxic="" pound-="" equivalents.="" epa="" does="" not="" believe="" that="" the="" lower="" cost="" option="" a="" demonstrated="" significant="" removals="" of="" toxics="" to="" justify="" its="" selection="" as="" a="" regulatory="" option.="" option="" a="" was="" considerably="" less="" cost="" effective="" than="" option="" i.="" additionally,="" epa="" received="" comments="" from="" pretreatment="" authorities,="" including="" the="" association="" of="" metropolitan="" sewerage="" agencies="" (amsa),="" which="" argued="" that="" oil/water="" separation="" alone="" is="" not="" effective="" for="" achieving="" concentration="" standards="" for="" the="" pollutants="" which="" may="" be="" discharged="" by="" tank="" cleaning="" operations.="" option="" ii="" was="" not="" demonstrated="" to="" achieve="" significant="" reductions="" incremental="" to="" option="" i="" for="" any="" pollutant="" proposed="" for="" regulation.="" the="" majority="" of="" the="" additional="" pound-equivalent="" removals="" achieved="" at="" option="" ii="" were="" due="" to="" the="" removal="" of="" a="" pesticide="" not="" proposed="" for="" regulation="" and="" not="" contributing="" to="" the="" monetized="" benefits.="" epa="" estimates="" that="" implementation="" of="" option="" i="" will="" result="" in="" monetized="" benefits="" of="" $2.7="" million="" to="" $9.4="" million="" (1994="" dollars)="" annually.="" epa="" estimates="" that="" option="" ii="" will="" not="" result="" in="" any="" significant="" additional="" benefits="" incremental="" to="" option="" i.="" epa="" proposed="" to="" establish="" pses="" and="" psns="" on="" option="" ii.="" due="" to="" the="" high="" costs="" and="" potential="" economic="" impacts="" associated="" with="" option="" ii,="" and="" due="" to="" the="" significant="" removals="" of="" regulated="" parameters="" achieved="" by="" option="" i,="" epa="" will="" consider="" establishing="" pses="" and="" psns="" based="" on="" option="" i.="" the="" pretreatment="" standards="" that="" would="" result="" based="" on="" option="" i="" technology="" are="" presented="" in="" section="" x="" of="" this="" document.="" epa="" solicits="" comment="" on="" the="" revised="" costs,="" benefits,="" and="" economic="" impacts="" associated="" with="" these="" options.="" b.="" rail/chemical="" &="" petroleum="" subcategory="" as="" mentioned="" previously,="" epa="" will="" consider="" combining="" the="" proposed="" rail/chemical="" and="" rail/petroleum="" subcategories.="" epa="" will="" also="" consider="" a="" low="" flow="" exclusion="" of="" 100,000="" gallons="" per="" year.="" the="" results="" presented="" in="" this="" section="" reflect="" these="" potential="" changes.="" epa="" is="" re-evaluating="" the="" proposed="" options="" in="" this="" subcategory="" in="" response="" to="" comments="" received="" on="" the="" proposal.="" the="" major="" changes="" that="" have="" affected="" this="" analysis="" include="" revising="" the="" list="" of="" pollutants="" effectively="" removed="" and="" adjusting="" the="" cost="" model.="" revisions="" to="" the="" cost="" model="" were="" made="" based="" on="" comments="" received="" and="" based="" on="" a="" thorough="" review="" of="" the="" model="" by="" epa.="" the="" complete="" list="" of="" revisions="" to="" the="" cost="" model="" can="" be="" found="" in="" section="" 19.1="" of="" the="" regulatory="" record.="" in="" summary,="" epa="" increased="" several="" cost="" factors,="" corrected="" several="" cost="" model="" inaccuracies="" identified="" in="" the="" proposal="" rulemaking="" record,="" revised="" the="" methodology="" to="" credit="" treatment="" in="" place,="" and="" removed="" flow="" reduction="" for="" some="" facilities.="" epa="" also="" significantly="" reduced="" the="" monitoring="" costs="" associated="" with="" compliance="" due="" to="" the="" selection="" of="" indicator="" parameters="" (further="" discussed="" in="" section="" viii.b)="" to="" replace="" specific="" pollutants="" proposed="" for="" regulation,="" and="" use="" of="" less="" expensive="" analytical="" methods.="" 1.="" bpt,="" bct,="" bat="" and="" nsps="" for="" the="" rail/chemical="" &="" petroleum="" subcategory="" in="" the="" proposal,="" epa="" evaluated="" three="" treatment="" options,="" consisting="" of:="" option="" i:="" flow="" reduction,="" oil/water="" separation,="" equalization,="" biological="" treatment,="" and="" sludge="" dewatering.="" option="" ii:="" flow="" reduction,="" oil/water="" separation,="" equalization,="" dissolved="" air="" flotation="" (with="" flocculation="" and="" ph="" adjustment),="" biological="" treatment="" and="" sludge="" dewatering.="" option="" iii:="" flow="" reduction,="" oil/water="" separation,="" equalization,="" dissolved="" air="" flotation="" (with="" flocculation="" and="" ph="" adjustment),="" biological="" treatment,="" organo-clay/activated="" carbon="" adsorption,="" and="" sludge="" dewatering.="" epa="" proposed="" option="" i="" for="" bpt,="" and="" proposed="" to="" establish="" bct="" and="" bat="" equivalent="" to="" bpt.