[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 18 (Friday, January 27, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5464-5506]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-47]
[[Page 5463]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Part 437
_______________________________________________________________________
Centralized Waste Treatment Category, Effluent Limitations Guidelines;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 18 / January, 27, 1995 / Proposed
Rules
[[Page 5464]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 437
[FRL-5126-9]
RIN 2040-AB78
Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New
Source Performance Standards: Centralized Waste Treatment Category
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed regulation would establish technology-based
limits for the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters of the
United States and into publicly-owned treatment works by existing and
new facilities that receive industrial waste from off-site for
treatment or recovery. This regulation will reduce the discharge of
pollutants by at least 123 million pounds per year, reducing excursions
of aquatic life and/or human health toxic effect levels in thirty
waterbodies. As a result of consultation with stakeholders, the
preamble solicits comments and data not only on issues raised by EPA,
but also on those raised by State and local governments who will be
implementing these regulations and by industry representatives who will
be affected by them.
DATES: Comments on the proposal must be received by April 27, 1995.
In addition, EPA will conduct a workshop covering this rulemaking,
in conjunction with a public hearing on the pretreatment standards
portion of the rule. The workshop will be held on March 24, 1995, from
8:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. The public hearing will be conducted from 11
a.m. to 1 p.m.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to Ms. Debra DiCianna,
Engineering and Analysis Division (4303), 911 East Tower, U.S. EPA, 401
M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460. The public record is in the Water
Docket located in the basement of the EPA Headquarters building, Room
L102, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460, telephone number (202)
260-3027. The Docket staff requests that interested parties call for an
appointment between the hours of 9 am and 3:30 pm, before visiting the
docket. The EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 2 provide that a reasonable
fee may be charged for copying.
The workshop and public hearing covering the rulemaking will be
held in the Lake Michigan Conference Room at the U.S. EPA Region V
Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL. Persons wishing to
present formal comments at the public hearing should have a written
copy for submittal.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional technical information
contact Ms. Debra DiCianna at (202) 260-7141. Additional economic
information may be obtained by contacting Ms. Susan M. Burris at (202)
260-5379. Background documents supporting the proposed regulations are
described in the ``Background Documents'' section below. Many of the
documents are also available from the Office of Water Resource Center,
RC-4100, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone
(202) 260-7786 for the voice mail publication request line.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Overview
The preamble describes the definitions, acronyms, and abbreviations
used in this notice; the background documents that support these
proposed regulations; the legal authority of these rules; a summary of
the proposal; background information; and the technical and economic
methodologies used by the Agency to develop these regulations. This
preamble also solicits comment and data on specific areas of interest.
Organization of This Document
Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations
Background Documents
Legal Authority
I. Summary and Scope of the Proposed Regulation
A. Background
B. The Centralized Waste Treatment Industry
C. Scope
D. Proposed Limitations and Standards
II. Background
A. Clean Water Act
B. Summary of Public Participation
C. The Land Disposal Restrictions Program
III. Description of the Industry
A. Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities
B. Waste Treatment Processes
IV. Summary of EPA Activities and Data Gathering Efforts
A. EPA Initial Efforts to Develop Guidelines for the Waste
Treatment Industry
B. Wastewater Sampling Program
C. 1991 Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire
D. Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire
V. Development of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
A. Industry Subcategorization
B. Characterization of Wastewater
C. Pollutants Not Regulated
D. Available Technologies
E. Rationale for Selection of Proposed Regulations
F. Monitoring to Demonstrate Compliance with the Regulation
G. Determination of Long-Term Averages, Variability Factors, and
Limitations for BPT
H. Regulatory Implementation
VI. Costs and Impacts of Regulatory Alternative
A. Costs
B. Pollutant Reductions
C. Economic Impact Assessment
D. Water Quality Analysis
E. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
VII. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket and Public Record
B. Clean Water Act Procedural Requirements
C. Executive Order 12866
D. Executive Order 12875
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
F. Paperwork Reduction Act
VIII. Solicitation of Data and Comments
A. Introduction and General Solicitation
B. Specific Data and Comment Solicitations
Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations
Administrator--The Administrator of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Agency--The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Average monthly discharge limitation--The highest allowable average
of ``daily discharges'' over a calendar month, calculated as the sum of
all ``daily discharges'' measured during the calendar month divided by
the number of ``daily discharges'' measured during the month.
BAT--The best available technology economically achievable, as
described in Sec. 304(b)(2) of the CWA.
BCT--The best conventional pollutant control technology, as
described in Sec. 304(b)(4) of the CWA.
BOD5--Biochemical oxygen demand--Five Day. A measure of
biochemical decomposition of organic matter in a water sample. It is
determined by measuring the dissolved oxygen consumed by microorganisms
to oxidize the organic contaminants in a water sample under standard
laboratory conditions of five days and 70 deg.C. BOD5 is not
related to the oxygen requirements in chemical combustion.
BPT--The best practicable control technology currently available,
as described in Sec. 304(b)(1) of the CWA.
Centralized waste treatment facility--Any facility that treats any
hazardous or non-hazardous industrial wastes received from off-site by
tanker truck, trailer/roll-off bins, drums, barge, or other forms of
shipment. A ``centralized waste treatment facility'' includes (1) a
facility that treats waste received from off-site exclusively and (2) a
facility that [[Page 5465]] treats wastes generated on-site as well as
waste received from off-site.
Centralized waste treatment wastewater--Water that comes in contact
with wastes received from off-site for treatment or recovery or that
comes in contact with the area in which the off-site wastes are
received, stored or collected.
Clarifier--A treatment unit designed to remove suspended materials
from wastewater--typically by sedimentation.
COD--Chemical oxygen demand. A bulk parameter that measures the
oxygen-consuming capacity of refractory organic and inorganic matter
present in water or wastewater. COD is expressed as the amount of
oxygen consumed from a chemical oxidant in a specific test.
Commercial facility--Facilities that accept waste from off-site for
treatment from facilities not under the same ownership as their
facility.
Conventional pollutants--The pollutants identified in Sec.
304(a)(4) of the CWA and the regulations thereunder (biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD5), total suspended solids (TSS), oil and grease, fecal
coliform, and pH).
CWA--Clean Water Act. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), as amended, inter alia, by
the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-217) and the Water Quality
Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-4). CWT--Centralized Waste Treatment.
Daily discharge--The discharge of a pollutant measured during any
calendar day or any 24-hour period that reasonably represents a
calendar day.
Direct discharger--A facility that discharges or may discharge
treated or untreated pollutants into waters of the United States.
Effluent--Wastewater discharges.
Effluent limitation--Any restriction, including schedules of
compliance, established by a State or the Administrator on quantities,
rates, and concentrations of chemical, physical, biological, and other
constituents which are discharged from point sources into navigable
waters, the waters of the contiguous zone, or the ocean. (CWA Sections
301(b) and 304(b).)
EIA--Economic Impact Analysis.
EPA--The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Facility--A facility is all contiguous property owned, operated,
leased or under the control of the same person. The contiguous property
may be divided by public or private right-of-way.
Fuel Blending--The process of mixing organic waste for the purpose
of generating a fuel for reuse.
Indirect discharger--A facility that discharges or may discharge
pollutants into a publicly-owned treatment works.
LTA--Long-term average. For purposes of the effluent guidelines,
average pollutant levels achieved over a period of time by a facility,
subcategory, or technology option. LTAs were used in developing the
limitations and standards in today's proposed regulation.
Metal-bearing wastes--Wastes that contain metal pollutants from
manufacturing or processing facilities or other commercial operations.
These wastes may include, but are not limited to, the following:
process wastewater, process residuals such as tank bottoms or stills
and process wastewater treatment residuals, such as treatment sludges.
Minimum level--The level at which an analytical system gives
recognizable signals and an acceptable calibration point.
Mixed Commercial/Non-commercial facility--Facilities that accept
some waste from off-site for treatment from facilities not under the
same ownership, and some waste from off-site for treatment from
facilities under the same ownership as their facility.
New Source--``New source'' is defined at 40 CFR 122.2 and 122.29.
Non-commercial facility--Facilities that accept waste from off-site
for treatment only from facilities under the same ownership as their
facility.
Non-conventional pollutants--Pollutants that are neither
conventional pollutants nor priority pollutants listed at 40 CFR
Section 401.
Non-detect value--A concentration-based measurement reported below
the sample specific detection limit that can reliably be measured by
the analytical method for the pollutant.
Non-water quality environmental impact--An environmental impact of
a control or treatment technology, other than to surface waters.
NPDES--The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
authorized under Sec. 402 of the CWA. NPDES requires permits for
discharge of pollutants from any point source into waters of the United
States.
NSPS--New Source Performance Standards.
OCPSF--Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers
Manufacturing Effluent Guideline.
Off-Site--``Off-site'' means outside the boundaries of a facility.
Oily Wastes--Wastes that contain oil and grease from manufacturing
or processing facilities or other commercial operations. These wastes
may include, but are not limited to, the following: spent lubricants,
cleaning fluids, process wastewater, process residuals such as tank
bottoms or stills and process wastewater treatment residuals, such as
treatment sludges.
Oligopoly--A market structure with few competitors, in which each
producer is aware of his competitors' actions and has a significant
influence on market price and quantity.
On-site--``On-site'' means within the boundaries of a facility.
Organic-bearing Wastes--Wastes that contain organic pollutants from
manufacturing or processing facilities or other commercial operations.
These wastes may include, but are not limited to, process wastewater,
process residuals such as tank bottoms or stills and process wastewater
treatment residuals, such as treatment sludges.
Outfall--The mouth of conduit drains and other conduits from which
a facility effluent discharges into receiving waters.
Pipeline--``Pipeline'' means an open or closed conduit used for the
conveyance of material. A pipeline includes a channel, pipe, tube,
trench or ditch.
Point source category--A category of sources of water pollutants.
Pollutant (to water)--Dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator
residue, filter backwash, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions,
chemical wastes, biological materials, certain radioactive materials,
heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt, and
industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water.
POTW or POTWs--Publicly-owned treatment works, as defined at 40 CFR
403.3(0).
Pretreatment standard--A regulation that establishes industrial
wastewater effluent quality required for discharge to a POTW. (CWA
Section 307(b).)
Priority pollutants--The pollutants designated by EPA as priority
in 40 CFR part 423, appendix A.
Process wastewater--``Process wastewater'' is defined at 40 CFR
122.2.
PSES--Pretreatment standards for existing sources of indirect
discharges, under Sec. 307(b) of the CWA.
PSNS--Pretreatment standards for new sources of indirect
discharges, under Sec. 307 (b) and (c) of the CWA.
RCRA--Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (PL 94-580) of 1976,
as amended.
SIC--Standard Industrial Classification (SIC). A numerical
categorization system used by the U.S. Department of Commerce to
catalogue economic activity. SIC codes refer to the products, or group
of products, produced or distributed, or to services
[[Page 5466]] rendered by an operating establishment. SIC codes are
used to group establishments by the economic activities in which they
are engaged. SIC codes often denote a facility's primary, secondary,
tertiary, etc. economic activities.
Small business--Businesses with annual sales revenues less than $6
million. This is the Small Business Administration definition of small
business for SIC code 4953, Refuse Systems (13 CFR Ch.1, Sec. 121.601).
