[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 180 (Monday, September 16, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48806-48814]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23658]
[[Page 48805]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VII
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Part 437
_______________________________________________________________________
Centralized Waste Treatment Category: Data Availability; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 180 / Monday, September 16, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 48806]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 437
[FRL-5610-1]
RIN 2040-AB78
Notice of Data Availability; Effluent Limitations Guidelines,
Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards:
Centralized Waste Treatment Category
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of data availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On January 27, 1995, EPA proposed Clean Water Act effluent
limitations and pretreatment standards to reduce the discharge of
pollutants from the centralized waste treatment industry (60 FR 5464).
This document describes new information the Agency has obtained since
the proposal. This document also explains, based on this information,
the Agency's revised estimates of the size and regulatory impacts of
the proposed rulemaking on the proposed oils treatment and recovery
subcategory of the industry. This document presents the preliminary
results of EPA detailed analyses for the subcategory with the inclusion
of the new information and the data developed from it. EPA originally
estimated that there were 35 facilities in this subcategory. EPA now
estimates that there are a total of 275 facilities in the subcategory.
EPA further believes that the majority of the facilities treat dilute
oily wastestreams rather than the concentrated wastestreams that were
described in the proposal.
DATES: Comments on this notice are solicited and will be accepted until
October 16, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments are to be submitted to Mr. Ed Terry at the
following address: Engineering and Analysis Division (4303), EPA, 401 M
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
The data and analyses being announced today are available for
review in the EPA Water Docket at EPA Headquarters at Waterside Mall,
room M2616, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202)
260-3027. The Docket staff requests that interested parties call for an
appointment before visiting the Docket. A reasonable fee may be charged
for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional technical information,
contact Mr. Ed Terry at the following address: Engineering and Analysis
Division (4303), EPA, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460,
telephone number (202) 260-7128. For information on economic impacts,
contact Ms. Susan Burris at the same address, telephone number (202)
260-5379.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Contents of This Document
I. Summary of Proposed Regulation and Purpose of Today's Notice
II. Post-Proposal Data Gathering for the Oily Waste Treatment and
Recovery Subcategory
III. Facility Specific Information
A. Wastewater Discharge Flow Estimates
B. Baseline Treatment Technology
C. Final Treated Effluent Characterization
IV. Revised Description of the Oily Waste Treatment and Recovery
Subcategory
A. Overview
B. Wastewater Flow and Discharge
V. Costs of Technology Options
A. BPT Costs
B. BCT Costs
C. BAT Costs
D. PSES Costs
VI. Pollutant Reductions
A. Conventional Pollutant Reductions
B. Priority and Non-Conventional Pollutant Reductions
1. Direct Dischargers and BAT
2. Indirect Dischargers and PSES
VII. Revised Economic Impacts
A. Overview
B. Data Sources and Assumptions for Revised Economic Analyses
C. Changes to Economic Analysis Methodology Since Proposal
D. Revised Economic Impacts for Oils Option 2 and 3
1. Impacts of Non-hazardous Oily Waste CWT Facilities and
Markets
2. Small Business Impacts
E. Cost-Effectiveness of Option 2 and Option 3
VIII. Solicitation of Data and Comments
A. Introduction and General Solicitation
B. Specific Data and Comment Solicitations
1. Estimation of Oils Subcategory Size
2. Waste Receipt Characterization
3. Wastewater Discharge Flow Rates
4. Wastewater Treatment Technologies
5. Characterization of Wastewater Resulting from Various
Treatment Technologies
6. Final Effluent Characterization
7. Fuel Blending
8. RCRA Permits
9. Assumptions for Revised Economic Analyses
I. Summary of Proposed Regulation and Purpose of Today's Notice
On January 27, 1995 (60 FR 5464), EPA proposed regulations to
reduce discharges to navigable waters of toxic, conventional, and
nonconventional pollutants in treated wastewater from facilities
defined in the proposal as ``centralized waste treatment facilities.''
At proposal, these effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment
standards would apply to ``any facility that treats any hazardous or
non-hazardous industrial waste received from off-site by tanker truck,
trailer/roll-off bins, drums, barge or other forms of shipment.'' These
facilities include both stand-alone waste treatment and recovery
facilities that treat waste received from off-site as well as those
facilities that treat on-site generated process wastewater with wastes
received from off-site. Based on its review of the data on the types of
waste accepted for treatment or recovery at such facilities, EPA
concluded that different limitations and standards were appropriate for
subcategories within the industry. The Agency preliminarily determined
that three subcategories were appropriate for the centralized waste
treatment (CWT) industry. These subcategories are: metal-bearing waste
treatment and recovery, oily waste treatment and recovery, and organic
waste treatment and recovery.
Today's notice focuses exclusively on the Oily Waste Treatment and
Recovery subcategory, or ``oils subcategory,'' defined in the proposal
as ``facilities that treat, and recover oil from oily waste received
from off-site.'' At the time of proposal, EPA believed that the oils
subcategory was comprised of 35 facilities treating predominantly
concentrated oily wastes. Since proposal, EPA has learned that the data
used to develop the proposal may have mischaracterized this portion of
the CWT industry. EPA learned that there are approximately 240
previously unaccounted for facilities treating oily waste received from
off-site, many of which accept dilute, not concentrated, oil
wastestreams. Today's notice discusses these facilities and describes
how the proposal limitations and standards, if promulgated, would
affect such facilities. EPA is requesting comment on the accuracy of
the information it has developed and its conclusions about the likely
effect of the proposed limits and standards, if promulgated, on these
facilities.
Based on information EPA received during the comment period as well
as material obtained from communication with the industry and the
National Oil Recyclers Association (NORA), EPA has revised its profile
of the oils subcategory of the centralized waste treatment industry to
take account of the newly identified facilities. Using this information
in conjunction with questionnaire responses and sampling data used to
develop the proposal, EPA has recharacterized this subcategory of this
industry. EPA developed individual profiles for each of the newly
identified facilities by modeling current
[[Page 48807]]
wastewater treatment performance and treated effluent discharge flow
rates. Additional information on how EPA modeled these facilities is
provided below. In addition, assuming the same treatment technology
options identified at proposal, EPA has recalculated the projected
costs of the proposed options under consideration, expected pollutant
reductions associated with these options, and the projected economic
impacts.