="" epa="" proposed="" to="" establish="" option="" iii="" for="" nsps.="" as="" discussed="" in="" section="" viii.b.1.c="" of="" the="" proposal,="" epa="" evaluated="" the="" costs,="" loads,="" and="" impacts="" of="" one="" model="" direct="" discharging="" facility="" which="" currently="" has="" equalization,="" ph="" adjustment,="" biological="" treatment="" and="" a="" filter="" press="" in="" place.="" because="" epa="" is="" considering="" adopting="" concentration="" based="" standards,="" the="" model="" facility="" no="" longer="" incurs="" costs="" for="" flow="" reduction.="" epa="" estimates="" that="" the="" cost="" of="" implementing="" option="" i="" is="" for="" monitoring="" costs="" only,="" totaling="" approximately="" $7,000="" annually;="" and="" that="" option="" ii="" costs="" $57,000="" annualized,="" and="" option="" iii="" costs="" $85,000="" annualized.="" all="" parameters="" proposed="" for="" regulation,="" with="" the="" exception="" of="" oil="" and="" grease="" and="" n-dodecane,="" were="" treated="" to="" the="" same="" level="" at="" options="" i,="" ii="" and="" iii.="" as="" discussed="" in="" section="" viii.b.,="" epa="" is="" no="" longer="" considering="" regulating="" n-dodecane.="" for="" oil="" and="" grease,="" epa="" would="" transfer="" effluent="" limitations="" from="" bpt="" biological="" treatment="" operated="" in="" the="" barge/chemical="" &="" petroleum="" subcategory="" because="" epa="" does="" not="" have="" treatment="" data="" for="" a="" biological="" system="" operated="" in="" the="" rail/chemical="" &="" petroleum="" subcategory.="" therefore,="" the="" effluent="" limitation="" established="" for="" oil="" and="" grease="" would="" be="" based="" on="" biological="" treatment="" which="" has="" been="" demonstrated="" to="" achieve="" significant="" removals.="" effluent="" limitations="" for="" oil="" and="" grease="" based="" on="" options="" ii="" or="" iii="" would="" not="" be="" significantly="" different="" than="" those="" established="" for="" option="" i,="" and="" epa="" therefore="" projects="" no="" additional="" benefits="" for="" option="" iii="" incremental="" to="" option="" i.="" epa="" believes="" that="" there="" are="" few="" additional="" pollutant="" removals="" to="" be="" achieved="" by="" establishing="" nsps="" based="" on="" option="" iii.="" epa="" will="" therefore="" consider="" establishing="" nsps="" equivalent="" to="" bpt,="" bct,="" and="" bat="" at="" option="" i.="" epa="" solicits="" comment="" on="" establishing="" nsps="" equivalent="" to="" bat="" for="" the="" rail/chemical="" &="" petroleum="" subcategory.="" the="" revised="" concentration-based="" limits="" for="" option="" i="" are="" presented="" in="" section="" x="" of="" this="" document.="" 2.="" pses="" and="" psns="" for="" the="" rail/chemical="" &="" petroleum="" subcategory="" in="" the="" proposal,="" epa="" considered="" three="" options="" for="" pses="" and="" psns:="" option="" i--flow="" reduction,="" oil/water="" separation.="" option="" ii--flow="" reduction,="" oil/water="" separation,="" equalization,="" dissolved="" air="" flotation="" (with="" flocculation="" and="" ph="" adjustment),="" and="" sludge="" dewatering.="" option="" iii--flow="" reduction,="" oil/water="" separation,="" equalization,="" dissolved="" air="" flotation="" (with="" flocculation="" and="" ph="" adjustment),="" organo-="" clay/activated="" carbon="" adsorption,="" and="" sludge="" dewatering.="" epa="" proposed="" option="" i="" for="" pses="" and="" option="" iii="" for="" psns.="" as="" discussed="" in="" section="" viii.b.5.d="" of="" the="" preamble,="" the="" economic="" impacts="" to="" the="" industry="" played="" a="" large="" role="" in="" epa's="" selection="" of="" option="" i="" for="" pretreatment="" standards.="" epa="" noted="" that="" its="" preliminary="" conclusion="" was="" that="" the="" rail/chemical="" facilities="" would="" not="" be="" able="" to="" absorb="" the="" cost="" of="" installing="" option="" ii="" levels="" of="" treatment="" without="" incurring="" significant="" economic="" impacts.="" epa="" received="" several="" comments="" on="" the="" pollutant="" control="" technologies="" [[page="" 38873]]="" proposed="" for="" the="" rail/chemical="" subcategory.="" epa="" received="" comments="" from="" several="" entities,="" including="" amsa,="" who="" argued="" that="" oil/water="" separation="" alone="" is="" not="" sufficient="" pretreatment="" for="" the="" pollutants="" in="" rail/="" chemical="" subcategory="" wastewaters.="" additionally,="" many="" commenters="" have="" expressed="" concern="" about="" the="" discrepancy="" in="" treatment="" technology="" proposed="" for="" the="" rail="" and="" truck="" facilities.="" several="" commenters="" have="" argued="" that="" the="" wastewater="" characteristics="" are="" similar="" for="" truck="" and="" rail="" facilities,="" and="" that="" the="" treatment="" options="" should="" therefore="" be="" similar="" for="" facilities="" which="" potentially="" compete="" with="" each="" other.