Solidification--The addition of agents to convert liquid or semi-
liquid hazardous waste to a solid before burial to reduce the leaching
of the waste material and the possible migration of the waste or its
constituent from the facility. The process is usually accompanied by
stabilization.
Stabilization--A hazardous waste process that decreases the
mobility of waste constituents by means other than solidification.
Stabilization techniques include mixing the waste with sorbents such as
fly ash to remove free liquids. For the purpose of this rule, chemical
precipitation is not a technique for stabilization.
TSS--Total Suspended Solids. A measure of the amount of particulate
matter that is suspended in a water sample. The measure is obtained by
filtering a water sample of known volume. The particulate material
retained on the filter is then dried and weighed.
Variability factor--The daily variability factor is the ratio of
the estimated 99th percentile of the distribution of daily values
divided by the expected value, median or mean, of the distribution of
the daily data. The monthly variability factor is the estimated 95th
percentile of the distribution of the monthly averages of the data
divided by the expected value of the monthly averages.
Waste Receipt--Wastes received for treatment or recovery. Waters of
the United States--The same meaning set forth in 40 CFR 122.2.
Zero discharge--No discharge of pollutants to waters of the United
States or to a POTW. Also included in this definition are discharge of
pollutants by way of evaporation, deep-well injection, off-site
transfer, and land application.
Background Documents
The regulations proposed today are supported by several major
documents. (1) EPA's technical conclusions concerning the wastewater
regulations are detailed in the ``Development Document for Proposed
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Centralized Waste
Treatment Industry,'' hereafter referred to as the Technical
Development Document (EPA-821-R-95-006). (2) Detailed documentation of
the procedure and equations used for costing the technology options is
included in the ``Detailed Costing Document for the Centralized Waste
Treatment Industry,'' hereafter referred to as the Costing Document
(EPA-821-R-95-002). (3) The Agency's economic analysis is found in the
``Economic Impact Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry,'' hereafter
called the Economic Impact Analysis (EPA-821-R-95-001). (4) The
Agency's assessment of environmental benefits is detailed in the
``Environmental Assessment of Proposed Effluent Guidelines for the
Centralized Waste Treatment Industry,'' hereafter called the
Environmental Assessment (EPA-821-R-95-003). (5) An analysis of the
incremental costs and pollutant removals for the effluent regulations
is presented in ``Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Proposed Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Centralized Waste
Treatment Industry,'' hereafter called the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
(EPA-821-R-95-004). (6) The methodology used for calculating
limitations is discussed in the ``Statistical Support Document for
Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the
Centralized Waste Treatment Industry'' hereafter referred to as the
Statistical Support Document (EPA-821-R-95-005).
Legal Authority
These regulations are being proposed under the authority of
Sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, and 501 of the Clean Water Act, 33
U.S.C. Sections 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, and 1361.
I. Summary and Scope of the Proposed Regulation
A. Background
Congress adopted the Clean Water Act (CWA) to ``restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
Nation's waters.'' Section 101(a), 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1251(a). To achieve
this goal, the CWA prohibits the discharge of pollutants into navigable
waters except in compliance with the statute. The Clean Water Act
attacks the problem of water pollution on a number of different fronts.
Its primary reliance, however, is on establishing restrictions on the
types and amounts of pollutants discharged from various industrial,
commercial, and public sources of wastewater.
Congress recognized that regulating only those sources that
discharge effluent directly into the nation's waters would not be
sufficient to achieve the CWA's goals. Consequently, the CWA requires
EPA to promulgate nationally applicable pretreatment standards which
restrict pollutant discharges for those who discharge wastewater
indirectly through sewers flowing to publicly-owned treatment works
(POTWs) (Section 307 (b) and (c), 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1317 (b) & (c)).
National pretreatment standards are established for those pollutants in
wastewater from indirect dischargers which may pass through or
interfere with POTW operations. Generally, pretreatment standards are
designed to ensure that wastewater from direct and indirect industrial
dischargers are subject to similar levels of treatment. In addition,
POTWs are required to implement local treatment limits applicable to
their industrial indirect dischargers to satisfy any local requirements
(40 CFR 403.5).
Direct dischargers must comply with effluent limitations in
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (``NPDES'') permits;
indirect dischargers must comply with pretreatment standards. These
limitations and standards are established by regulation for categories
of industrial dischargers and are based on the degree of control that
can be achieved using various levels of pollution control technology.
In addition, pretreatment standards must be established for those
pollutants which are not susceptible to treatment by POTWs or which
would interfere with POTW operations (CWA Sections 301(b), 304(b), 306,
307 (b)-(d), 33 U.S.C. Secs. 1311(b), 1314(b), 1316, and 1317 (b)-(d)).
Today's proposal represents the Agency's first attempt to develop
national guidelines that establish effluent limitations and
pretreatment standards for new and existing dischargers from the
Centralized Waste Treatment Industry. EPA estimates that the regulation
being proposed today would reduce the discharge of conventional,
priority, and non-conventional pollutants by at least 123 million
pounds per year. EPA performed an analysis of the water quality
benefits that would be derived from this proposal and predicts that
contributions by centralized waste treatment facilities to current
excursions of aquatic life and/or human health toxic effect levels
would be eliminated for twenty streams and reduced for ten others. EPA
also projects through modeling that eleven of the seventeen POTWs
expected to experience inhibition of treatment due to
[[Page 5467]] centralized treatment facilities would no longer
experience inhibition from these sources.
B. The Centralized Waste Treatment Industry
The adoption of the increased pollution control measures required
by CWA and RCRA requirements had a number of ancillary effects, one of
which has been the formation and development of a waste treatment
industry. Several factors have contributed to the growth of this
industry. Thus, for example, in order to comply with CWA discharge
limits, categorical industries have installed new (or upgraded
existing) wastewater treatment facilities in order to treat their
process wastewater. But the wastewater treatment may produce a residual
sludge which itself may require further treatment before disposal under
EPA RCRA requirements. Furthermore, many industrial process by-products
now are either RCRA listed or characteristic hazardous wastes which
require special handling or treatment before disposal.
A manufacturing facility's options for managing these wastes
include on-site treatment with its other wastes or sending them off-
site. Because a large number of operations have chosen to send their
wastes off-site, specialized facilities have developed whose sole
commercial operations are the handling of wastewater treatment
residuals and industrial process by-products. Moreover, some industrial
operations also have chosen to accept wastes from off-site for
treatment in their on-site facilities. Further, there are some
commercial facilities to which wastes are piped for treatment. Other
wastes go to landfills or incinerators for disposal.
The waste treatment industry includes facilities which receive both
hazardous and non-hazardous industrial waste. These facilities receive
a variety of wastes for treatment and recovery of waste components.
Among these wastes are wastewater treatment sludges, process residuals,
tank bottoms, off-spec products, and wastes generated from clean-up
activities. Some facilities may also treat industrial process
wastewater with these wastes.
In the early 1990's, this industry experienced a slow down because
many existing facilities were designed to handle larger quantities than
the market produced. Reduced economic activity generally in combination
with pollution prevention measures resulted in a decrease in the amount
of waste sent off-site for treatment. As a result, competition among
facilities increased resulting in facilities operating below capacity
and experiencing economic and financial difficulties. This may be
changing at the present. Recently, participants in the March 1994
public meeting for this proposal stated that the industry is
experiencing new growth due to increasing environmental regulations.
The Agency solicits information and data on the current size of the
industry and trends related to the growth or decline in need for the
services provided by these facilities.
C. Scope
Today's proposal would establish discharge limitations and
standards for discharges from those facilities which the rule defines
as ``centralized waste treatment facilities.'' The facilities which are
covered by this guideline include stand-alone waste treatment and
recovery facilities which treat waste received from off-site.
``Centralized waste treatment facilities'' also include treatment
systems which treat on-site generated process wastewater with wastes
received from off-site. However, the rule does not apply to facilities
which receive wastes from off-site by pipeline from the original source
of waste generation.
Centralized waste treatment facilities include the following: (1)
Commercial facilities that accept waste from off-site for treatment
from facilities not under the same ownership as the treating facility;
(2) non-commercial facilities that accept waste from off-site for
treatment only from facilities under the same ownership (intra-company
transfer); or (3) mixed commercial/non-commercial facilities that
accept some waste from off-site for treatment from facilities not under
the same ownership and some waste from facilities under the same
ownership.
This summary section highlights the technology bases and other key
aspects of the proposed rule. The technology descriptions in this
section are presented in abbreviated form; more detailed descriptions
are included in the Technical Development Document and Section V.E.
Today's proposal presents the Agency's recommended regulatory approach
as well as other options considered by EPA. The Agency's recommended
approach for establishing discharge limitations is based on a detailed
evaluation of the available data. As indicated below in the discussion
of the specifics of the proposal, the Agency welcomes comment on all
options and issues and encourages commenters to submit additional data
during the comment period. Also, the Agency plans additional
discussions with interested parties during the comment period to ensure
that the Agency has the views of all parties and the best possible data
upon which to base a decision for the final regulation. EPA's final
regulation may be based upon any technologies, rationale or approaches
that are a logical outgrowth of this proposal and public comments,
including any options considered but not selected for today's proposed
regulation.
In today's notice, EPA is proposing for the Centralized Waste
Treatment Point Source Category effluent limitations guidelines and
standards based on BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS for new and
existing facilities that are engaged in the treatment of industrial
waste from off-site facilities.
The proposed regulation today applies to the following activities:
Subcategory A: Discharges from operations which treat, or
treat and recover metals from, metal-bearing waste received from off-
site,
Subcategory B: Discharges from operations which treat, or
treat and recover oil from, oily waste received from off-site, and
Subcategory C: Discharges from operations which treat, or
treat and recover organics from, other organic- bearing waste received
from off-site.
Facilities subject to the guidelines and standards would include
facilities whose exclusive operation is the treatment of off-site
generated industrial waste as well as industrial or manufacturing
facilities that also accept waste from off-site for centralized
treatment. A further discussion of the types of waste included in each
subcategory is included in the Technical Development Document and
Section III.B. of this notice.
The proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards are
intended to cover wastewater discharges resulting from treatment of, or
recovery of components from, hazardous and non- hazardous industrial
waste received from off-site facilities by tanker truck, trailer/roll-
off bins, drums, barges, or other forms of shipment. Any discharges
generated from the treatment of wastes received through an open or
enclosed conduit (e.g., pipeline, channels, ditches, and trenches,
etc.) from the original source of waste generation are not included in
the regulation. However, discharges generated from the treatment of CWT
wastes received by pipeline from a facility acting as an intermediate
collection point for CWT wastes received from off-site would be subject
to the proposed requirements. Based on information collected in the
1991 Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire and discussions with
operators of waste treatment facilities, EPA has concluded that
facilities which [[Page 5468]] receive all their wastes through a
pipeline or trench from the original source of waste generation are
receiving continuous flows of process wastewater with relatively
consistent pollutant profiles. In the case of these treatment
facilities, the process wastewater flows in virtually all cases would
be subject to categorical regulations if discharged from the original
point of waste generation. However, these companies, instead of
discharging to a surface water or POTW, discharge process wastewater to
a ``centralized pipeline'' facility. EPA has concluded that the
effluent limitations and pretreatment standards for centralized waste
treatment facilities should not apply to such pipeline treatment
facilities because their wastes differ fundamentally from those
received at centralized waste treatment facilities. In large part, the
waste streams received at centralized waste treatment facilities are
more concentrated and variable, including sludges, tank bottoms, off-
spec products, and process residuals. The limitations and standards
developed for centralized waste treatment facilities, in turn, reflect
the types of waste streams being treated and are necessarily different
from those promulgated for discharges resulting from the treatment of
process wastewater for categorical industries. However, this proposed
pipeline exclusion would not apply to facilities which receive waste
via conduit (i.e., pipeline, trenches, ditches, etc.) from facilities
that are acting merely as waste collection centers that are not the
original source of the waste generation.