EPA is today announcing the availability of the new information and
requesting comment on it. EPA is specifically requesting that
individual facilities in the oils subcategory review the data developed
for their facility to ensure that EPA has accurately characterized
their operations. To the extent that actual wastewater treatment data
is available, EPA is also soliciting that information.
As noted, EPA has developed a facility profile for each of the 240
oils subcategory facilities. EPA will use the data to decide what
limitations and standards for the oils subcategory the Agency should
promulgate. EPA tested the assumptions and models it used to generate
the profiles against information already in the CWT rulemaking record
to validate its initial conclusions about the 240 new facilities in the
oils subcategory. In some cases, the results were consistent with that
observed in EPA's available data base. In other cases, the results seem
less certain. Given the use to which this data will be put, calculation
of pollutant reductions and treatment option costs, EPA hopes that
facilities will review the profiles to ensure their accuracy and that
these profiles are representative of actual conditions at individual
facilities.
In order to facilitate this effort, copies of the profiles for each
of the newly identified facilities will be available at the Agency.
Moreover, EPA will mail copies of this notice to each of the facilities
and include the profile for that facility with the notice. This will
provide that facility with an easy means of modifying the profile as
necessary.
In its proposal, EPA proposed limitations and standards for the
oils subcategory based on two treatment systems comprised of various
treatment technologies that the Agency identified. These were emulsion
breaking followed by (1) ultrafiltration and (2) ultrafiltration,
carbon adsorption, and reverse osmosis. These wastewater treatment
schemes were identified based on the data EPA had collected for
facilities treating highly concentrated, hazardous oily wastes. As
explained further below, EPA believes that the newly identified
facilities treat largely non-hazardous, dilute oily wastes. In
addition, EPA has learned that a number of these facilities are using
dissolved air flotation (DAF) systems to treat their wastewater.
Consequently, EPA will be sampling some of these facilities as part of
its assessment of appropriate limitations and standards for the oils
subcategory. EPA is particularly interested in obtaining information on
the use of DAF in treatment of oily wastes and requests any data and
information which commenters may have on this issue. This will be used
in the Agency's reconsideration of the achievable effluent limitations
and pretreatment standards.
II. Post-Proposal Data Gathering for the Oily Waste Treatment and
Recovery Subcategory
Since the January 27, 1995 proposal, EPA has obtained a more
inclusive list of facilities that may fall into the oils subcategory.
EPA gathered and evaluated technical data and economic data from
various sources, including comments to the January 27, 1995 proposal,
facility lists in the 1995 Environmental Information Directory,
membership lists from the National Oil Recyclers Association,
information from EPA Regions, and Dun and Bradstreet. EPA has compiled
a list of an additional 240 facilities that may be included in the oils
subcategory. Some of these facilities began operation after the Waste
Treatment Industry Questionnaire, the primary source of information for
the 1995 proposal was conducted. Others were in operation in 1989, the
base year for the questionnaire, but had not been identified by EPA as
centralized waste treatment facilities. EPA believes that many of the
newly identified facilities were created or altered their oily waste
treatment services in response to provisions of 40 CFR 279, promulgated
on September 10, 1992 (Standards for the Management of Used Oil, which
covers the handling and fate of used oils under the Solid Waste
Disposal Act and CERCLA). For the analyses presented in today's notice,
EPA determined that new facilities created after 1989 should be
included in the data base for development of the regulation because of
the tremendous growth rate of the industry.
EPA is also conducting further sampling in order to better
characterize the incoming waste receipts and type and concentrations of
wastewater constituents resulting from treatment of oily wastes and
wastewaters. EPA is sampling and evaluating the use of additional
treatment technologies including Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) and
plans to re-examine the technology basis and proposed limitations and
treatment standards for the oils subcategory based on the results of
this additional sampling.
III. Facility Specific Information
In developing these effluent limitations guidelines and
pretreatment standards, EPA considers impacts on the entire industry as
well as individual subcategories. Having learned of the additional
facilities treating oily wastes, not previously considered in
development of the proposal, EPA needed to develop information of both
a technical and economic nature for the newly identified facilities and
then incorporate this into the data base used for developing final
limitations and standards. EPA had several options. One method to
obtain the required information would be to send a questionnaire to the
240 facilities. EPA rejected this option since questionnaires are
burdensome for the facilities and time consuming to the EPA to develop,
conduct, and analyze.
The option EPA has recently adopted is to generate data for each of
the additional 240 facilities using modeling assumptions developed from
newly obtained information and the data base for the proposal. EPA has
then taken the data for each of the 240 facilities and used the
information to re-evaluate the proposed limits and standards for the
oils subcategory. The following sections explain how EPA developed this
information.
A. Wastewater Discharge Flow Estimates
In lieu of sending out questionnaires to the newly identified
facilities to collect technical and economic information, EPA used data
from secondary sources to estimate several facility characteristics
such as wastewater discharge flow. For most of the facilities,
information about total facility revenue and employment were available
from public sources (such as Dun and Bradstreet). Using these two
pieces of information, EPA used statistical procedures to match the
newly identified facilities to similar facilities that provided
information about facility operations in 1989 in response to EPA's
``Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire.'' This matching enabled EPA
to estimate the flow of treated wastewater from each of the newly
identified facilities. Where EPA had actual estimates of flow from the
facility or public sources, EPA used the actual values. This
methodology is described in more detail in the record accompanying this
notice.