="" in="" the="" proposal,="" epa="" also="" noted="" this="" discrepancy,="" and="" noted="" that="" there="" were="" many="" similarities="" between="" the="" truck="" and="" rail="" subcategory="" wastewaters,="" and="" that="" the="" most="" significant="" reason="" for="" proposing="" dissimilar="" technology="" options="" in="" the="" truck="" and="" rail="" subcategories="" was="" due="" to="" economic="" considerations.="" epa's="" analysis="" showed="" that="" several="" rail="" facilities="" were="" unable="" to="" incur="" the="" costs="" of="" a="" more="" stringent="" regulatory="" option="" without="" sustaining="" significant="" economic="" impacts.="" however,="" many="" of="" the="" rail="" facilities="" included="" in="" this="" analysis="" will="" qualify="" for="" the="" low="" flow="" exclusion="" for="" tec="" wastewater.="" many="" of="" these="" facilities="" which="" discharge="" low="" volumes="" of="" tec="" wastewater="" would="" not="" be="" affected="" by="" the="" tec="" rule="" if="" epa="" adopts="" a="" low="" flow="" exclusion.="" epa="" has="" therefore="" removed="" these="" facilities="" from="" its="" analysis,="" which="" has="" in="" turn="" affected="" the="" total="" costs,="" loads,="" and="" economic="" impacts="" of="" the="" technology="" options.="" epa="" estimates="" that="" option="" i="" will="" have="" an="" annualized="" cost="" of="" $0.54="" million="" ($0.82="" million="" pre-tax),="" option="" ii="" will="" cost="" $0.93="" million="" ($1.4="" million="" pre-tax),="" and="" option="" iii="" will="" cost="" $1.5="" million="" ($2.3="" million="" pre-tax).="" epa="" projects="" that="" option="" i="" and="" option="" ii="" will="" result="" in="" annual="" benefits="" of="" $51,000="" to="" $270,000.="" for="" options="" i,="" ii,="" and="" iii,="" epa="" anticipates="" no="" closures="" at="" even="" the="" most="" conservative="" assumption="" of="" no="" cost="" pass="" through,="" and="" anticipates="" no="" revenue="" or="" employment="" impacts="" when="" a="" positive="" cost="" pass-through="" is="" assumed="" for="" options="" i="" or="" ii.="" for="" the="" most="" conservative="" zero="" cost="" pass="" through="" assumption,="" epa="" calculates="" that="" option="" ii="" would="" result="" in="" 18="" facilities="" experiencing="" revenue="" impacts="" of="" 1%="" and="" six="" facilities="" experiencing="" impacts="" of="" 3%.="" the="" less="" costly="" option="" i="" would="" result="" in="" 15="" facilities="" experiencing="" revenue="" impacts="" of="" 1%="" and="" no="" facilities="" experiencing="" impacts="" of="" 3%.="" at="" both="" options,="" six="" of="" the="" facilities="" experiencing="" 1%="" revenue="" impacts="" are="" small="" businesses.="" option="" iii="" would="" result="" in="" 22="" facilities="" experiencing="" revenue="" impacts="" of="" 1%="" and="" 20="" facilities="" experiencing="" impacts="" of="" 3%.="" at="" option="" iii,="" nine="" of="" the="" facilities="" experiencing="" 1%="" impacts="" and="" six="" of="" the="" facilities="" experiencing="" 3%="" impacts="" are="" small="" businesses.="" epa="" also="" considers="" the="" cost="" effectiveness="" of="" each="" option.="" the="" preamble="" to="" the="" proposal="" describes="" epa's="" cost="" effectiveness="" analysis="" in="" section="" x.="" epa="" uses="" cost="" effectiveness="" to="" evaluate="" the="" relative="" efficiency="" of="" each="" option="" in="" removing="" toxic="" pollutants.="" option="" i="" is="" projected="" to="" remove="" 6,500="" pound-equivalents,="" option="" ii="" will="" remove="" 7,100="" pound-equivalents,="" and="" option="" iii="" will="" remove="" 7,600="" pound-="" equivalents.="" the="" average="" cost="" effectiveness="" of="" option="" i="" is="" $83="" (1981="" dollars)="" per="" pound-equivalent="" removed.="" the="" incremental="" cost="" effectiveness="" of="" moving="" from="" option="" i="" to="" option="" ii="" is="" $533="" per="" pound-="" equivalent="" removed,="" and="" the="" incremental="" cost="" effectiveness="" of="" moving="" from="" option="" ii="" to="" option="" iii="" is="" $1,282="" per="" pound-equivalent="" removed.="" epa="" will="" consider="" establishing="" pses="" and="" psns="" based="" on="" option="" ii.="" option="" ii="" achieves="" a="" significant="" reduction="" in="" toxic="" loadings="" and="" results="" in="" no="" facility="" closures.="" furthermore,="" epa="" believes="" it="" is="" appropriate="" to="" establish="" similar="" levels="" of="" control="" for="" the="" rail/="" chemical="" &="" petroleum="" subcategory="" and="" the="" truck/chemical="" &="" petroleum="" subcategory,="" and="" will="" therefore="" consider="" establishing="" pses="" and="" psns="" at="" option="" ii,="" which="" is="" analogous="" to="" option="" i="" in="" the="" truck/chemical="" &="" petroleum="" subcategory.="" in="" addition,="" epa="" notes="" that="" the="" total="" costs="" for="" option="" ii="" presented="" today="" are="" roughly="" equivalent="" to="" the="" costs="" estimated="" for="" option="" i="" at="" proposal.