In evaluating the current operation and performance of centralized
waste treatment facilities, the Agency is concerned about the effective
management of such highly-concentrated waste streams. Due to the
variability of waste streams, the possibility exists for dilution to
occur rather than effective treatment. Therefore, the Agency is
proposing to require monitoring to demonstrate compliance with the
limitations and standards for the regulated treatment subcategories The
limitations and standards proposed today are based on treatment systems
that optimize removals for homogeneous wastes. If a facility commingles
different subcategories of CWT wastes before treatment or mixes CWT
wastes with non-CWT waste streams before treatment, the facility must
demonstrate that its treatment system achieves pollutant limits
equivalent to the effluent limitations and standards that would be
achieved if the CWT wastes were treated separately. (In addition, there
may be circumstances where the mixing of off-site and on-site waste
streams is necessary to prevent upset of treatment systems, such as
with biological treatment for organic waste streams.) Equivalent
treatment is demonstrated when Centralized Waste Treatment Industry
pollutants of concern are (1) detectable at quantifiable levels prior
to mixing, (2) are detected at quantifiable levels following mixing,
and (3) the on-site treatment system is designed to treat the
pollutants of concern in some manner other than incidental removals by
partitioning to sludge or air. The Agency believes such an approach is
necessary to ensure achievement of the pollutant discharge levels which
the Agency has preliminarily determined may be obtained through proper
treatment of the CWT wastes. In the absence of such a requirement to
demonstrate achievable removals, facilities may merely dilute wastes
with other waste streams to meet the required discharge levels.
The Agency also solicits comment on including a de minimis quantity
or percentage of off-site receipts in comparison to the total facility
flow for which facilities would not be considered in the scope of this
regulation. According to comments received on the May 1994 proposed
Effluent Guideline Plan (59 FR 25859), some manufacturing facilities
may receive a few shipments of waste or off-spec products to be treated
on-site with wastewater from on-site manufacturing processes, but these
facilities do not actively accept large quantities of waste from off-
site for the purpose of treatment and disposal. In the 1991 Waste
Treatment Industry Questionnaire, no facilities were identified with
intermittent shipments of waste, but the questionnaire mailing list was
developed on the basis of a facility's regular business. Therefore,
manufacturing facilities which do not accept off-site waste on a normal
basis were not included in the mailing list. The EPA is requesting
information on the amounts of waste received and the reasons the waste
were accepted to determine if a de minimis quantity should be
established to limit the applicability of this rulemaking. At present,
no de minimis quantity has been established for this rulemaking.
Facilities are included in the scope of this regulation regardless of
the quantity received for treatment.
D. Proposed Limitations and Standards
1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)
The Agency is proposing to set BPT effluent limitations guidelines
for all subcategories of the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry to
control conventional, priority, and non- conventional pollutants in the
waste treatment effluent. In the case of metal-bearing wastes that
include cyanide streams, achievement of BPT limitations requires
pretreatment for cyanide. Table I.D-1 is a summary of the technology
basis for the proposed effluent limitations for each subcategory.
Table I.D-1.--Technology Basis for BPT Effluent Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed
subpart Name of subcategory Technology basis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A........... Metal-Bearing Waste Selective Metals Precipitation,
Treatment and Pressure Filtration, Secondary
Recovery. Precipitation, Solid-Liquid
Separation, and Tertiary
Precipitation.
For Metal-Bearing Waste which
includes concentrated Cyanide
streams: Pretreatment by Alkaline
Chlorination at elevated operating
conditions.
B........... Oily Waste Treatment Ultrafiltration or Ultrafiltration,
and Recovery. Carbon Adsorption, and Reverse
Osmosis.
C........... Organic Waste Equalization, Air Stripping,
Treatment and Biological Treatment, and
Recovery. Multimedia Filtration.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5469]]
The pollutants controlled and the points of application vary for
each subcategory and are described in Sections V.
2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)
The EPA is proposing BCT effluent limitations guidelines for Total
Suspended Solids (TSS) and Oil and Grease for the Metals and Oils
Subcategories of the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry. The EPA is
also proposing to set BCT effluent limitations guidelines for
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) and total suspended solids (TSS)
for the Organics Subcategory. The proposed BCT effluent limitations
guidelines are equal to the proposed BPT limitations for conventional
pollutants. The development of proposed BCT effluent limitations is
further explained in Section V.
3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
The Agency is proposing to set BAT effluent limitations guidelines
for all subcategories of the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry.
These proposed limitations are based on the technologies proposed for
BPT. The pollutants controlled and the points of application vary for
each subcategory and are described in Section V.
4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
EPA is proposing to set NSPS equivalent to the proposed BPT/BCT/BAT
effluent limitations for all subcategories of the Centralized Waste
Treatment Industry. NSPS are discussed in more detail in Section V.
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
For pollutants that pass-through or otherwise interfere with POTWs,
EPA is proposing to set PSES equivalent to the proposed BAT effluent
limitations for all subcategories of the Centralized Waste Treatment
Industry. PSES are further discussed in Section V.
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)
For pollutants that pass-through or otherwise interfere with POTWs,
EPA is proposing to set PSNS equivalent to the proposed NSPS effluent
limitations for all subcategories of the Centralized Waste Treatment
Industry. PSNS are further discussed in Section V.
II. Background
A. Clean Water Act
1. Statutory Requirements of Regulation
As previously discussed, Section 301(a) of the CWA prohibits
discharges of pollutants to navigable waters except in compliance with
the statute. 33 U.S.C. 1311(a). Section 301(b) requires that direct
dischargers comply with effluent limitations established by EPA for
categories of industrial dischargers or in the case of certain
categories of new dischargers, new source performance standards.
Section 307 requires indirect dischargers to comply with
pretreatment standards and Section 306 requires compliance with new
source performance standards.
These guidelines and standards are summarized below:
a. Best practicable control technology currently available (BPT)--
Sec. 304(b)(1) of the CWA. In the guidelines, EPA defines BPT effluent
limits for conventional, priority,\1\ and non-conventional pollutants.
In specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number of factors. EPA first
considers the cost of achieving effluent reductions in relation to the
effluent reduction benefits. The Agency next considers: the age of the
equipment and facilities, the processes employed and any required
process changes, engineering aspects of the control technologies, non-
water quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements),
and such other factors as the Agency deems appropriate. CWA
Sec. 304(b)(1)(B). Traditionally, EPA establishes BPT effluent
limitations based on the average of the best performances of facilities
within the industry of various ages, sizes, processes or other common
characteristic. Where, however, existing performance is uniformly
inadequate, EPA may require higher levels of control than currently in
place in an industrial category if the Agency determines that the
technology can be practically applied.
\1\In the initial stages of EPA CWA regulation, EPA efforts
emphasized the achievement of BPT limitations for control of the
``classical'' pollutants (e.g., TSS, pH, BOB5). However,
nothing on the face of the statute explicitly restricted BPT
limitation to such pollutants. Following passage of the Clean Water
Act of 1977 with its requirement for points sources to achieve best
available technology limitations to control discharges of toxic
pollutants, EPA shifted its focus to address the listed priority
pollutants under the guidelines program. BPT guidelines continue to
include limitations to address all pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT)--Sec.
304(b)(4) of the CWA. The 1977 amendments to the CWA required EPA to
identify effluent reduction levels for conventional pollutants
associated with BCT technology for discharges from existing industrial
point sources. In addition to other factors specified in Section
304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires that EPA establish BCT limitations after
consideration of a two part ``cost-reasonableness'' test. EPA explained
its methodology for the development of BCT limitations in July 1986 (51
FR 24974).
Section 304(a)(4) designates the following as conventional
pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total suspended
solids (TSS), fecal coliform, pH, and any additional pollutants defined
by the Administrator as conventional. The Administrator designated oil
and grease as an additional conventional pollutant on July 30, 1979 (44
FR 44501).
c. Best available technology economically achievable (BAT)--Sec.
304(b)(2) of the CWA. In general, BAT effluent limitations guidelines
represent the best economically achievable performance of plants in the
industrial subcategory or category. The factors considered in assessing
BAT include the cost of achieving BAT effluent reductions, the age of
equipment and facilities involved, the process employed, potential
process changes, and non-water quality environmental impacts, including
energy requirements. The Agency retains considerable discretion in
assigning the weight to be accorded these factors. Unlike BPT
limitations, BAT limitations may be based on effluent reductions
attainable through changes in a facility's processes and operations. As
with BPT, where existing performance is uniformly inadequate, BAT may
require a higher level of performance than is currently being achieved
based on technology transferred from a different subcategory or
category. BAT may be based upon process changes or internal controls,
even when these technologies are not common industry practice.
d. New source performance standards (NSPS)--Sec. 306 of the CWA.
NSPS reflect effluent reductions that are achievable based on the best
available demonstrated treatment technology. New facilities have the
opportunity to install the best and most efficient production processes
and wastewater treatment technologies. As a result, NSPS should
represent the most stringent controls attainable through the
application of the best available control technology for all pollutants
(i.e., conventional, nonconventional, and priority pollutants). In
establishing NSPS, EPA is directed to take into consideration the cost
of achieving the [[Page 5470]] effluent reduction and any non-water
quality environmental impacts and energy requirements.
e. Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES)--Sec. 307(b)
of the CWA. PSES are designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants
that pass-through, interfere-with, or are otherwise incompatible with
the operation of publicly-owned treatment works (POTW). The CWA
authorizes EPA to establish pretreatment standards for pollutants that
pass-through POTWs or interfere with treatment processes or sludge
disposal methods at POTWs. Pretreatment standards are technology-based
and analogous to BAT effluent limitations guidelines.
The General Pretreatment Regulations, which set forth the framework
for the implementation of categorical pretreatment standards, are found
at 40 CFR Part 403. Those regulations contain a definition of pass-
through that addresses localized rather than national instances of
pass-through and establish pretreatment standards that apply to all
non-domestic dischargers. See 52 FR 1586, January 14, 1987.
f. Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS)--Sec. 307(b) of
the CWA. Like PSES, PSNS are designed to prevent the discharges of
pollutants that pass-through, interfere-with, or are otherwise
incompatible with the operation of POTWs. PSNS are to be issued at the
same time as NSPS. New indirect dischargers have the opportunity to
incorporate into their plants the best available demonstrated
technologies. The Agency considers the same factors in promulgating
PSNS as it considers in promulgating NSPS.