[[Page 48808]]
B. Baseline Treatment Technology
In developing the 1995 proposal, EPA evaluated the treatment
technologies being used at the 35 facilities that EPA had identified as
belonging to the oils subcategory. EPA determined that the vast
majority of these facilities utilized emulsion breaking with either
acid and/or heat to separate the oil and water fractions. A few
facilities utilized other types of treatment systems in addition to
emulsion breaking, such as Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF). A few
facilities only utilized gravity separation; these facilities only
accepted unstable oil-water emulsions. However, very few facilities
utilized the technologies for the two co-proposed options-- identified
as Option 2 and Option 3 in the 1995 proposal. Under Option 2, the
proposed numerical effluent limitations and standards were based on the
use of ultrafiltration in the wastewater treatment system. Under Option
3, the proposed limitations and standards were based on the use of
carbon adsorption and reverse osmosis in addition to the Option 2
technology.
Based on information from NORA and from other secondary sources,
EPA discovered that the newly identified oils facilities utilize
technologies similar to those identified by questionnaire respondents.
EPA has found little evidence that the newly identified facilities
utilize the technologies associated with the proposed options for
limitations and standards. In modeling and costing technology
improvements necessary for the newly identified facilities to achieve
the effluent limitations and standards for the proposed options, EPA
assumes that none of the facilities have ultrafiltration, carbon
adsorption or reverse osmosis currently in place. Baseline treatment
for these newly identified facilities is assumed to be emulsion
breaking.
C. Final Treated Effluent Characterization
In developing the proposal, establishing the quantities of
pollutants currently being discharged in the final treated effluent
from oils facilities was a difficult task. As a result of EPA's
sampling at a few oils facilities, EPA determined that the wastewater
discharge from these facilities are characterized by as many as 100
pollutant parameters. Unfortunately, very few of the original 35
facilities could provide monitoring data for this wide list of
parameters. Additionally, most of these facilities mixed oily
wastewater with other centralized waste treatment (CWT) wastewaters,
industrial wastewater or stormwater prior to their monitoring point.
This made it extremely difficult to characterize the effluent from oils
treatment only.
As discussed previously, EPA found chemical emulsion breaking to be
baseline treatment for this subcategory. Therefore, current discharge
performance is the concentration of pollutants following chemical
emulsion breaking multiplied by the facility discharge flow. EPA
determined the concentration of pollutants resulting from chemical
emulsion breaking during the sampling program conducted prior to
proposal. This sampling program is discussed in more detail in the
Development Document for the Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry (EPA 821-R-
95-006, January 1995, NTIS #PB95-187985). EPA is currently conducting
additional sampling at some of the newly identified facilities to
supplement the earlier data and plans to publish the sampling results
for comments before promulgation.
For this notice, EPA estimated current discharge concentrations for
the newly identified facilities in the same manner as that used for the
proposal. Table I summarizes the concentrations of the parameters that
EPA is using to characterize wastewater pollutant concentrations for
each of the newly identified oils facilities.
Table I.--Oils Subcategory Current Wastewater Pollutant Concentrations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant
Pollutant concentration
(mg/L)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional:
BOD5................................................... 7,164
Oil and Grease......................................... 29,396
TSS.................................................... 7,209
Metals:
Aluminum............................................... 48.93
Antimony............................................... 1.34
Arsenic................................................ 0.22
Barium................................................. 2.53
Boron.................................................. 239.36
Cadmium................................................ 0.24
Chromium............................................... 2.20
Cobalt................................................. 0.72
Copper................................................. 15.79
Iron................................................... 232.26
Lead................................................... 8.15
Manganese.............................................. 7.39
Molybdenum............................................. 3.05
Nickel................................................. 26.44
Silver................................................. 1.08
Tin.................................................... 2.10
Titanium............................................... 0.38
Zinc................................................... 42.00
Organics:
1,1,1-Trichloroethane.................................. 3.64
2-Butanone............................................. 20.10
2-Propanone............................................ 221.07
4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol................................ 22.31
Benzene................................................ 8.25
Benzoic Acid........................................... 16.81
Ethyl Benzene.......................................... 6.61
Hexanoic Acid.......................................... 5.38
Methylene Chloride..................................... 1.47
m-Xylene............................................... 11.37
n-Decane............................................... 91.78
n-Docosane............................................. 3.03
n-Dodecane............................................. 70.39
n-Eicosane............................................. 42.69
n-Hexacosane........................................... 3.08
n-Hexadecane........................................... 153.22
n-Octadecane........................................... 95.36
n-Tetradecane.......................................... 282.72
o+p-Xylene............................................. 5.19
Phenol................................................. 4.59
Tetrachloroethene...................................... 2.16
Toluene................................................ 33.95
Tripropyleneglycol Methyl Ether........................ 86.47
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Revised Description of the Oily Waste Treatment and Recovery
Subcategory
EPA's original description of the oils subcategory was based on
Questionnaire responses for 1989. The following description reflects
the Agency's current, revised thinking on how the oils subcategory
should be characterized.
A. Overview
At the time of proposal, 35 facilities were estimated to be in the
oils subcategory. EPA now believes there are a total of 275 oils
facilities. These facilities accept a variety of wastes, oil, and oily
wastewater for treatment and/or recovery. Types of wastes accepted for
treatment include but are not limited to: lubricants, used petroleum
products, used oils, oil spill clean-up, bilge water, tank cleanout,
off-spec fuels, and underground storage tank remediation waste. Many
facilities pre-treat the oily wastes for contaminants such as water and
then blend the resulting oil residual to form a product--usually fuel.
At the time of proposal, EPA believed that 85 percent of oils
facilities were primarily accepting concentrated, difficult to treat
stable oil-water emulsions. As such, EPA's sampling program prior to
proposal focused on facilities that treated the more concentrated and
difficult to treat stable oil-water emulsions. New information
indicates that the majority of the newly identified facilities are
treating less concentrated wastestreams. At facilities that EPA
recently visited, EPA found
[[Page 48809]]
that many of the wastestreams treated for oil content were fairly
dilute and consisted of less than 10 percent oils. In contrast, at the
time of the proposal, EPA believed that oily wastestreams were more
concentrated and mainly consisted of more than 10 percent oils. While
EPA still believes some facilities are accepting the more concentrated
wastes, the dilute wastestreams increasingly represent the more
significant portion of the incoming wastes.