="" this="" is="" primarily="" due="" to="" epa="" reducing="" the="" burden="" of="" the="" regulation="" through="" reduced="" monitoring="" requirements="" and="" the="" consideration="" of="" a="" low="" flow="" exclusion.="" epa="" notes="" that="" the="" cost="" of="" option="" ii="" presented="" in="" today's="" notice="" is="" nearly="" 70%="" higher="" than="" the="" costs="" for="" option="" i="" presented="" today,="" and="" the="" corresponding="" increase="" in="" pound-equivalents="" removed="" is="" approximately="" 10%.="" option="" ii="" is="" also="" associated="" with="" some="" additional="" economic="" impacts="" not="" incurred="" at="" option="" i.="" notwithstanding="" the="" reasons="" described="" above="" supporting="" option="" ii,="" epa="" will="" also="" consider="" establishing="" pses="" and="" psns="" based="" on="" option="" i.="" epa="" solicits="" comment="" on="" the="" revised="" costs,="" benefits,="" and="" economic="" impacts="" associated="" with="" this="" subcategory="" and="" on="" the="" appropriate="" technology="" basis="" for="" pretreatment="" standards="" for="" new="" and="" existing="" sources.="" the="" revised="" concentration-based="" limits="" for="" option="" ii="" are="" presented="" in="" section="" x="" of="" this="" document.="" c.="" barge/chemical="" &="" petroleum="" subcategory="" epa="" is="" re-evaluating="" the="" proposed="" options="" in="" this="" subcategory="" due="" to="" changes="" in="" the="" industry="" since="" proposal="" and="" due="" to="" comments="" received="" on="" the="" proposal.="" at="" the="" time="" of="" proposal,="" epa="" noted="" that="" there="" was="" only="" one="" identified="" facility="" discharging="" to="" a="" potw.="" since="" the="" proposal,="" several="" model="" facilities="" that="" previously="" discharged="" to="" surface="" waters="" have="" begun="" discharging="" or="" plan="" to="" discharge="" wastewater="" to="" a="" potw.="" epa="" is="" also="" considering="" several="" changes="" in="" response="" to="" comment="" that="" include="" revising="" the="" list="" of="" pollutants="" effectively="" removed="" and="" adjusting="" the="" cost="" model.="" as="" discussed="" in="" section="" ii="" of="" this="" notice,="" epa="" has="" also="" collected="" data="" from="" two="" additional="" facilities="" operating="" bat="" treatment.="" epa="" has="" used="" this="" data,="" which="" represents="" each="" facilities="" performance="" over="" a="" one="" year="" period,="" to="" develop="" long="" term="" averages="" (ltas)="" and="" variability="" factors="" for="" bod="" and="" tss.="" revisions="" to="" the="" cost="" model="" were="" made="" based="" on="" comments="" received="" and="" based="" on="" a="" thorough="" review="" of="" the="" model="" by="" epa.="" additionally,="" the="" cost="" model="" has="" been="" adjusted="" to="" reflect="" the="" changes="" in="" long="" term="" averages="" for="" bod="" and="" tss.="" the="" complete="" list="" of="" revisions="" to="" the="" cost="" model="" can="" be="" found="" in="" section="" 19.1="" of="" the="" regulatory="" record.="" in="" summary,="" epa="" increased="" several="" cost="" factors,="" corrected="" several="" cost="" model="" inaccuracies="" identified="" in="" the="" proposal="" rulemaking="" record,="" revised="" the="" methodology="" to="" credit="" treatment="" in="" place,="" and="" removed="" flow="" reduction.="" epa="" also="" significantly="" reduced="" the="" monitoring="" costs="" associated="" with="" compliance="" due="" to="" the="" selection="" of="" indicator="" parameters="" (further="" discussed="" in="" section="" viii.b)="" to="" replace="" specific="" pollutants="" proposed="" for="" regulation,="" and="" use="" of="" less="" expensive="" analytical="" methods.="" 1.="" bpt,="" bct,="" bat="" and="" nsps="" for="" the="" barge/chemical="" &="" petroleum="" subcategory="" the="" agency's="" engineering="" assessment="" of="" bpt="" consisted="" of="" the="" following="" options:="" option="" i:="" flow="" reduction,="" oil/water="" separation,="" dissolved="" air="" flotation,="" filter="" press,="" biological="" treatment,="" and="" sludge="" dewatering.="" option="" ii:="" flow="" reduction,="" oil/water="" separation,="" dissolved="" air="" flotation,="" filter="" press,="" biological="" treatment,="" reverse="" osmosis,="" and="" sludge="" dewatering.="" epa="" proposed="" option="" i="" for="" bpt,="" and="" proposed="" to="" establish="" bct,="" bat="" and="" nsps="" equivalent="" to="" bpt.="" epa="" estimates="" the="" revised="" annualized="" costs="" for="" option="" i="" at="" $82,000="" ($134,000="" pre-tax)="" and="" [[page="" 38874]]="" option="" ii="" at="" $316,000="" ($494,000="" pre-tax).="" the="" costs="" to="" the="" industry="" have="" decreased="" significantly="" for="" several="" reasons.="" one,="" epa="" is="" no="" longer="" costing="" flow="" reduction="" as="" a="" required="" component="" of="" the="" regulation="" because="" epa="" may="" not="" establish="" mass="" based="" limits.