2. Section 304(m) Consent Decree
Section 304(m) of the Act, added by the Water Quality Act of 1987,
requires EPA, before February 4, 1988, to establish a schedule (1) for
reviewing and revising existing guidelines and standards and (2) for
promulgating effluent guidelines for categories of sources of priority
or nonconventional pollutants for which effluent limitations and
pretreatment standards had not previously been published. The statutory
deadline for such guidelines is no later four years after February 4,
1987, for categories identified in the first published plan.
The Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC) and Public Citizen,
Inc. filed suit against the Agency, alleging violation of Section
304(m) and other statutory authorities requiring promulgation of
effluent limitations guidelines, new source performance standards, new
source performance standards and pretreatment standards. (NRDC, et al.
v. Reilly, Civ. No. 89-2980 (D.D.C.). Under the terms of a consent
decree dated January 31, 1992, which settled the litigation, EPA
agreed, among other things, to propose and promulgate 20 new guidelines
establishing BPT, BCT and BAT limitations and pretreatment standards,
including guidelines and standards for CWT facilities.
B. Summary of Public Participation
During the data gathering activities that preceded development of
the proposed rules, EPA met with representatives from the industry, the
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council, the National Solid Waste Management
Association, and the Natural Resources Defense Council. Because most of
the facilities affected by this proposal are indirect dischargers, the
Agency has made a concerted effort to consult with State and local
entities that will be responsible for implementing this regulation. EPA
has met with pretreatment coordinators from around the nation and
presented our regulatory approach before the Association of
Metropolitan Sewerage Authorities to solicit feedback on implementation
issues. Today's proposal solicits comment on many of the issues raised
by EPA's co-regulators.
On March 8, 1994, EPA sponsored a public meeting, where the Agency
shared information about the content and the status of the proposed
regulation. The meeting was announced in the Federal Register, agendas
and meeting materials were distributed at the meeting. The public
meeting also gave interested parties an opportunity to provide
information, data, and ideas on key issues. EPA's intent in conducting
the public meeting was to elicit input that would improve the quality
of the proposed regulations.
At the public meeting, the Agency clarified that the public meeting
would not replace the notice-and-comment process, nor would the meeting
become a mechanism for a negotiated rulemaking. While EPA promised to
accept information and data at the meeting and make good faith efforts
to review all information and address all issues discussed at the
meeting, EPA could not commit to fully assessing and incorporating all
comments into the proposal. EPA will assess all comments and data
received at the public meeting prior to promulgation.
C. The Land Disposal Restrictions Program
1. Introduction to RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), enacted on November 8, 1984,
largely prohibit the land disposal of untreated hazardous wastes. Once
a hazardous waste is prohibited from land disposal, the statute
provides only two options for legal land disposal: meet the treatment
standard for the waste prior to land disposal, or dispose of the waste
in a land disposal unit that has been found to satisfy the statutory no
migration test. A no migration unit is one from which there will be no
migration of hazardous constituents for as long as the waste remains
hazardous. RCRA Sections 3004 (d), (e), (g)(5). The treatment standards
may be expressed as either constituent concentration levels or as
specific methods of treatment. These standards must substantially
diminish the toxicity of the waste or substantially reduce the
likelihood of migration of hazardous constituents from the waste so
that short-term and long-term threats to human health and the
environment are minimized. RCRA Section 3004(m)(1). For purposes of the
restrictions, the RCRA program defines land disposal to include any
placement of hazardous waste in a landfill, surface impoundment, waste
pile, injection well, land treatment facility, salt dome formation,
salt bed formation, or underground mine or cave.
2. BDAT and Land Disposal Restrictions Standards
EPA generated a set of hazardous waste treatability data to serve
as the basis for land disposal restrictions standards. First, EPA
identified Best Demonstrated Available Treatment Technology (BDAT) for
each listed hazardous waste. BDAT was that treatment technology which
EPA found to be the most effective for that waste and which was also
readily available to generators and treaters. In some cases EPA
designated as BDAT for a particular waste stream a treatment technology
shown to have successfully treated a similar but more difficult to
treat waste stream. This ensured that the land disposal restrictions
standards for a listed waste stream were achievable since they always
reflected the actual treatability of the waste itself or of a more
refractory waste.
[[Page 5471]]
3. RCRA Phase 2 and the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry Effluent
Guidelines
The RCRA Phase 2 final rule July 27, 1994, promulgated Universal
Treatment Standards (UTS) for all constituents regulated by the RCRA
Land Disposal Restrictions program. The UTS are a series of
concentration levels for wastewater and nonwastewaters that provide a
single treatment standard for each constituent regardless of the
process generating it. Previously, many constituents were regulated
with several numerical treatment standards depending on the identity of
the original waste. Comments from generators and treaters supported the
UTS as a means of simplifying compliance with LDR requirements by
ensuring that only one treatment standard applies to any constituent in
any waste residue.
While the UTS may not apply to those facilities addressed by the
CWT effluent guidelines (due to the lack of land disposal), both
involve many of the same wastewater and both are technology-based.
Consequently, EPA is identifying the major differences between the
development of the two rules.
4. General Differences in Approaches Between LDR UTS and Centralized
Waste Treatment Industry Effluent Guidelines
Comparing the effluent guidelines proposed by today's rule for the
Centralized Waste Treatment Industry with the UTS finalized in July
1994 shows that the RCRA and CWA approaches are similar in that both
rules address many of the same waste streams and base treatment
standards on many of the same wastewater treatment technologies.
However, the two sets of treatment standards differ both in their
format and in the numerical values set for each constituent.
The differences in format between effluent guidelines and LDR's are
relatively straightforward. The effluent guidelines provide for several
types of discharge (new vs. existing sources, pretreatment vs. direct
discharge) while the LDR program makes no distinctions among different
types of land disposal. While the effluent guidelines address both
monthly and daily limits, UTS only sets daily limits.
For many pollutants, there are differences in the numerical values
of the limits. The differences result from the use of different legal
criteria for developing the limits and resulting differences in the
technical and economic criteria and data sets for establishing the
respective limits. As described above, the LDR UTS establish a single
numerical standard for each regulated pollutant parameter that applies
to all waste streams.
The Clean Water Act pollutant specific numerical effluent
limitations guidelines and standards (40 CFR Subchapter N) often differ
not only from the LDR UTS but also from point-source category to point-
source category (e.g., Electroplating, 40 CFR part 413; and Metal
Finishing, 40 CFR part 433). The effluent guidelines limitations and
standards are industry-specific, subcategory-specific, and technology-
based. The numerical limits are typically based on different data sets
that reflect the performance of specific waste water management and
treatment practices. Differences in the limits reflect differences in
the statutory factors that the Administrator is required to consider in
developing technically and economically achievable limitations and
standards--manufacturing products and processes (which for CWT
facilities includes types of treatment or waste management services
performed), raw materials, wastewater characteristics, treatability,
facility size, geographic location, age of facility and equipment, non-
water quality environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
Limits for CWT's are developed for individual industrial
subcategories leaving the permit writer with the responsibility of
assembling the ``building blocks'' into a discharge limit. There is,
however, only one set of LDR standards, the Universal Treatment
Standards (UTS) applying to all constituents regardless of the waste
stream. While there is one set of standards for LDR rules, the limits
are generally based on BDAT applied to the waste that is most difficult
to treat.
A consequence of these differing approaches is that similar or
identical waste streams are regulated at different levels. Several of
the effluent guidelines discharge categories reflect pretreatment prior
to discharge to POTW's where there is further treatment and are
therefore not directly comparable to LDR wastewater standards. However,
those categories that represent daily maximum standards for discharge
of treated wastes are analogous to the LDR wastewater standards, and
the numerical differences in these standards reflect differences in
methodology as described above.
EPA's survey of CWT facilities identified no wastewater discharges
which would be regulated under the CWT effluent limitations guidelines
and standards and the Universal Treatment Standards. Because none of
the 72 CWT discharging CWT facilities discharge wastewater effluent to
land disposal units, the proposed regulations for the CWT Industry are
not redundant requirements.
III. Description of the Industry
A. Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities
Presented below is a brief summary description of the Centralized
Waste Treatment Industry for which EPA is today proposing guidelines.
Based upon responses to EPA's 1991 Waste Treatment Industry
Questionnaire (see discussion below), the Agency estimates that there
are approximately 85 centralized waste treatment facilities in 31
States of the type for which EPA is proposing limitations and
standards. These include both stand-alone treatment facilities as well
as facilities which treat their own process wastewater and treatment or
process residuals as well as wastes received from off-site. The major
concentration of centralized waste treatment facilities in the U.S. are
found in the Midwest, Northeast, and Northwest regions, due to the
proximity of the industries generating the wastes undergoing treatment.
As previously noted, centralized waste treatment facilities accept
a variety of different wastes for treatment. Before these facilities
accept a waste for treatment, the waste generally undergoes a rigorous
screening for compatibility with other wastes being treated at the
facility. Waste generators initially furnish the treatment facility
with a sample of the waste stream to be treated. The sample is analyzed
to characterize the level of pollutants in the sample and bench-scale
treatability tests are performed to determine what treatment is
necessary to treat the waste stream effectively. After all analysis and
tests are performed, the treatment facility determines the cost for
treating the waste stream. If the waste generator accepts the cost of
treatment, shipments of the waste stream to the treatment facility will
begin. For each truck load of waste received for treatment, the
treatment facility collects a sample from the shipment and analyzes the
sample to determine if it is similar to the initial sample tested. If
the sample is similar, the shipment of waste will be treated. If the
sample is not similar but falls within an allowable range as determined
by the treatment facility, the treatment facility will reevaluate the
estimated cost of treatment for the shipment. Then, the waste generator
decides if the waste will remain at the treatment facility for
treatment. If the sample is not similar [[Page 5472]] and does not fall
within an allowable range, the treatment facility will decline the
shipment for treatment.
Treatment facilities and waste generators complete extensive
amounts of paperwork during the waste acceptance process. Most of the
paperwork is required by Federal, State, and local regulations. The
amount of paperwork necessary for accepting a waste stream emphasizes
the difficulty of operating Centralized Waste Treatment facilities.
In its information and data-gathering effort, EPA also looked at
how these facilities handle wastes after they are accepted for
treatment. Even though a waste must surmount a number of hurdles before
being accepted for treatment at a facility, many facilities do not
devote the same level of attention to the process of managing and
treating wastes for optimal removals. Thus, EPA's data show that
approximately half of the facilities in the industry 1) accept wastes
for treatment in more than one of the waste categories (metal-bearing,
oily or organic-bearing) being considered here or 2) operate other
industrial processes that generate wastes at the same site. In most
cases, the waste streams from these various sources are mixed prior to
treatment or after minimal pretreatment.
The problems associated with the mixing of the different types of
wastes and wastewater treated at centralized waste treatment facilities
or mixing with other industrial wastewater and non-contaminated
stormwater exacerbated the difficulty of evaluating adequate treatment
performance. EPA concluded that mixing waste streams adversely affects
pollutant removal in the discharge water. Rather than treating to
remove pollutants, the facilities were diluting their streams to
achieve required effluent levels. Therefore, EPA has concluded
reasonable further progress to the goal of reducing discharges requires
achievement of discharge levels associated with treatment of segregated
wastestreams. Consequently, as explained above, the Agency is proposing
to establish effluent limitations which reflect achievable effluent
reductions for unmixed wastes.