Further, at proposal, only three of the facilities included in the
data base for this subcategory were identified as solely accepting
wastes classified as non-hazardous under RCRA. The remaining facilities
accepted either hazardous wastes alone or a combination of hazardous
and non-hazardous wastes. In contrast, EPA believes that the vast
majority of the newly identified facilities only accept wastestreams
that would be classified by RCRA as non-hazardous.
Additionally, for the 1995 proposal, EPA decided not to propose
nationally applicable effluent limitations guidelines and standards for
fuel blending which was defined as ``the process of mixing organic
waste for the purpose of generating fuel for reuse.'' The 1989
Preliminary Data Summary for the Solvent Recycling Industry (EPA 440/1-
89/102, September 1989, NTIS #PB90-126467), which included fuel
blending operations, stated that 81 percent of the industry achieved
zero discharge of process wastewater primarily through incineration,
fuel blending, and contract hauling. EPA chose to exclude fuel blending
operations from the CWT rulemaking because EPA believed, based on
information obtained in the Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire,
that fuel blending was essentially a ``dry'' process and did not
generate any wastewater. The oily waste treatment industry's compliance
with the Standards for the Management of Used Oil (40 CFR 279) seems to
have increased the number of facilities that treat oily wastes for the
purpose of recovering used oils and fuels for use in fuel blends. As
such, EPA believes that the majority of the newly identified facilities
perform fuel blending operations as part of their waste treatment
services. EPA solicits comments on fuel blending operations in general
as well as those in conjunction with waste oil recovery and treatment.
EPA solicits information on the fuel blending process, wastewater
generated as a result of fuel blending operations, and the
applicability of the proposed rule to such operations.
B. Wastewater Flow and Discharge
Table II summarizes the original estimates of wastewater flow and
the revised estimates developed by including the newly identified
facilities for the oils subcategory. At the time of proposal, EPA
estimated that four of the 35 facilities were direct dischargers. The
remainder were indirect dischargers, discharging to Publicly Owned
Treatment Works (POTWs). During EPA's recent data gathering for oils
facilities, however, EPA has not identified any new facilities that are
direct dischargers. Therefore, for the newly identified oils
facilities, EPA assumes that all facilities are indirect dischargers.
EPA now believes that there are four direct dischargers and 271
indirect dischargers.
Table II.--Summary of Wastewater Discharges From Oils Subcategory
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Revised
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Direct Discharge (million gallons).. 64.2 64.2
Total Annual Indirect Discharge (million gallons) 162.5 946.8
Total Annual Discharge (million gallons)......... 226.7 1,011.1
Median Annual Flow (million gallons)............. 2.2 2.1
Average Annual Flow (million gallons)............ 6.5 3.7
Number of Facilities............................. 35 275
------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Costs of Technology Options
The Agency has estimated the cost for each of the newly identified
oils facilities to achieve each of the effluent limitations and
standards proposed in the January 27, 1995 Federal Register Notice.
These estimated costs are summarized in this section. The general
methodology used to calculate the costs for the newly identified
facilities was the same as that used for the proposal. A detailed
discussion of this methodology can be found in the Development Document
accompanying the proposal and in the Detailed Costing Document for the
Centralized Waste Treatment Industry (EPA 821-R-95-002, January 1995,
NTIS #PB95-187001).
All cost estimates in this section are expressed in 1995 dollars.
The cost components reported in this section represent estimates of the
investment cost of purchasing and installing equipment, the annual
operating and maintenance (O & M) costs associated with the equipment,
additional costs for monitoring, land costs, and costs for facilities
to modify existing RCRA permits. Even though EPA has assumed that the
newly-identified facilities accept only non-hazardous wastes, EPA
assumed that all facilities have an existing RCRA permit and that the
proposed technology changes would require permit modifications. EPA
made this assumption because EPA has identified non-hazardous
facilities which have a RCRA permit. EPA recognizes that use of this
assumption will necessarily overstate the costs of treatment for
facilities treating non-hazardous wastes which do not have a RCRA
permit. The land costs and the permitting costs have been included in
the capital costs. The monitoring costs are included in the O & M
costs. Total annualized costs include (1) the costs of capital and land
annualized over 20 years at 7 percent, and (2) the annual O & M costs.
For comparison purposes, the cost estimates calculated for the
original proposal for the oils subcategory have been included in
today's notice. The costs presented in the original proposal were
expressed in 1993 dollars. EPA adjusted the cost estimates from
proposal by applying the McGraw-Hill Company Engineering News Record
Construction Costs Indices for the appropriate years.
A. BPT Costs
The Agency estimated the cost of complying with the proposed
effluent limitations based on the best practicable control technology
currently available (BPT) for both of the proposed options-- Option 2
and Option 3. BPT limitations are expected to apply to the four direct
discharging facilities in this subcategory. BPT costs presented in this
notice including the newly identified facilities are the same as the
costs presented in the original proposal because EPA has assumed that
all of the newly identified facilities are indirect dischargers and
therefore not subject to BPT. The capital expenditures for Option 2 are
estimated to be $1.07 million with annual O&M costs of $0.82 million;
for Option 3, the capital expenditures are estimated to be $4.03
million with annual O&M costs of $8.56 million. To the extent that any
of the newly identified facilities are direct dischargers, they would
incur costs in complying with BPT and these figures would be an
underestimate.
B. BCT Costs
In the 1995 proposal, the Agency estimated that there would be no
incremental cost of compliance for
[[Page 48810]]
limitations based on the best conventional pollutant control technology
(BCT) because the technology is identical to BPT. This is still the
case for any newly identified facilities which are direct dischargers.
C. BAT Costs
In the 1995 proposal, the Agency estimated that there would be no
incremental cost of compliance for limitations based on the best
available technology economically achievable (BAT) because the
technology is identical to BPT. This is still the case for the newly
identified facilities which are direct dischargers.