="" two,="" several="" model="" facilities="" which="" did="" not="" employ="" biological="" treatment="" at="" proposal="" have="" switched="" discharge="" status;="" and="" three,="" epa="" has="" reduced="" the="" monitoring="" burden="" of="" the="" rule="" due="" to="" the="" use="" of="" indicator="" parameters.="" epa="" determined="" that="" neither="" option="" will="" result="" in="" any="" closures,="" revenue,="" or="" employment="" losses.="" epa="" estimates="" that="" both="" option="" i="" and="" option="" ii="" removes="" 19,000="" pounds="" of="" bod="" and="" tss.="" based="" on="" the="" treatment="" technologies="" in="" place="" at="" the="" model="" facilities,="" epa="" believes="" at="" this="" time="" that="" the="" regulation="" will="" not="" result="" in="" significant="" incremental="" removals="" of="" toxic="" pollutants.="" epa="" predicts="" that="" option="" ii="" would="" not="" result="" in="" any="" additional="" removal="" of="" toxic="" pounds="" because="" most="" pollutants="" are="" already="" treated="" to="" very="" low="" levels,="" often="" approaching="" or="" at="" non-detect="" levels,="" by="" the="" technology="" utilized="" by="" option="" i.="" epa="" therefore="" continues="" to="" believe="" that="" bpt,="" bct,="" bat,="" and="" nsps="" should="" be="" based="" on="" option="" i="" levels="" of="" control.="" the="" revised="" concentration-based="" limits="" for="" option="" i="" are="" presented="" in="" section="" x="" of="" this="" document.="" 2.="" pses="" and="" psns="" for="" the="" barge/chemical="" &="" petroleum="" subcategory="" the="" agency's="" engineering="" assessment="" of="" psns="" consisted="" of="" the="" following="" options:="" option="" i--flow="" reduction,="" oil/water="" separation,="" dissolved="" air="" flotation,="" and="" in-line="" filter="" press.="" option="" ii--flow="" reduction,="" oil/water="" separation,="" dissolved="" air="" flotation,="" in-line="" filter="" press,="" biological="" treatment,="" and="" sludge="" dewatering.="" option="" iii--flow="" reduction,="" oil/water="" separation,="" dissolved="" air="" flotation,="" in-line="" filter="" press,="" biological="" treatment,="" reverse="" osmosis,="" and="" sludge="" dewatering.="" epa="" proposed="" option="" ii="" for="" psns.="" epa="" did="" not="" propose="" pses="" standards="" for="" the="" barge/chemical="" &="" petroleum="" subcategory="" because="" epa="" identified="" only="" one="" facility="" discharging="" to="" a="" potw.="" however,="" since="" the="" proposal,="" epa="" has="" identified="" four="" facilities="" which="" previously="" discharged="" directly="" to="" surface="" waters="" and="" have="" since="" either="" switched="" or="" plan="" to="" switch="" discharge="" status.="" epa="" now="" estimates="" that="" there="" are="" five="" facilities="" in="" epa's="" model="" which="" discharge="" wastewater="" to="" a="" potw.="" epa="" evaluated="" the="" treatment="" in="" place="" and="" levels="" of="" control="" currently="" being="" achieved="" by="" the="" model="" indirect="" discharging="" barge/="" chemical="" &="" petroleum="" facilities.="" epa="" was="" able="" to="" evaluate="" effluent="" discharge="" concentrations="" of="" bod,="" tss,="" and="" oil="" &="" grease="" from="" each="" of="" these="" model="" facilities.="" epa="" did="" not="" have="" the="" data="" to="" evaluate="" the="" discharge="" concentrations="" of="" other="" parameters.="" based="" on="" the="" discharge="" concentrations="" of="" these="" conventionals,="" epa="" believes="" that="" all="" model="" indirect="" discharging="" facilities="" are="" meeting="" the="" levels="" of="" control="" that="" would="" be="" established="" under="" psns.="" although="" epa="" does="" not="" generally="" establish="" technology="" based="" pretreatment="" standards="" for="" conventionals,="" epa="" believes="" that="" these="" parameters="" demonstrate="" a="" level="" of="" control="" similar="" to="" the="" systems="" being="" proposed="" for="" nsps="" at="" option="" ii,="" and="" that="" the="" effluent="" concentrations="" of="" other="" pollutants="" of="" interest="" would="" also="" be="" controlled="" similarly.="" therefore,="" epa="" estimates="" that="" the="" cost="" of="" implementing="" pses="" standards="" equivalent="" to="" psns="" would="" be="" solely="" for="" increased="" monitoring="" costs,="" totaling="" approximately="" $60,000="" annually.="" epa="" believes="" that="" all="" indirectly="" discharging="" facilities="" have="" sufficient="" treatment="" in="" place="" to="" prevent="" pass="" through="" or="" interference="" and="" are="" predicted="" to="" be="" meeting="" standards="" that="" would="" be="" established="" under="" pses.="" epa="" predicts="" that="" there="" would="" be="" no="" incremental="" removals="" or="" benefits="" associated="" with="" establishing="" pses="" standards.="" epa="" therefore="" believes="" that="" it="" will="" continue="" to="" establish="" psns="" standards="" based="" on="" option="" ii,="" and="" that="" it="" will="" continue="" not="" to="" establish="" pses="" standards.