B. Waste Treatment Processes
As the Agency learned from data and information collected as a
result of the 1991 Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire, CWTs accept
many types of hazardous and non-hazardous industrial waste for
treatment in liquid or solid form. In 1989, approximately 1.1 billion
gallons of industrial waste were accepted for treatment of which 53
percent were hazardous and 47 percent were non-hazardous.
1. Metal-Bearing Waste Treatment or Recovery
In 1989, 709 million gallons of metal-bearing wastes were accepted
for treatment by 56 facilities. This metal-bearing waste comprised the
largest portion of the waste treated by the Centralized Waste Treatment
Industry. The typical treatment process used for metal-bearing wastes
was precipitation with lime or caustic followed by filtration. The
sludge generated was then landfilled in a RCRA Subtitle C or D landfill
depending upon its content. A small fraction of facilities recovered
metals from the waste using selective metals precipitation or
electrolytic metals recovery processes. Most facilities that recovered
metals did not generate a sludge that required disposal, instead, the
sludges were sold for the metal content.
2. Oily Waste Treatment or Recovery
Approximately 223 million gallons of oily waste were accepted for
treatment by 35 facilities in 1989. A wide range of oily wastes were
accepted for treatment and the on-site treatment scheme was determined
by the type of oily waste accepted. The oily waste accepted for
treatment could typically be classified as either: (1) stable oil-water
emulsions, such as coolants and lubricants; or (2) unstable oil-water
emulsions, such as bilge water. Stable oil-water emulsions are more
difficult to treat because the droplets of the dispersed phase are so
small that separation of the oil and water phases by settling would
occur very slowly or not at all and required a chemical process to
break the emulsion to adequately treat the waste. From the data
collected in the 1991 Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire, chemical
emulsion breaking processes were the most widely-used treatment
technology at the 29 oil recovery facilities, and, therefore, EPA
believes that these facilities primarily accept for treatment stable
oil-water emulsions. The wastewater effluent resulting from the
emulsion-breaking process was typically mixed with wastewater from
other CWT subcategories or stormwater for further treatment prior to
discharge. Six facilities did not operate oil recovery processes and
used only dissolved air flotation (DAF), a technique used to separate
oil and suspended solids from water by skimming, to treat the oily
waste receipts. Consequently, EPA concluded that these facilities were
receiving for treatment less stable oil-water emulsions that were
amenable to gravity separation or dissolved air flotation, and did not
require chemical emulsion breaking treatment processes. EPA's sampling
program focused on facilities that treated the more concentrated and
more difficult to treat stable oil-water emulsions as reported by waste
manifest forms and facility records. In August 1994, EPA conducted
additional sampling at an oily waste treatment facility to further
characterize the types of oils accepted for treatment and the
technologies used. The data has not been reviewed at the time of this
proposal, but the data is included in the rulemaking record and will be
evaluated prior to promulgation. EPA solicits comments with detailed
information and data on the concentrations of pollutants and type of
oily wastes accepted for treatment by these facilities so that EPA can
develop a more thorough understanding of the facility operations. Any
new information used to establish the basis for the final regulation
will be made available for public comment.
3. Organic Waste Treatment or Recovery
In 1989, 22 facilities accepted 147 million gallons of organic
wastewater for treatment. Most facilities with treatment on-site used
some form of biological treatment to handle the wastewater. Most of the
facilities in the Organics Subcategory have other industrial operations
as well, and the CWT wastes are mixed with these wastewater prior to
treatment. The relatively constant on-site wastewater can support the
operation of conventional, continuous biological treatment processes,
which otherwise could be upset by the variability of the off-site waste
receipts.
IV. Summary of EPA Activities and Data Gathering Efforts
A. EPA's Initial Efforts to Develop a Guideline for the Waste Treatment
Industry
In 1986, the Agency initiated a study of waste treatment facilities
which receive waste from off-site for treatment, recovery, or disposal.
The Agency looked at various segments of the waste management industry
including centralized waste treatment facilities, landfills,
incinerators, fuel blending operations, and waste solidification/
stabilization processes (Preliminary Data Summary for the Hazardous
Waste Treatment Industry, EPA 1989). EPA conducted a separate study of
the Solvent Recycling Industry (Preliminary Data Summary for the
Solvent Recycling Industry, EPA 1989). [[Page 5473]]
Development of effluent limitations guidelines and standards for
this industry began in 1989. EPA originally studied centralized waste
treatment facilities, fuel blending operations and waste
solidification/stabilization facilities. EPA has decided not to propose
nationally applicable effluent limitations guidelines and standards for
fuel blending and stabilization operations because, even though these
operations are integral to a facility's waste management practices,
wastewater generation and disposal practices are not similar to the
operations of centralized waste treatment operations. Most fuel
blending and stabilization processes are ``dry,'' i.e., they generate
no wastewater. Therefore, EPA decided to limit this phase of the
proposed rulemaking to the development of regulations for the
Centralized Waste Treatment Industry.
B. Wastewater Sampling Program
In the sampling program for the Hazardous Waste Treatment Industry
Study, twelve facilities were sampled to characterize the wastes
received and the on-site treatment technology performance at
incinerators, landfills, and hazardous waste treatment facilities.
Since all of the facilities samples had more than one on-site
operation, the data collected can not be used for this project because
data were collected for mixed waste streams and the waste
characteristics and treatment technology performance for the hazardous
waste treatment facilities cannot be differentiated.
Between 1989 and 1993, EPA visited 26 of the 85 centralized waste
treatment facilities. During each visit, EPA gathered information on
waste receipts, waste and wastewater treatment, and disposal practices.
Based on these data and the responses to the 1991 Waste Treatment
Industry Questionnaire, EPA selected eight of the 26 facilities for the
wastewater sampling program in order to collect data to characterize
discharges and the performance of their treatment system. Using data
supplied by the facilities, EPA applied four criteria in initially
choosing which facilities to sample. The criteria were as follows:
whether the wastewater treatment system (1) was effective in removing
pollutants; (2) treated wastes received from a variety of sources, (3)
employed either novel treatment technologies or applied traditional
treatment technologies in a novel manner, and (4) applied waste
management practices that increased the effectiveness of the treatment
unit. An additional facility was sampled to characterize the wastes
received and treatment processes of a facility that treated only non-
hazardous waste. From the data collected at the non-hazardous waste
treatment facility, waste stream characteristics were similar to that
of a facility that treats hazardous waste. The other 17 facilities
visited were not sampled, because they did not meet these criteria.
During each sampling episode, facility influent and effluent
streams were sampled. Samples were also taken at intermediate points to
assess the performance of individual treatment units. This information
is summarized in the Technical Development Document. In the first two
sampling episodes, streams were analyzed for over 480 pollutants to
identify the range of pollutants possible at these facilities. After
the analytical data were reviewed for the first two sampling episodes,
the number of pollutants analyzed were reduced to approximately 180
that were detected in the initial sampling efforts.
In 1994, an additional four facilities were visited that are not
included in the 85 Centralized Waste Treatment facilities identified in
1989. These facilities were not in business at the time the
questionnaire was mailed. These facilities specialized in the treatment
of bilge waters and unstable oil-water mixtures. From these site
visits, one facility was chosen to be sampled based on the on-site
treatment and type of oily waste accepted for treatment. As previously
discussed, the data has not been reviewed at the time of this proposal,
but the data is included in the regulatory record and will be evaluated
prior to promulgation.
1. Metal-Bearing Waste Treatment and Recovery Sampling
From the ten sampling episodes completed from 1989 to 1994, only
six sampling episodes contained data which were used to characterize
this subcategory's waste streams and treatment technology performance.
All of the facilities used some form of precipitation for treatment of
the metal-bearing waste streams. Only one facility was a direct
discharger and was therefore designed to effectively treat the
conventional pollutants important for this subcategory, TSS and Oil and
Grease.
2. Oily Waste Treatment and Recovery Sampling
From the sampling data collected between 1989 and 1994, five
sampling episodes contained data which are applicable to the treatment
of oily wastes. Data for the remaining five sampling episodes could not
be used because the facilities did not accept oily waste for treatment
or recovery. Identification of facilities to be sampled was difficult
because most facilities in the oily waste treatment subcategory had
other centralized waste treatment processes on-site. Three of the four
facilities had other on-site Centralized Waste Treatment processes. The
oily wastewater after emulsion-breaking was commingled with other
subcategory waste streams prior to further treatment of the oily waste
stream. In all three cases most of the pollutants of concern that were
detected prior to commingling were at a non-detect level after
commingling. Therefore, dilution resulted from the mixing and no
further treatment may have occurred. Data from the three facilities
could be used only to characterize the untreated waste streams after
emulsion-breaking. Data from one of the facilities could not be
evaluated prior to this proposal but is included in the public record.
Therefore, data from only one facility could be used to assess
treatment performance at the facilities in this subcategory.
3. Organic Waste Treatment and Recovery Sampling
Similar to the case with the Oily Waste Subcategory, identification
of facilities for assessing waste streams and treatment technology
performance was difficult, because most organic waste treatment
facilities had other industrial operations on-site. The centralized
waste treatment waste streams were small in comparison to the overall
site flow. Two facilities were identified and sampled which treated a
significant portion of off-site generated organic waste streams. Data
from one of the facilities could not be used when developing technology
options for proposal because the treatment system performance was not
optimal at the time of sampling, but data from this facility was used
to characterize the raw waste streams.
Therefore, sampling data from one facility was used to determine
the treatment technology basis for this subcategory.
C. 1991 Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire (Census of the Industry)
Under the authority of Section 308 of the Clean Water Act, EPA sent
a questionnaire in 1991 to 455 facilities that the Agency had
identified as possible Centralized Waste Treatment facilities. Since
the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry is not represented by a SIC
code, identification of facilities was difficult. Directories of
treatment facilities, Agency information, and telephone directories
were used to identify the 455 facilities to which the questionnaires
were mailed. The [[Page 5474]] responses from 416 facilities indicated
that 89 facilities treated, or recovered material from, industrial
waste from off-site in 1989 and the remaining 327 facilities did not
treat, or recover materials from, industrial waste from off-site. Out
of the 89 facilities that received industrial waste from off-site for
treatment, four facilities received all of the off-site waste via
pipeline. For the reasons discussed previously, this proposed
regulation does not cover waste transferred from the original source of
generation by pipeline. Therefore, based on this data base, 85
facilities are currently in the scope of this regulation. The
questionnaire specifically requested information on: (1) the type of
wastes accepted for treatment; (2) the industrial waste management
practices used; (3) the quantity, treatment, and disposal of wastewater
generated during industrial waste management; (4) available analytical
monitoring data on wastewater treatment; (5) the degree of co-treatment
(treatment of centralized waste treatment wastewater with wastewater
from other industrial operations at the facility); and (6) the extent
of wastewater recycling and/or reuse at the facility. Information was
also obtained through follow-up telephone calls and written requests
for clarification of questionnaire responses. Information obtained by
the 1991 Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire is summarized in the
Technical Development Document for today's proposed rule.
D. Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire (Follow-Up Questionnaire to a
Subset of the Industry)
EPA also requested a subset of centralized waste treatment
facilities to submit wastewater monitoring data in the form of
individual data points rather than monthly aggregates. These wastewater
monitoring data included information on pollutant concentrations and
waste receipt data for a six week period. The waste receipt data were
collected to provide information about the types of wastes treated and
the influent waste characteristics due to the absence of influent
wastewater monitoring data. Data were requested from 19 facilities.
V. Development of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
A. Industry Subcategorization
1. Development of Current Subcategorization Scheme
For today's proposal, EPA considered whether a single set of
effluent limitations and standards should be established for this
industry or whether different limitations and standards were
appropriate for subcategories within the industry. In its preliminary
decision that subcategorization is required and in developing the
subcategories set forth in this rulemaking, EPA took into account all
the information it collected and developed with respect to the
following factors: waste type received; treatment process; nature of
wastewater generated; facility size, age, and location; non-water
quality impact characteristics; and treatment technologies and costs.
In this industry, a wide variety of wastes are treated at a typical
facility. Facilities employ different waste treatment technologies
tailored to the specific type of waste being treated in a given day.
EPA concluded a number of factors did not provide an appropriate
basis for subcategorization. The Agency concluded that the age of a
facility should not be a basis for subcategorization because many older
facilities have unilaterally improved or modified their treatment
process over time. Facility size is also not a useful basis for
subcategorization for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry because
wastes can be treated to the same level regardless of the facility
size. Likewise, facility location is not a good basis for
subcategorization; no consistent differences in wastewater treatment
performance or costs exist because of geographical location. Although
non-water quality characteristics (solid waste and air emission
effects) are of concern to EPA, these characteristics did not
constitute a basis for subcategorization. Environmental impacts from
solid waste disposal and from the transport of potentially hazardous
wastewater are a result of individual facility practices and do not
reflect a trend that pertains to different segments of the industry.
Treatment costs do not appear to be a basis for subcategorization
because costs will vary and are dependent on the following waste stream
variables: flow rates, wastewater quality, and pollutant loadings.
Therefore, treatment costs were not used as a factor in determining
subcategories.
EPA identified only one factor with primary significance for
subcategorizing the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry: the type of
waste received for treatment or recovery. This factor encompasses many
of the other subcategorization factors. The type of treatment processes
used, nature of wastewater generated, solids generated, and potential
air emissions directly correlate to the type of wastes received for
treatment or recovery. Therefore, EPA has concluded that the type of
waste received for treatment or recovery is the appropriate basis for
subcategorization of this industry. EPA invites comment on whether the
specific subcategories proposed today should be further subdivided into
smaller subcategories or whether an alternative basis for
categorization should be adopted.
2. Proposed Subcategories
Based on the type of wastes accepted for treatment or recovery, EPA
has determined that there are three subcategories appropriate for the
Centralized Waste Treatment Industry.
Subcategory A: Facilities which treat, or treat and
recover metal from, metal-bearing waste received from off-site,
Subcategory B: Facilities which treat, or treat and
recover oil from, oily waste received from off-site, and
Subcategory C: Facilities which treat, or treat and
recover organics from, other organic waste received from off-site.
a. Discharges from metal-bearing waste treatment and recovery
operations. Metal-bearing wastes represent the largest volume of wastes
treated at the facilities which are the subject of this guidelines
development effort. Included within this subcategory are facilities
which treat metal-bearing wastes received from off-site as well as
facilities which recover metals from off-site metal-bearing waste
streams. Currently, EPA has identified 56 facilities as treating metal-
bearing wastes. A small percentage of these facilities recover metals
from the wastes for sale in commerce or for return to industrial
processes. EPA proposes to establish limitations and standards for
those conventional, priority, and non-conventional pollutants
discharged in this subcategory. Among the metal-bearing wastes
typically treated at the facilities in this subcategory are, in some
cases, highly-concentrated, complex cyanide waste streams. In the case
of CWTs that treat complex cyanides, based on the results of its site
visits and data sampling effort, EPA has initially concluded that
without first achieving a given level of cyanide reduction prior to
metals treatment, the presence of cyanide will interfere with
subsequent metals treatment, thus jeopardizing achievement of
attainable effluent metals removals.
b. Discharges from oily waste treatment and recovery operations.
EPA identified 35 facilities that currently discharge wastewater from
treatment and recovery operations for oily wastes. EPA proposes to
regulate conventional, priority, and non-conventional
[[Page 5475]] pollutants in wastewater discharged from this
subcategory.
c. Discharges from organic waste treatment operations. EPA
identified 22 facilities that currently discharge wastewater from the
treatment of organic wastes that are received at the facility from off-
site for treatment. As explained previously, wastewater discharges from
organic recovery process operations, such as solvent recovery, are not
included within the scope of this regulation. EPA proposes to regulate
the conventional, priority, and non-conventional pollutants wastewater
discharges from this subcategory.
B. Characterization of Wastewater
This section describes current water use and wastewater
characterization at the 85 centralized waste treatment facilities in
the U.S. All waste treatment processes covered by this regulation
typically involve the use of water; however, specifics for any facility
depend on the facility's waste receipts and treatment processes.
1. Water and Sources of Wastewater
Approximately 2.0 billion gallons of wastewater are generated
annually at centralized waste treatment facilities. It is difficult to
determine the quantity of wastes attributable to different sources
because generally facilities mix the wastewater prior to treatment. EPA
has, as a general matter, however, identified the sources described
below as contributing to wastewater discharges at centralized waste
treatment operations that would be subject to the proposed effluent
limitations and standards.
a. Waste receipts. Most of the waste received from customers comes
in a liquid form and constitutes a large portion of the wastewater
treated at a facility. Other wastewater sources include wastewater from
contact with the waste at receipt or during subsequent handling.
b. Solubilization water. A portion of waste receipts are in a solid
form. Water may be added to the waste to render it treatable.
c. Waste oil emulsion-breaking wastewater. The emulsion breaking
process separates difficult water-oil emulsions and generates a
``bottom'' or water phase. Approximately 99.2 million gallons of
wastewater were generated from emulsion-breaking processes in 1989.
d. Tanker truck/drum/roll-off box washes. Water is used to clean
the equipment used for transporting wastes. The amount of wastewater
generated was difficult to assess because the wash water is normally
added to the wastes or used as solubilization water.
e. Equipment washes. Water is used to clean waste treatment
equipment during unit shut downs or in between batches of waste.
f. Air pollution control scrubber blow-down. Water or acidic or
basic solution is used in air emission control scrubbers to control
fumes from treatment tanks, storage tanks, and other treatment
equipment.
g. Laboratory-derived wastewater. Water is used in on-site
laboratories which characterize incoming waste streams and monitor on-
site treatment performance.
h. Contaminated stormwater. This is stormwater which comes in
direct contact with the waste or waste handling and treatment areas.
(Stormwater which does not come into contact with the wastes would not
be subject to today's proposed limitations and standards.)
2. Wastewater Discharge
Approximately 3 billion gallons of wastewater were discharged at
Centralized Waste Treatment Industry operations in 1989. In general,
the primary source of wastewater discharges from these facilities are:
waste receipts, solubilization wastewater, tanker truck/drums/roll-off
box washes, equipment washes, air pollution control scrubber blow-down,
laboratory-derived wastewater, and contaminated stormwater. Centralized
waste treatment facilities do not generate a ``process wastewater'' in
the traditional sense of this term.\2\ As a service industry, there is
no manufacturing or commercial ``process'' which is generating water.
Because there are no ``manufacturing processes'' or ``products'' for
this industry, ``process'' wastewater for this industry will include
any wastes received for treatment (``waste receipt'') as well as water
which comes into contact with the waste received or waste processing
area. The wastewater resulting from contact with the wastes or waste
processing area is referred to by the short-hand term ``centralized
waste treatment wastewater.''
\2\Process wastewater is defined in 40 CFR 122.2 as ``any water
which, during manufacturing or processing, comes into direct contact
with or results from the production or use of any raw material, by-
product, intermediate product, finished product, or waste product.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 85 facilities identified by the 1991 Waste Treatment Industry
Questionnaire can also be characterized by their type of wastewater
discharge. Sixteen facilities discharge wastewater directly into a
receiving stream or body of water. Another 56 facilities discharge
wastewater indirectly, i.e., discharge to a publicly-owned treatment
works (POTW).
Thirteen facilities do not dispose of wastewater directly to
surface waters or indirectly to POTWs. At these facilities, (1)
wastewater is disposed of by alternate means such as on-site or off-
site deep well injection or incineration (four facilities); (2)
wastewater is sent off-site for treatment (six facilities); (3) the
process does not generate wastewater (one facility); and (4) wastewater
is evaporated (two facilities). One facility discharges wastewater
directly as well as on-site deep well injection.
This regulation applies to direct and indirect discharges only.
3. Wastewater Characterization
The Agency's sampling program for this industry detected over 100
pollutants (conventional, priority, and non-conventional) in waste
streams at treatable levels. The quantity of pollutants currently being
discharged is difficult to assess due to the lack of monitoring data
available from facilities for the list of pollutants identified from
the Agency's sampling program prior to commingling of the wastewater
with non-contaminated stormwater and other industrial wastewater before
discharge. Methodologies were developed to estimate current performance
for each subcategory by assessing performance of on-site treatment
technologies, wastewater permit information, and monitoring data
supplied in the 1991 Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire and the
Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire. For the Metals Subcategory, a ``non-
process wastewater'' factor was used to quantify the amount of non-
contaminated stormwater and other industrial process water in a
facility's discharge. A facility's current discharge of treated
Centralized Waste Treatment wastewater was calculated using the
monitoring data supplied multiplied by the ``non-process wastewater''
factor. For the Oils Subcategory, present treatment schemes were
studied. Most facilities mixed oily wastewater with other CWT or
industrial wastewater or stormwater. This generally resulted in
inadequate treatment of oily waste because the pollutants detected in
oily wastewater were typically not detected in the untreated mixed
streams due to dilution. Therefore, current performance was estimated
at the point prior to mixing different types of wastewater. For the
Organics Subcategory, current performance could not be estimated from
the discharge monitoring data submitted by the facilities due to the
[[Page 5476]] presence of other industrial wastewater in the discharge.
Current performance was estimated by projecting the removal of
pollutants resulting from the technologies used on-site. The Agency is
soliciting comments on the approaches used to calculate the current
performance as well as requesting any monitoring data available before
the addition of non-contaminated stormwater or other industrial
wastewater.
C. Pollutants Not Regulated
EPA is not proposing effluent limitations or standards for all
conventional, priority, and non-conventional pollutants in this
proposed regulation. Among the reasons EPA may have decided not to
propose effluent limitations for a pollutant are the following:
(a) The pollutant is deemed not present in Centralized Waste
Treatment Industry wastewater, because it was not detected in the
influent during the Agency's sampling/data gathering efforts with the
use of analytical methods promulgated pursuant to Section 304(h) of the
Clean Water Act or with other state-of-the-art methods.
(b) The pollutant is present only in trace amounts and is neither
causing nor likely to cause toxic effects.
(c) The pollutant was detected in the effluent from only one or a
small number of samples and the pollutant's presence could not be
confirmed.
(d) The pollutant was effectively controlled by the technologies
used as a basis for limitations on other pollutants, including those
limitations proposed today, and therefore regulated by the limitations
for the indicator pollutants or (e) Insufficient data are available to
establish effluent limitations.