D. PSES Costs
The Agency estimated the cost for compliance with pretreatment
standards for existing sources (PSES) using the same assumptions and
methodology used to estimate cost of implementing BPT. Table III
summarizes the capital expenditures, annual O&M costs, and total
annualized costs for implementing PSES for the original 35 facilities
as well as the revised estimates including the newly identified oils
facilities. For PSES Option 2, EPA estimates capital expenditures of
$45.72 million, annual O&M costs of $31.38 million, and total
annualized costs of $35.31 million. For PSES Option 3, EPA estimates
capital expenditures of $120.1 million, annual O&M costs of $173.85
million, and total annualized costs of $203.05 million.
Table III.--Cost of Complying With PSES for the Oils Subcategory
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original estimates ($ millions) Revised estimates ($ millions)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed option Total Total
Number of Capital Annual O&M annualized Number of Capital Annual O&M annualized
facilities costs costs costs facilities costs costs costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oils--Option 2................................. 31 4.42 2.49 3.12 271 45.72 31.38 35.31
Oils--Option 3................................. 31 13.65 22.58 25.59 271 120.1 173.85 203.05
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Pollutant Reductions
The Agency estimated the reduction in the mass of pollutants that
would be discharged from the newly identified oils facilities after the
implementation of the regulation proposed in January 1995. The
methodology used to estimate the pollutant reductions in this notice is
the same as that used for the proposal. A detailed discussion of this
methodology can be found in The Development Document for Proposed
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Centralized Waste
Treatment Industry (EPA 821-R-95-006, January 1995, NTIS #PB95-187985.
A. Conventional Pollutant Reductions
EPA has calculated how much the proposed BPT and BCT limitations
would reduce the total quantity of conventional pollutants that are
discharged by the oils facilities. The information presented in this
notice applies to the oils subcategory only. If a facility could be
classified in more than one subcategory, then only reductions related
to the oils portion have been included in this discussion. The
estimated conventional pollutant reductions due to BPT and BCT
limitations including the newly identified facilities are the same as
the reductions estimated in the original proposal since all of the
newly identified facilities are assumed to be indirect dischargers and
not subject to BPT and BCT limitations. The Agency estimates that the
proposed regulations will reduce BOD5 discharges by approximately
1.9 million pounds per year for Option 2 and by approximately 2.6
million pounds per year for Option 3; TSS discharges by approximately
3.9 million pounds per year for both Options 2 and 3; and oil and
grease discharges by approximately 14.4 million pounds per year for
Option 2 and 15.7 million pounds per year for Option 3.
B. Priority and Non-Conventional Pollutant Reductions
EPA applied the same methodology used to estimate conventional
pollutant reductions attributable to application of BPT/BCT control
technologies to estimate priority and non-conventional pollutant
reductions for each facility for the oils subcategory. Because EPA
proposed BAT limitations equivalent to BPT, there are no additional
pollutant reductions associated with the BAT limitations.
1. Direct Dischargers and BAT
The estimated reductions in pollutants directly discharged in
treated final effluent from the oils subcategory resulting from
implementation of BPT and BAT are summarized in Table IV. For
convenience in reviewing today's notice, this table provides the same
information that was presented in the proposal. EPA does not estimate
that any of the newly identified facilities are direct dischargers. The
Agency estimates that proposed BPT and BAT regulations will reduce
direct facility discharges of priority and non-conventional pollutants
by 0.85 million pounds per year for Option 2 and 0.93 million pounds
per year for Option 3.
Table IV.--Reduction in Direct Discharge of Priority and Non-
Conventional Pollutants for the Oils Subcategory
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metal Organic
compounds compounds
Proposed option (pounds/ (pounds/
year) year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 2...................................... 294,543 556,627
Option 3...................................... 319,847 610,937
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Indirect Dischargers and PSES
The estimated reductions in pollutants indirectly discharged to
POTWs resulting from implementation of PSES for the oils subcategory
are summarized in Table V. For comparison purposes, the table includes
the pollutant reductions originally estimated at the time of proposal
as well as the estimated pollutant reductions including the newly
identified facilities. The Agency estimates that proposed PSES
regulations including the newly identified facilities will reduce
indirect facility discharges to POTWs by 12.7 million pounds per year
for Option 2 and 13.6 million pounds per year for Option 3.
[[Page 48811]]
Table V. Reduction in Indirect Discharge of Priority and Non-Conventional Pollutants for the Oils Subcategory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original estimates (pounds/ Revised estimates (pounds/
year) year)
Proposed option ---------------------------------------------------------------
Metal Organic Metal Organic
compounds ompounds compounds compounds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oils--Proposed Option 2......................... 709,834 1,341,439 4,212,333 8,509,688
Oils--Proposed Option 3......................... 771,668 1,474,708 4,667,589 8,932,084
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Revised Economic Impacts
A. Overview
As explained in Section IV.A, EPA believes that the vast majority
of newly identified facilities only accept RCRA non-hazardous
wastestreams. Although the economic analysis assumes separate markets
for oily waste management services (one for hazardous oily wastes and
one for non-hazardous oily wastes), the following discussion focuses on
the economic impacts for facilities exclusively managing non-hazardous
oily waste.
The Agency has estimated the economic and financial impacts
expected to result from the proposed limitations and standards for all
of the newly identified oils facilities. This analysis includes an
assessment of projected changes in the prices and quantities of oily
waste treatment services, employment, facility profitability, and
impacts on companies owning these facilities (including small business
impacts). Today's notice summarizes the results of these analyses. For
all the analyses, dollar values from other years were adjusted to 1995
values using a cost adjustment factor.
Additional information about the economic analysis, including a
detailed description of the model and method, is available in Economic
Impacts of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the
Centralized Waste Treatment Industry: Revised Impacts of Oils Option 2
and Oils Option 3 (EPA 821-R-95-001, January 1995, NTIS #PB95-187985).