="" epa="" solicits="" comment="" on="" the="" conclusion="" that="" all="" indirect="" discharging="" barge/chemical="" &="" petroleum="" facilities="" have="" treatment="" in="" place="" sufficient="" to="" prevent="" pass="" through="" or="" interference="" at="" a="" potw.="" d.="" food="" subcategory="" epa="" proposed="" to="" establish="" separate="" subcategories="" for="" the="" barge/="" food,="" truck/food,="" and="" rail/food="" subcategories="" due="" to="" the="" differences="" in="" water="" generated="" per="" cleaning="" by="" truck,="" rail,="" and="" barge="" facilities.="" the="" different="" volumes="" of="" wastewater="" were="" used="" to="" establish="" distinct="" mass-="" based="" limits="" in="" each="" of="" the="" subcategories.="" however,="" epa="" will="" consider="" establishing="" concentration-based="" instead="" of="" mass-based="" limits,="" and="" epa="" will="" therefore="" consider="" establishing="" one="" set="" of="" concentration="" limits="" for="" all="" food="" grade="" facilities.="" epa="" is="" continuing="" to="" consider="" option="" ii="" as="" bpt,="" bct,="" bat,="" and="" nsps.="" bpt,="" bct,="" bat="" and="" nsps="" for="" the="" truck/food,="" rail/food,="" and="" barge/food="" subcategories="" epa="" considered="" the="" following="" bpt="" options="" for="" the="" food="" subcategories:="" option="" i--flow="" reduction="" and="" oil/water="" separation.="" option="" ii--flow="" reduction,="" oil/water="" separation,="" equalization,="" biological="" treatment="" and="" sludge="" dewatering.="" the="" revised="" costs,="" loads,="" economic="" impacts,="" cost="" reasonableness,="" and="" environmental="" benefits="" for="" bpt,="" bct,="" and="" bat="" have="" not="" changed="" significantly="" since="" the="" proposal,="" and="" epa="" is="" therefore="" not="" considering="" any="" changes="" to="" the="" options="" selected="" for="" the="" food="" subcategories.="" the="" revised="" concentration-based="" limits="" for="" option="" ii="" are="" presented="" in="" section="" x="" of="" this="" document.="" x.="" presentation="" of="" concentration-based="" limitations="" the="" following="" tables="" present="" the="" numerical="" standards="" that="" would="" be="" adopted="" based="" on="" the="" revisions="" described="" in="" this="" section="" and="" throughout="" this="" document.="" the="" data="" and="" methodology="" is="" located="" in="" section="" 21="" of="" the="" regulatory="" record.="" the="" data="" and="" methodology="" is="" the="" same="" as="" proposed="" with="" several="" exceptions.="" one,="" epa="" has="" calculated="" concentration="" instead="" of="" mass-based="" limits.="" two,="" epa="" has="" used="" data="" from="" two="" additional="" barge/="" chemical="" &="" petroleum="" facilities="" in="" the="" calculation="" of="" bod="" and="" tss="" limits,="" as="" discussed="" in="" section="" ii="" of="" this="" document.="" third,="" epa="" has="" used="" the="" pollutant-specific="" variability="" factor="" where="" available,="" and="" then="" calculated="" fraction="" and="" group="" level="" variability="" factors="" by="" taking="" a="" median="" of="" all="" pollutants="" effectively="" removed="" in="" a="" chemical="" class,="" rather="" than="" using="" the="" median="" of="" only="" those="" pollutants="" selected="" for="" regulation="" in="" a="" chemical="" class.="" epa="" believes="" this="" revised="" methodology="" is="" appropriate="" because="" the="" agency="" believes="" that="" all="" pollutants="" in="" a="" chemical="" class="" will="" behave="" similarly,="" regardless="" of="" whether="" or="" not="" it="" is="" selected="" for="" regulation.="" epa="" requests="" comment="" on="" this="" conclusion="" and="" on="" the="" revision="" to="" its="" methodology.="" fourth,="" epa="" has="" used="" technology="" transfer="" to="" establish="" pses="" standards="" for="" sgt-hem="" in="" the="" truck/chemical="" &="" petroleum="" subcategory.="" as="" in="" the="" proposal,="" epa="" has="" continued="" to="" use="" technology="" transfer="" to="" establish="" bpt="" limits="" for="" conventional="" pollutants="" bod,="" tss,="" and="" oil="" and="" grease="" in="" the="" truck/chemical="" &="" petroleum="" and="" rail/chemical="" &="" petroleum="" subcategories.="" epa="" does="" not="" have="" sampling="" data="" from="" a="" facility="" operating="" bpt="" biological="" treatment="" in="" either="" the="" truck/chemical="" [[page="" 38875]]="" &="" petroleum="" or="" rail/chemical="" &="" petroleum="" subcategories.="" therefore,="" epa="" will="" consider="" transferring="" effluent="" limitations="" for="" bod,="" tss,="" and="" oil="" and="" grease="" from="" a="" biological="" system="" in="" the="" barge/chemical="" &="" petroleum="" subcategory.="" epa="" proposed="" pretreatment="" standards="" for="" sgt-hem="" in="" the="" truck/="" chemical="" subcategory="" based="" on="" the="" data="" from="" two="" truck/chemical="" facilities.