D. Available Technologies
The treatment technologies presently employed by the industry
represent the range of wastewater treatment systems observed at
categorical industrial operations. All 85 centralized waste treatment
facilities operate wastewater treatment systems. The technologies used
include physical-chemical treatment, biological treatment, and advanced
wastewater treatment. Based on information obtained from the 1991 Waste
Treatment Industry Questionnaire and site visits, EPA has concluded
that a significant number of these treatment systems need to be
upgraded to improve effectiveness and to remove additional pollutants.
Physical-chemical treatment technologies in use are:
Precipitation/Filtration, which converts soluble metal
salts to insoluble metal oxides which are then removed by filtration;
Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF), which separates solid or
liquid particles from a liquid phase by introducing air bubbles into
the liquid phase. The bubbles attach to the particles and rise to the
top of the mixture;
Activated Carbon, which removes pollutants from wastewater
by adsorbing them onto carbon particles;
Multi-media/Sand Filtration, which removes solids from
wastewater by passing it through a porous medium. Biological treatment
technologies in use are:
Sequential Batch Reactor, which uses microorganisms to
degrade organic material in a batch process;
Activated Sludge, which uses microorganisms suspended in
well-aerated wastewater to degrade organic material;
PACT System, a patented process in which powder
activated carbon is added to an activated sludge system; and
Coagulation/Flocculation, which is used to assist
clarification of biological treatment effluent.
Advanced wastewater treatment technologies in use are:
Ultrafiltration, which is used to remove organic
pollutants from wastewater according to the organic molecule size; and
Reverse osmosis, which relies on differences in dissolved
solids concentrations to remove inorganic pollutants from wastewater.
The typical treatment sequence for a facility depends upon the type
of waste accepted for treatment. Most facilities treating metal-bearing
wastes use precipitation/filtration to remove metals. Those that treat
oily wastes relied on dissolved air flotation largely to remove oil and
grease, but this technology is typically ineffective in removing the
metal pollutants that are in many cases also present in these
wastewater. Aerobic batch processes and types of conventional activated
sludge systems were the most widely-found treatment technology for the
organic-bearing wastes.
E. Rationale for Selection of Proposed Regulations
To determine the technology basis and performance level for the
proposed regulations, EPA developed a database consisting of daily
effluent data collected from the Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire and
the EPA Wastewater Sampling Program. This database is used to support
the BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS effluent limitations and
standards proposed today.
1. BPT
a. Introduction. EPA today is proposing BPT effluent limitations
for the three discharge subcategories for the Centralized Waste
Treatment Industry. The BPT effluent limitations proposed today would
control identified conventional, priority, and non-conventional
pollutants when discharged from CWT facilities.
b. Rationale for BPT limitations by subcategory. As previously
noted, the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry receives for treatment
large quantities of concentrated hazardous and non-hazardous industrial
waste which results in discharges of a significant quantity of
pollutants. The EPA estimates that 176.8 million pounds per year of
pollutants are currently being discharged directly or indirectly.
As previously discussed, Section 304(b)(1)(A) requires EPA to
identify effluent reductions attainable through the application of
``best practicable control technology currently available for classes
and categories of point sources.'' The Senate Report for the 1972
amendments to the CWA explained how EPA must establish BPT effluent
reduction levels. Generally, EPA determines BPT effluent levels based
upon the average of the best existing performances by plants of various
sizes, ages, and unit processes within each industrial category or
subcategory. In industrial categories where present practices are
uniformly inadequate, however, EPA may determine that BPT requires
higher levels of control than any currently in place if the technology
to achieve those levels can be practicably applied. A Legislative
History of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972,
p. 1468.
In addition, CWA Section 304(b)(1)(B) requires a cost effectiveness
assessment for BPT limitations. This inquiry does not limit EPA's broad
discretion to adopt BPT limitations that are achievable with available
technology unless the required additional reductions are ``wholly out
of proportion to the costs of achieving such marginal level of
reduction.'' A Legislative History of the Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972, p. 170. Moreover, the inquiry does not require the
Agency to quantify benefits in monetary terms. See e.g. American Iron
and Steel Institute v. EPA, 526 F. 2d 1027 (3rd Cir., 1975).
In balancing costs against the benefits of effluent reduction, EPA
considers the volume and nature of expected [[Page 5477]] discharges
after application of BPT, the general environmental effects of
pollutants, and the cost and economic impacts of the required level of
pollution control. In developing guidelines, the Act does not require
or permit consideration of water quality problems attributable to
particular point sources, or water quality improvements in particular
bodies of water. Therefore, EPA has not considered these factors in
developing the limitations being proposed today. See Weyerhaeuser
Company v. Costle, 590 F. 2d 1011 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
EPA concluded that the wastewater treatment performance of the
facilities it surveyed was, with very limited exceptions, uniformly
poor. Under these circumstances, for each subcategory, EPA has
preliminarily concluded that only one treatment system meets the
statutory test for best practicable, currently available technology.
EPA has determined that the performance of facilities which mix
different types of highly concentrated CWT wastes with non-CWT waste
streams or with stormwater are not providing BPT treatment. The mass of
pollutants being discharged is unacceptably high, given the
demonstrated removal capacity of treatment systems that the Agency
reviewed. Thus, comparison of EPA sampling data and CWT industry-
supplied monitoring information establishes that, in the case of metal-
bearing waste streams, virtually all the facilities are discharging
large total quantities of heavy metals. As measured by total suspended
solids (TSS) levels following treatment, TSS concentrations are
substantially in excess of levels observed at facilities in other
industry categories employing the same treatment technology--10 to 20
times greater than observed for other point source categories.
In the case of oil discharges, most facilities are achieving low
removal of oils and grease relative to the performance required for
other point source categories. Further, facilities treating organic
wastes, while successfully removing organic pollutants through
biological treatment, fail to remove metals associated with these
organic wastes.
The poor pollutant removal performance observed generally for
discharging CWT facilities is not unexpected. As pointed out
previously, these facilities are treating highly concentrated wastes
that, in many cases, are process residuals and sludges from other point
source categories. EPA's review of permit limitations for the direct
dischargers show that, in most cases, the dischargers are subject to
``best professional judgment'' concentration limitations which were
developed from guidelines for facilities treating and discharging much
more dilute waste streams. EPA has concluded that treatment performance
in the industry is widely inadequate and that the mass of pollutants
being discharged is unacceptably high, given the demonstrated removal
capability of treatment operations that the Agency reviewed.
(i) Subcategory A--Metals Subcategory. The Agency is today
proposing BPT limitations for the Metals Subcategory for 22 pollutants.
EPA considered three regulatory options to reduce the discharge of
pollutants by centralized waste treatment facilities. For a more
detailed discussion of the basis for the limitations and technologies
selected see the Technical Development Document.
The three currently available treatment systems for which the EPA
assessed performance for the Metals Subcategory BPT are:
Option 1--Chemical Precipitation, Liquid-Solid Separation,
and Sludge Dewatering. Under Option 1, BPT limitations would be based
upon chemical precipitation with a lime/caustic solution followed by
some form of separation and sludge dewatering to control the discharge
of pollutants in wastewater. The data reviewed for this option showed
that settling/clarification followed by pressure filtration of sludge
yields removals equivalent to pressure filtration. In some cases, BPT
limitations would require the current treatment technologies in-place
to be improved by use of increased quantities of treatment chemicals
and additional monitoring of batch processes. For metals streams which
contain concentrated cyanide complexes, BPT limitations under Option 1
are based on alkaline chlorination at specific operating conditions
prior to metals treatment. As previously noted, without treatment of
the cyanide streams prior to metals treatment, metals removal are
significantly reduced.
Option 2--Selective Metals Precipitation, Pressure
Filtration, Secondary Precipitation, and Solid-Liquid Separation. The
second option evaluated for BPT for centralized waste treatment
facilities would be based on the use of numerous treatment tanks and
personnel to handle incoming waste streams, and use of greater
quantities of caustic in the treatment chemical mixture. (Caustic
sludge is easier to recycle.) Option 2 is based on additional tanks and
personnel to segregate incoming waste streams and to monitor the batch
treatment processes to maximize the precipitation of specific metals in
order to generate a metal-rich filter cake. The metal-rich filter cake
could possibly be sold to metal smelters to incorporate into metal
products. Like Option 1, for metals streams which contain concentrated
cyanide complexes, under Option 2, BPT limitations are also based on
alkaline chlorination at specific operating conditions prior to metals
treatment.
Option 3--Selective Metals Precipitation, Pressure
Filtration, Secondary Precipitation, Solid-Liquid Separation, and
Tertiary Precipitation. The technology basis for Option 3 is the same
as Option 2 except an additional precipitation step at the end of
treatment is added. For metals streams which contain concentrated
cyanide complexes, like Options 1 and 2, for Option 3, alkaline
chlorination at specific operating conditions would also be the basis
for BPT limitations.
The Agency is proposing to adopt BPT effluent limitations based on
Option 3 for the Metals Subcategory. These limitations were developed
based on an engineering evaluation of the average of the best
demonstrated methods to control the discharges of the regulated
pollutants in this Subcategory.
EPA's decision to base BPT limitations on Option 3 treatment
reflects primarily an evaluation of three factors: the degree of
effluent reduction attainable, the total cost of the proposed treatment
technologies in relation to the effluent reductions achieved, and
potential non-water quality benefits. In assessing BPT, EPA considered
the age, size, process, other engineering factors, and non-water
quality impacts pertinent to the facilities treating wastes in this
subcategory. No basis could be found for identifying different BPT
limitations based on age, size, process or other engineering factors.
Neither the age nor the size of the CWT facility will directly
significantly affect either the character or treatability of the CWT
wastes or the cost of treatment. Further, the treatment process and
engineering aspects of the technologies considered have a relatively
insignificant effect because in most cases they represent fine tuning
or add-ons to treatment technology already in use. These factors
consequently did not weigh heavily in the development of these
guidelines. For a service industry whose service is wastewater
treatment, the most pertinent factors for establishing the limitations
are costs of treatment, the level of effluent reductions obtainable,
and non-water quality effects.
Generally, for purposes of defining BPT effluent limitations, EPA
looks at the performance of the best operated [[Page 5478]] treatment
system and calculates limitations from some level of average
performance of these ``best'' facilities. For example, in the BPT
limitations for the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers
Point Source Category, EPA identified ``best'' facilities on a BOD
performance criteria of achieving a 95 percent BOD removal or a BOD
effluent level of 40 mg/l. 52 FR 42535 (November 5, 1987). For this
industry, as previously explained, EPA concluded that treatment
performance is, in virtually all cases, poor. Without separation of
metal-bearing streams for selective precipitation, metal removal levels
are uniformly inadequate across the industry. Consequently, BPT
performance levels are based on data from the one well-operated system
using selective metals precipitation that was sampled by EPA.
The demonstrated effluent reductions attainable through the Option
3 control technology represent the BPT performance attainable through
the application of demonstrated treatment measures currently in
operation in this industry. The Agency is proposing to adopt BPT
limitations based on the removal performance of the Option 3 treatment
system for the following reasons. First, these removals are
demonstrated by a facility in this subcategory and can readily be
applied to all facilities in the subcategory. The adoption of this
level of control would represent a significant reduction in pollutants
discharged into the environment.