B. Data Sources and Assumptions for Revised Economic Analyses
In developing and running the models for the non-hazardous waste
market, EPA utilized five main sources of data: information obtained
from Dun and Bradstreet, information from the National Oil Recyclers
Association (NORA), information from comments to the 1995 proposal,
information from site visits conducted after the proposal at a limited
number of oils facilities, and information obtained from the Waste
Treatment Industry Questionnaire. The Agency solicits comment on the
representativeness of the data used and the accuracy of the assumptions
made in modeling facility operations for the new facilities.
EPA has assumed that the volume of waste and wastewater received
from off-site for treatment and/or recovery is evenly split between
oily waste from which oil is recovered and oily wastewater which is
treated. For facilities that recover oil, EPA has assumed that 60
percent of the incoming volume is recovered as oil and the remainder is
wastewater. Combining these assumptions, EPA assumed that the total
volume of incoming waste receipts at a facility is 1.25 times the
estimated discharge flow to the POTW. These assumptions were based on
information from NORA, site visits and previous questionnaire
responses.
The Agency estimated operating costs, revenues, and profits at each
facility, based on confidential cost and price data obtained from
commenters, and on each facility's estimated quantity of waste received
from off site. Each facility is assumed to charge $0.35 per gallon to
accept incoming waste receipts from off site, and to sell recovered oil
for $0.12 per gallon. Since no data are available from secondary
sources to enable the Agency to include other revenue or cost at each
facility, the Agency's analysis is limited to costs, revenues, and
profits from oily waste CWT operations only.
Demand for oily waste management services is assumed to be
relatively unresponsive to changes in price. Thus, when the price of
CWT services increases, EPA's analysis assumes that most generators
continue to send their waste to CWTs, and pay a higher price.
C. Changes to Economic Analysis Methodology Since Proposal
The economic analysis of Oils Option 2 and Oils Option 3 includes
impacts on 243 non-hazardous oily waste CWT facilities. This analysis
includes the 240 newly identified oily waste CWTs, plus the three non-
hazardous oils facilities from the pre-proposal analysis.
The Agency believes that the waste managed by the 243 non-hazardous
oily waste management CWTs is fundamentally different from the waste
managed at CWTs also accepting hazardous waste. Thus, facilities
managing non-hazardous oily waste offer services that are not perfect
substitutes for the services offered by facilities managing hazardous
oily waste. In other words, there are two separate markets for the two
types of oily waste CWT services. For this reason, the Agency has
chosen to develop two separate market models: one for hazardous oily
waste CWT services and one for non-hazardous oily waste CWT services.
For both markets, the Agency has assumed that there are six regional
markets, corresponding to the Northeast, Southeast, Upper Midwest,
Lower Midwest, Northwest, and Southwest of the United States. There the
similarities between the models end.
The model used to analyze the economic impacts on hazardous waste
CWTs is described in detail in the proposal and in EPA's Economic
Impact Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and
Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry (EPA 821-R-95-
001, January 1995, NTIS #PB95-106821). A brief description of the
hazardous model follows in order to contrast the model used to analyze
impacts on non-hazardous oily waste CWTs.
The hazardous oily waste CWT model assumed six regional markets in
which a few facilities offered centralized waste treatment services.
Within each region, markets are assumed to be imperfectly competitive:
facilities are aware of their competitors' actions and determine how
much waste to accept at a given market price based on their assumptions
about how their competitors will respond. Perhaps because of a desire
to avoid triggering additional RCRA corrective action requirements by
closing a facility, companies managing hazardous oily waste have tended
to keep unprofitable CWT facilities in operation for extended periods
of time. For this reason, the model does not assume that facilities
[[Page 48812]]
becoming unprofitable due to the proposed rule will close; rather, it
tallies the number of facilities becoming unprofitable (as well as
those becoming more profitable).
Unlike the hazardous waste markets, each of the six regional
markets for non-hazardous oily waste CWT services includes from 15 to
70 facilities offering to supply these services. With so many
facilities, it is not possible for each facility to keep track of all
of its competitors' activities. Neither is it possible for any one
facility to have a significant impact on market price. Thus, the
analysis assumes that the market for non-hazardous oily waste CWT
services is competitive. Rather than making a strategic decision when
faced with new market conditions, non-hazardous oils CWTs determine the
profit-maximizing quantity of waste to treat, given a new market price.
Unlike the hazardous waste oils CWTs, these facilities do not share the
same concerns about RCRA corrective action; they are all estimated to
be profitable at baseline and are assumed to close if unprofitable.
D. Revised Economic Impacts for Oils Options 2 and 3
1. Impacts on Non-Hazardous Oily Waste CWT Facilities and Markets
Facilities complying with Option 2 and Option 3 may need to obtain
land, install capital equipment, and employ more labor and materials.
These compliance activities will increase the cost of treating oily
waste and oily wastewater at CWT facilities. The costs incurred by oily
waste management facilities are described in Section V. In this
section, EPA describes expected facility responses to the increased
costs, and the resulting impacts on the markets for oily waste
management services, industry and facility profitability, and
employment.
Facilities are assumed to respond to changes in their costs and in
the market price for treatment services by selecting the profit-
maximizing quantity of waste to treat. All non-hazardous oily waste CWT
facilities are assumed to incur compliance costs under both Option 2
and Option 3. Overall, the quantity of waste accepted by each facility
declines; market supply falls and market price rises. Facilities become
less profitable and some close. Because they are accepting less waste,
they need fewer employees, and employment declines. Table VI summarizes
the results of this analysis.