="" however,="" epa="" feels="" that="" the="" sgt-hem="" standards="" developed="" for="" this="" subcategory="" may="" not="" be="" achievable="" because="" the="" raw="" wastewater="" concentrations="" at="" these="" facilities="" were="" 65="" mg/l="" and="" 61="" mg/l,="" whereas="" the="" average="" raw="" wastewater="" concentration="" for="" this="" subcategory="" was="" measured="" to="" be="" 1,600="" mg/l.="" epa="" is="" aware="" that="" some="" facilities="" in="" the="" truck/chemical="" &="" petroleum="" subcategory="" may="" be="" generating="" wastewater="" with="" significantly="" higher="" concentrations="" of="" oil="" and="" grease="" than="" epa="" considered="" in="" the="" proposed="" limitations.="" therefore,="" epa="" will="" consider="" transferring="" standards="" for="" sgt-hem="" from="" similar="" treatment="" technologies="" operated="" in="" the="" rail/chemical="" &="" petroleum="" subcategory.="" as="" mentioned="" previously,="" this="" system="" consisted="" of="" oil="" water="" separation="" followed="" by="" daf="" and="" achieved="" 98%="" removal="" of="" hem="" for="" wastewater="" that="" had="" an="" influent="" concentration="" of="" 1,994="" mg/l.="" epa="" believes="" that="" technology="" transfer="" of="" sgt-hem="" would="" establish="" limitations="" that="" would="" be="" achievable="" for="" all="" facilities="" in="" the="" truck/chemical="" &="" petroleum="" subcategory.="" as="" discussed="" in="" section="" viii,="" epa="" will="" consider="" using="" hem="" (for="" direct="" dischargers)="" and="" sgt-hem="" (for="" indirect="" dischargers)="" as="" indicator="" pollutants="" for="" several="" other="" constituents="" in="" the="" truck/chemical="" &="" petroleum="" subcategory.="" the="" proposed="" mass-based="" standards="" were="" published="" in="" the="" federal="" register="" notice="" of="" proposed="" rulemaking="" (63="" fr="" 34685)="" and="" the="" associated="" concentration-based="" standards="" were="" presented="" in="" appendix="" e.1="" through="" e.7="" of="" the="" statistical="" support="" document="" of="" proposed="" effluent="" limitations="" guidelines="" and="" standards="" for="" the="" transportation="" equipment="" cleaning="" industry.="" concentration="" based="" limits="" are="" again="" presented="" in="" the="" tables="" below="" for="" the="" purposes="" of="" review="" and="" comment.="" in="" sections="" xv="" and="" xvi="" of="" the="" proposal,="" epa="" outlined="" its="" requirements="" for="" submission="" of="" additional="" monitoring="" data="" which="" may="" be="" used="" in="" support="" of="" this="" guideline.="" epa="" will="" continue="" to="" analyze="" monitoring="" data,="" statistical="" methodologies,="" and="" pass-through="" analysis="" for="" regulated="" pollutants="" prior="" to="" the="" final="" promulgation="" of="" effluent="" limitations="" and="" pretreatment="" standards.="" table="" 1-truck/chemical="" &="" petroleum="" subcategory:="" bpt,="" bct,="" bat,="" and="" nsps="" concentration-based="" limitations="" for="" discharges="" to="" surface="" waters="" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" [mg/l]="" -------------------------------------="" pollutant="" or="" pollutant="" property="" maximum="" for="" any="" one="" day="" monthly="" average="" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="">5......................................................................                 61                 22
TSS.......................................................................                 58                 26
Oil and Grease (HEM)......................................................                 36                 16
pH........................................................................   Shall be in the range of 6.0 to 9.0
                                                                                          pH units
Chromium..................................................................              0.055                N/A
Copper....................................................................               0.14                N/A
Zinc......................................................................              0.037                N/A
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate..............................................              0.032                N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Table 2--Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory: PSES and PSNS Concentration-Based Limitations for Discharges to
                                                      POTWs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Pollutant or pollutant property                          [mg/L]  Maximum for any one day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-polar Material (SGT-HEM)...........................  26.
pH.....................................................  Shall be in the range of 6.0 to 9.0 pH units.
Chromium...............................................  0.055.
Copper.................................................  0.143.