Table VI.--Impacts of Oils Option 2 and Option 3 on CWTS Managing Non-
Hazardous Oily Waste
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes from baseline
-----------------------------------
Absolute Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 2:
Market Price ($1995/gallon)..... 0.03 8.5
Quantity Treated (10 \3\ gallons/
year).......................... -20,158 -2.0
Option 3:
Market Price ($1995/gallon)..... 0.12 34.4
Quantity Treated (10\3\ gallons/
year).......................... -71,210 -7.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 2:
Average Change in Operating
Profits ($10\3\)............... -12 -1.0
Facilities Becoming Unprofitable 3 1.2
Change in Employment............ -721 -9.6
Option 3:
Average Change in Operating
Profits ($10\3\)............... -166 -14.5
Facilities Becoming Unprofitable 30 12.3
Change in Employment............ -2,024 -26.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under Option 2, the price charged to generators of oily waste
increases substantially, and the quantity of oily waste treated
decreases slightly. This relatively large increase in price and
moderate decrease in the quantity of waste treated reflect the fact
that supply and demand curves for oily waste CWT services are both
relatively unresponsive to changes in price. Thus, when the costs of
the facilities increase, they are able to pass most of the increased
cost along to their customers. While the price charged to the
generators for oily waste CWT services is projected to increase
significantly, this does not represent a significant burden to the
average manufacturer, for whom CWT services is a very small share of
total manufacturing costs. Three oily waste CWT facilities, which are
predicted to incur very high compliance costs, are predicted to close
as a result of Option 2. Employment is estimated to decline by more
than 700 employees. Under Option 3, the impacts are considerably
higher. Thirty facilities are projected to close and employment is
projected to decline by more than 2,000 employees, from a base of
approximately 7,530.
2. Small Business Impacts
As was the case for proposal, the Agency has defined small business
according to the Small Business Administration's definition for SIC
code 4953 (Refuse Systems). Small businesses owning CWTs are those
having less than $6 million in annual sales. Of the 243 non-hazardous
oils facilities, the Agency has determined that 99 are owned by small
businesses. Of the remaining facilities, 90 are owned by businesses
that are not small. The Agency has been unable to determine the size of
the companies owning the remaining 54 facilities because no company
ownership data are available from publicly available financial
databases. For this notice, the Agency's analysis of impacts on small
businesses is limited to impacts on the 99 facilities known to be owned
by small companies.
The impacts of the proposed regulation on small businesses are
summarized in Table VII. Total annualized compliance costs for these
facilities average $125,000 per facility under Option 2 and $567,000
per facility under Option 3. Under Option 2, total annualized
compliance costs
[[Page 48813]]
represent 9% of baseline facility revenues for the facilities owned by
small businesses; under Option 3, they are 39 percent. Profits for
small businesses owning oily waste CWT facilities are projected to
decline by 2.0% as a result of Option 2 and by 15.4% as a result of
Option 3. No facilities owned by small businesses are projected to
close as a result of Option 2, but two are projected to close as a
result of Option 3. Employment at facilities owned by small businesses
is projected to decline by 6.7 percent under Option 2 and by nearly 23
percent under Option 3.
Table VII.--Small Business Impacts of the Proposed Regulation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes from baseline
-----------------------------------
Absolute Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 2:
Average Change in Operating
Profits ($10\3\)............... -20 -2.0
Facility Closures............... 0 0
Change in Employment............ -86 -6.7
TAC as a Share of Baseline
Revenue........................ ................ 8.8
Option 3:
Average Change in Operating
Profits ($10\3\)............... -160 -15.4
Facility Closures............... 2 2.0
Change in Employment............ -293 -22.8
TAC as a Share of Baseline
Revenue........................ ................ 39.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Cost-Effectiveness of Option 2 and Option 3
EPA's cost-effectiveness analysis compares the costs of complying
with the control options to their effectiveness in removing pollutants
from surface waters. Cost-effectiveness ratios are expressed as dollars
per pound-equivalent removed, where a ``pound-equivalent'' is a pound
of pollutant weighted by its relative toxicity. The estimated pollutant
reductions (see Section VI) for indirect dischargers are also adjusted
to reflect pollutant removals by the POTW. Total cost-effectiveness is
calculated as the ratio of the total annualized costs to the pound
equivalents removed. Cost-effectiveness can also be presented
incrementally between options, comparing incremental costs to
incremental removals from option to option. To permit comparison with
cost-effectiveness results for effluent limitation guidelines and
standards for other industries, the total annualized costs of Option 2
and Option 3 were converted to 1981 dollar values.
Table VIII details the results of the revised cost-effectiveness
analysis for Option 2 and Option 3. The results reported include costs
and removals for the entire oils subcategory and thus include hazardous
oily waste CWTs as well as the non-hazardous oily waste CWTs. Since no
new direct dischargers have been identified, the cost-effectiveness
results for direct dischargers remain unchanged since proposal. At the
time of proposal, EPA's cost effectiveness results for indirect
discharging oils facilities were lower than the results presented in
Table VIII. Total and incremental cost-effectiveness of Option 2 was
$13.79 per pound-equivalent removed. For option 3, total cost-
effectiveness was $111.37 per pound equivalent removed, and incremental
cost-effectiveness was $6,692.49 per pound equivalent removed.
Table VIII.--Cost Effectiveness of Option 2 and Option 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Total cost- Incremental cost-
annualized costs Removals (lb-eq/ effectiveness effectiveness
($1981/yr) yr) ($/lb-eq) ($/lb-eq)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Dischargers:
Option 2............................ 628,218 113,500 5.53 5.53
Option 3............................ 6,143,526 119,256 51.52 958.18
Indirect dischargers:
Option 2............................ 22,861,383 950,144 24.06 24.06
Option 3............................ 131,454,856 969,858 135.54 5,508.44
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIII. Solicitation of Data and Comments
A. Introduction and General Solicitation
EPA invites and encourages public participation in this rulemaking.
The Agency asks that comments address any perceived deficiencies in the
record of this notice and that suggested revisions or corrections be
supported by data. EPA is requesting that individual facilities in the
oils subcategory review the data developed for their facility to ensure
that EPA has accurately characterized their operations.
The Agency invites all parties to coordinate their data collection
activities with EPA to facilitate mutually beneficial and cost-
effective data submissions. EPA is interested in participating in study
plans, data collection and documentation. Please refer to the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION section at the beginning of this notice for
technical contacts at EPA.