Zinc...................................................  0.037
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate...........................  0.032.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Table 3--Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory: BPT, BCT, BAT and NSPS Concentration-Based Limitations for
                                          discharges to Surface Waters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           [mg/L]
                                                                           -------------------------------------
                      Pollutant or pollutant property                        Maximum for any
                                                                                 one day        Monthly average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5......................................................................                 61                 22
TSS.......................................................................                 58                 26
Oil and Grease (HEM)......................................................                 36                 16
pH........................................................................   Shall be in the range of 6.0 to 9.0
                                                                                          pH units
Fluoranthene..............................................................              0.076                N/A
Phenanthrene..............................................................              0.341                N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 38876]]


Table 4.--Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory: PSES and PSNS Concentration-Based Limitations for Discharges to
                                                      POTWs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Pollutant or pollutant property                          [mg/L]  Maximum for any one day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-polar Material (SGT-HEM)...........................  26.
pH.....................................................  Shall be in the range of 6.0 to 9.0 pH units.
Fluoranthene...........................................  0.076.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table 5.--Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory: BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS Concentration-Based Limitations for
                                          Discharges to Surface Waters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           [mg/L]
                                                                           -------------------------------------
                      Pollutant or pollutant property                        Maximum for any
                                                                                 one day        Monthly average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5......................................................................                 61                 22
TSS.......................................................................                 58                 26
Oil and Grease (HEM)......................................................                 36                 16
pH........................................................................   Shall be in the range of 6.0 to 9.0
                                                                                          pH units
Cadmium...................................................................              0.014                N/A
Chromium..................................................................               0.42                N/A
Copper....................................................................               0.10                N/A
Lead......................................................................               0.11                N/A
Nickel....................................................................               0.58                N/A
Zinc8.3...................................................................                N/A
1-Methylphenanthrene......................................................               0.11                N/A
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate..............................................              0.071                N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table 6.--Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory: PSNS Concentration-Based Limitations for Discharges to POTWs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Pollutant or pollutant property                          [mg/L]  Maximum for any one day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-polar Material (SGT-HEM)...........................  22.
pH.....................................................  Shall be in the range of 6.0 to 9.0 pH units.
Cadmium................................................  0.014.
Chromium...............................................  0.42.
Copper.................................................  0.10.
Lead...................................................  0.11.
Nickel.................................................  0.58.
Zinc...................................................  8.3.
1-Methylphenanthrene...................................  0.11.
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate...........................  0.071.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table 7.--Food Subcategory: BPT, BCT and NSPS Concentration-Based Limitations for Discharges to Surface Waters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           [mg/L]
                                                                           -------------------------------------
                      Pollutant or pollutant property                        Maximum for any
                                                                                 one day        Monthly average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5......................................................................                 56                 24
TSS.......................................................................                225                 86
Oil and Grease (HEM)......................................................                 20                8.8
pH........................................................................   Shall be in the range of 6.0 to 9.0
                                                                                          pH units.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XI. Solicitation of Comments

    1. EPA solicits comment on setting concentration-based limitations. 
(Section III).
    2. EPA solicits comments on the alternative subcategorization 
approach that combines the chemical and petroleum subcategories for 
rail and truck cleaning facilities. (Section IV).
    3. EPA requests comment on the low flow exclusion from the TEC 
regulation of 100,000 gallons per year and on alternative low flow 
exclusions in the range of 100,000 to 500,000 gallons per year. 
(Section V).
    4. EPA solicits comment on the revised methodology for calculating 
pollutant removals. (Section VI).
    5. EPA solicits comment on the assumptions, methodology, and

[[Page 38877]]

conclusions of the market analysis conducted by EPA on the effect of 
not including IBCs within the scope of the TEC regulation. EPA solicits 
any information on the price of IBC cleaning, the volume of wastewater 
generated from IBCs, the economic importance of IBC cleaning to 
affected facilities, and the relative market shares of different types 
of facilities engaged in IBC cleaning. (Section VII.A).
    6. EPA solicits comment on the revised applicability language of 
the rule, including the definition ``MP&M generated wastewaters''. 
(Section VII.B).
    7. EPA solicits comment on the revised costs, benefits, and 
economic impacts associated with establishing PSES and PSNS at Option I 
for the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. (Section IX.A.2).
    8. EPA solicits comment on establishing NSPS equivalent to BAT for 
the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. (Section IX.B.1).
    9. EPA solicits comment on establishing PSES and PSNS at Option II, 
or alternatively at Option I, for the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum 
Subcategory. (Section IX.B.2).
    10. EPA solicits comment on the conclusion that all indirect 
discharging Barge/Chemical & Petroleum facilities have treatment in 
place sufficient to prevent pass through or interference at a POTW. 
(Section IX.C.2).
    11. EPA solicits comment on using HEM and SGT-HEM as indicator 
parameters and on the pass-through of SGT-HEM. (Section VIII.B and 
VIII.C).
    12. EPA solicits comment on the list of analytes being considered 
for regulation in all subcategories. (Section VIII).

    Dated: July 12, 1999.
    J. Charles Fox,
Assistant Administrator for Water.
[FR Doc. 99-18478 Filed 7-19-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P