All information that you provide to EPA in your comments may be
made public by EPA without further notice to you if not claimed as
Confidential Business Information (CBI). Any information submitted,
other than effluent data, may be claimed as CBI, as described in 40 CFR
Section 2.203 (b):
(b) Method and time of asserting business confidentiality claim.
A business which is submitting information to EPA may assert a
business confidentiality claim covering the information at the time
it is submitted to EPA, a cover sheet, stamped or typed legend, or
other suitable form of notice employing language such as `trade
secret,' `proprietary,' or `company confidential.' Allegedly
[[Page 48814]]
confidential portions of otherwise non-confidential documents should
be clearly identified by the business, and may be submitted
separately to facilitate identification and handling by EPA. If the
business desires confidential treatment only until a certain date or
until the occurrence of a certain event, the notice should so state.
Information covered by a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed
by EPA only to the extent, and by means of the procedures, set forth in
40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B. In general, submitted information protected
by a business confidentiality claim may be disclosed to other
employees, officers, or authorized representatives of the United States
concerned with carrying out the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act, or
when relevant to any proceeding under these Acts.
B. Specific Data and Comment Solicitations
EPA requests comments and data on the following issues:
1. Estimation of Oils Subcategory Size
Based on data gathered from various sources for today's notice, EPA
has revised its estimate of the number of facilities in the oils
subcategory. EPA estimates that there are 275 facilities in the oils
subcategory. A portion of these facilities may have been considered as
part of the Preliminary Data Summary for the Solvent Recycling Industry
rather than part of the Preliminary Data Summary for the Hazardous
Waste Treatment Industry (EPA 440/1-89/100, September 1989, NTIS #PB90-
126517). EPA solicits general comments on this revised estimate as well
as specific information on the number, name, and location of facilities
within the industry.
2. Waste Receipt Characterization
At the time of proposal, EPA believed that the vast majority of
oils facilities treated concentrated, stable oil-water emulsions. As
such, EPA's sampling program prior to proposal focused on facilities
which accepted these types of wastes. EPA no longer believes that the
majority of wastewater receipts are comprised of concentrated (>10%
oil) wastestreams. EPA requests information on the type of oily waste
(stable, unstable, % water, etc.) accepted for treatment by the oils
subcategory as well as constituents found in the incoming wastes and
wastewaters.
3. Wastewater Discharge Flow Rates
For this notice, EPA estimated the annual discharge flow rate at
each of the newly identified facilities based on publicly available
information on total facility revenue and employment. Additionally, EPA
assumed that all of these facilities discharge to Publicly Owned
Treatment Works (POTWs) rather than to surface waters. EPA solicits
information on the actual annual wastewater discharge flow rate at each
of the oils facilities as well as the destination of the wastewater
discharge.
4. Wastewater Treatment Technologies
EPA assumed that all of the newly-identified oils facilities have
chemical emulsion breaking to treat wastes and wastewaters accepted for
treatment. EPA additionally assumed that none of the newly-identified
facilities utilize any of the technologies that form the basis for the
proposed options. EPA solicits information on these assumptions.
Facilities should provide detailed information on the types of
treatment technologies employed in both their oil recovery and
wastewater treatment operations.
5. Characterization of Wastewater Resulting From Various Treatment
Technologies
EPA has proposed chemical emulsion breaking as the baseline
wastewater treatment technology for this subcategory. In order to
provide a broader picture of the pollutant removal effectiveness, EPA
is seeking additional information on the concentrations of pollutants
in wastewater resulting from treatment by chemical emulsion breaking
and gravity separation. Additionally, as noted previously, EPA will be
sampling at some oils subcategory facilities that use dissolved air
flotation (DAF) to treat oily wastewaters. EPA is particularly
interested in data on the chemical composition of wastewaters resulting
from treatment by DAF. To the extent that actual wastewater treatment
data is available for DAF, EPA is also soliciting that information.
6. Final Effluent Characterization
EPA has very limited data on the level of constituents currently
being discharged in the treated final effluent resulting solely from
the treatment of oily wastes and wastewaters at oils facilities. For
the proposal and today's notice, EPA has assumed that all facilities
have the same constituents and concentrations of constituents in their
discharges. EPA requests discharge monitoring data from facilities
prior to commingling with other centralized waste treatment wastewater,
non-contaminated stormwater, or other sources of wastewater.
7. Fuel Blending
In EPA's 1995 proposal, EPA chose not to propose nationally
applicable effluent limitations guidelines and standards for fuel
blending operations defined as ``the process of mixing organic waste
for the purpose of generating fuel for reuse.'' New information
indicates that the majority of the newly identified facilities perform
fuel blending operations as part of their waste treatment services. EPA
solicits comments on fuel blending operations in general as well as
those in conjunction with waste oil recovery and treatment. EPA
solicits information on the fuel blending process, wastewater generated
as a result of fuel blending operations, and the applicability of the
proposed rule to such operations.
8. RCRA Permits
EPA has identified non-hazardous oils facilities which have
obtained or applied for RCRA permits. As such, EPA assumed that all of
the newly identified facilities had the potential to have a RCRA
permit, and EPA included the cost of permit modifications in the
capital component of complying with the proposed options. EPA
recognizes that use of this assumption will necessarily overstate the
costs of treatment for those non-hazardous facilities which do not have
a RCRA permit. EPA solicits comment on why non-hazardous facilities
would obtain a RCRA permit and the extent of RCRA permits in the non-
hazardous portion of this industry.
9. Assumptions for Revised Economic Analysis
EPA used various sources of information to make assumptions used in
modeling the baseline conditions for the newly identified oils
facilities. EPA made assumptions concerning the relationship between
the volume of incoming waste and wastewaters being treated in oil
recovery and wastewater treatment, the percent of oil recovered, the
relationship between incoming waste receipts and final treated effluent
flow rates, the charge to generators for the CWT service, the price of
recovered oil, and the market structure. EPA solicits comments on the
accuracy of the assumptions used.
Dated: September 9, 1996.
Robert Perciasepe,
Assistant Administrator for Water.
[FR Doc. 96-23658 Filed 9-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