Second, the Agency assessed the total cost of water pollution
controls likely to be incurred for Option 3 in relation to the effluent
reduction benefits and determined these costs were economically
reasonable.
Third, adoption of these BPT limits could promote the non-water
quality objectives of the CWA. Use of the Option 3 treatment regime--
which generates a metal-rich filter cake that may be recovered and
smelted--could reduce the quantity of waste which are being disposed of
in landfills.
The Agency proposes to reject Option 1 because, as discussed above,
EPA concluded that mixing disparate metal-bearing waste streams is not
the best practicable treatment technology currently in operation for
this subcategory of the industry. Consequently, effluent levels
associated with this treatment option would not represent BPT
performance levels. Option 2 was rejected, although similar to Option
3, because the greater removals obtained through addition of tertiary
precipitation at Option 3 were obtained at a relatively insignificant
increase in costs over Option 2.
See Section V.F. for further information regarding Monitoring to
Demonstrate Compliance with the Regulation.
(ii). Subcategory B--Oils Subcategory. The Agency is today
proposing BPT limitations for the Oils Subcategory for 33 pollutants.
EPA identified four regulatory options for consideration in
establishing BPT effluent reduction levels for this subcategory of the
Centralized Waste Treatment Industry. For a more detailed discussion of
the basis for the limitations and standards selected see the Technical
Development Document.
The four technology options considered for the Oils Subcategory BPT
are:
Option 1--Emulsion-Breaking. Under Option 1, BPT
limitations would be based on present performance of emulsion-breaking
processes using acid and heat to separate oil-water emulsions. At
present, most facilities have this technology in-place unless less
stable oil-water mixtures are accepted for treatment. Stable oil-water
emulsions require some emulsion- breaking treatment because gravity or
flotation alone is inadequate to break down the oil/water stream.
Option 2--Ultrafiltration. Under Option 2, BPT limitations
would be based on the use of ultrafiltration for treatment of less
concentrated, stable oily waste receipts or for the additional
treatment of wastewater from the emulsion-breaking process.
Option 3--Ultrafiltration, Carbon Adsorption, and Reverse
Osmosis. The Option 3 BPT effluent limitations are based on the use of
carbon adsorption and reverse osmosis in addition to the Option 2
technology. The reverse osmosis unit removes metal compounds found at
significant levels for this subcategory. Inclusion of a carbon
adsorption unit is necessary in order to protect the reverse osmosis
unit by filtering out large particles which may damage the reverse
osmosis unit or decrease membrane performance.
Option 4--Ultrafiltration, Carbon Adsorption, Reverse
Osmosis, and Carbon Adsorption. Option 4 is similar to Option 3 except
for the additional carbon adsorption unit for final effluent polishing.
The Agency is proposing BPT effluent limitations for the Oily Waste
Subcategory based on Option 3 as well as Option 2 treatment systems.
EPA has preliminarily concluded that both options represent best
practicable control technologies. The technologies are in-use in the
industry and the data collected by the Agency show that the limitations
are being achieved. In assessing BPT, EPA considered age, size,
process, other engineering factors, and non-water quality impacts
pertinent to the facilities treating wastes in this subcategory. No
basis could be found for identifying different BPT limitations based on
age, size, process or other engineering factors for the reasons
previously discussed. For a service industry whose service is
wastewater treatment, the pertinent factors here for establishing the
limitations are costs of treatment, the level of effluent reductions
obtainable, and non-water quality effects.
Among the options considered by the Agency, both Options 2 and 3
would provide for significant reductions in regulated pollutants
discharged into the environment over current practice in the industry
represented by Option 1. EPA is nonetheless, concerned about the cost
of Option 3 because it is substantially more expensive than Option 2.
However, EPA's economic assessment indicates, that Options 2 and 3 are
economically reasonable.
As noted, the Agency is proposing Option 2 because it is a
currently available and cost-effective treatment option. However, the
BPT pollutant removal performance required for a number of specific
pollutants (particularly oil and grease and metals) is less stringent
than current BPT effluent limitations guidelines promulgated for other
industries. EPA is concerned about the potential for encouraging off-
site shipment of oily waste now being treated on-site if the
limitations for this subcategory are significantly different from those
other BPT effluent limitations currently in effect.
EPA is proposing both options for comment because the Agency is
concerned that, while both Options 2 and 3 are proven treatment
technologies currently available to this industry, the additional
effluent reductions associated with Option 3 are very expensive. EPA
has preliminarily concluded that, even though the cost of Option 3 is
significantly greater than Option 2 (because of installation,
operation, and maintenance of reverse osmosis equipment), the costs are
not unreasonable, given other factors. EPA is asking for comment on
whether the effluent reduction benefits of Option 3 outweigh the high
cost of the additional removal obtained through reverse osmosis. The
Agency is particularly interested in comments on the ancillary effects
of the less stringent Option 2 limitations. [[Page 5479]]
As previously discussed, the Agency will be re-estimating the
current performance at facilities that treat oily waste based on
comments received and information collected in the August 1994 sampling
episode and re-calculating the cost and impacts of Options 2 and 3. The
data from the August 1994 sampling episode is included in the record
for this proposal, but was not incorporated into calculations because
it was not received with sufficient time to review and incorporate.
The Agency proposes to reject Option 1, because the technology does
not provide for adequate control of the regulated pollutants. The
Agency also proposes to reject Option 4 because Option 4 treatment
technology results in a lower level of pollutant reductions in
comparison to Option 3. Theoretically, Option 4 should provide for the
maximum reduction of pollutants discharged due to the addition of
carbon adsorption units, but specific pollutant concentrations increase
across the carbon adsorption unit according to the analytical data
collected.
Even though, as previously explained, BPT limitations are generally
defined by the average effluent reduction performance of the best
existing treatment systems, here, as was the case with the BPT metal-
bearing wastes limitations, the options being proposed as the basis for
BPT effluent limitations are based upon the treatment performance at a
single facility. EPA concluded that existing performance at the other
facilities is uniformly inadequate because many facilities that will be
subject to the limitations for the Oily Waste Subcategory now commingle
the oily wastewater with other wastes prior to treatment. The Agency
has determined that the practice of mixing waste streams before
treatment results in inadequate removal of the regulated pollutants of
concern for the Oils Subcategory. Oily wastewater contains significant
levels of organic and metals compounds. If the oily wastewater is mixed
with other CWT wastewater, these organic and metals compounds are often
found at non-detectable levels prior to treatment because the oily
wastewater is effectively diluted by the other wastewater to the point
that the compounds are no longer detectible. The treatment system on
which the Options 2 through 4 effluent limitations are based was
designed specifically for the treatment of segregated oily wastewater.
See Section V.F. for further information regarding Monitoring to
Demonstrate Compliance with the Regulation.
(iii) Subcategory C--Organics Subcategory. The Agency is today
proposing BPT limitations for the Organics Subcategory for 39
pollutants. EPA identified two regulatory options for consideration in
establishing BPT effluent reduction levels for this subcategory of the
Centralized Waste Treatment Industry. For a more detailed discussion of
the basis for the limitations and technologies selected see the
Technical Development Document.
The two technology options considered for the Organics Subcategory
BPT are:
Option 1--Equalization, Air-Stripping, Biological
Treatment, and Multi-media Filtration. BPT Option 1 effluent
limitations are based on the following treatment system: equalization,
two air-strippers in series equipped with a carbon adsorption unit for
control of air emissions, biological treatment in the form of a
sequential batch reactor (which is operated on a batch basis,) and
finally multi-media filtration units for control of solids.
Option 2--Equalization, Air-Stripping, Biological
Treatment, Multi-Filtration, and Carbon Adsorption. Option 2 is the
same as Option 1 except for the addition of carbon adsorption units.
The Agency is proposing to adopt BPT effluent limitations based on
the Option 1 technology for the Organics Subcategory. The demonstrated
effluent reductions attainable through Option 1 control technology
represent the best practicable performance attainable through the
application of currently available treatment measures. EPA's decision
to propose effluent limitations defined by the removal performance of
the Option 1 treatment systems is based primarily on consideration of
several factors: the effluent reductions attainable, the economic
achievability of the option and non-water quality environmental
benefits. Once again, the age and size of the facilities, processes and
other engineering factors were not considered pertinent to
establishment of BPT limitations for this subcategory.
The Agency is proposing to adopt BPT limitations based on the
removal performance of the Option 1 treatment system for the following
reasons. First, the cost of achieving the pollutant discharge levels
associated with the Option 1 treatment system is reasonable. The
annualized costs for treatment are low.
According to the data collected, the Option 1 treatment system
provides a greater effluent pollutant reduction level than the more
expensive Option 2. Theoretically, Option 2 should provide for the
maximum reduction of pollutants discharged due to the addition of
carbon adsorption units, but specific pollutants of concern increased
across the carbon adsorption unit according to the analytical data
collected. Due to the poor performance of carbon adsorption in EPA's
database for this industry, Option 2 is rejected. The poor performance
may be a result of pH fluctuations in the carbon adsorption unit
resulting in the solubilization of metals. Similar trends have been
found for all of the data collected on carbon adsorption units in this
industry. The EPA is soliciting comments, additional information, and
performance data on carbon adsorption units used within the industry.
The Agency used biological treatment performance data from the
OCPSF regulation to establish direct discharge limitations for
BOD5 and TSS, because the facility from which Option 1 and 2
limitations were derived is an indirect discharger and the treatment
system is not operated to optimize removal of conventional pollutants.
EPA has concluded that the transfer of this data is appropriate given
the absence of adequate treatment technology for these pollutants at
the only otherwise well- operated BPT CWT facility. Given the treatment
of similar wastes at both OCPSF and centralized waste treatment
facilities, use of the data is warranted. Moreover, EPA has every
reason to believe that the same treatment systems will perform
similarly when treating the wastes in this subcategory.
Once again, the selected BPT option is based on the performance of
a single facility. Many facilities that are treating wastes that will
be subject to effluent limitations for the Organic-Bearing Waste
Subcategory also operate other industrial processes that generate much
larger amounts of wastewater than the quantity of off-site generated
organic waste receipts. The off-site generated organic waste receipts
are directly mixed with the wastewater from the other industrial
processes for treatment. Therefore, identifying facilities to sample
for limitations development was difficult because the waste receipts
and treatment unit effectiveness could not be properly characterized
for off-site generated waste. The treatment system for which Options 1
and 2 was based upon was one of the few facilities identified which
treated organic waste receipts separately from other on-site industrial
wastewater.
See Section V.F. for further information regarding Monitoring to
Demonstrate Compliance with the Regulation. [[Page 5480]]
2. BCT
In today's rule, EPA is proposing effluent limitations guidelines
and standards equivalent to the BPT guidelines for the conventional
pollutants covered under BPT. In developing BCT limits, EPA considered
whether there are technologies that achieve greater removals of
conventional pollutants than proposed for BPT, and whether those
technologies are cost-reasonable according to the BCT Cost Test. In all
three subcategories, EPA identified no technologies that can achieve
greater removals of conventional pollutants than proposed for BPT that
are also cost-reasonable under the BCT Cost Test, and accordingly EPA
proposes BCT effluent limitations equal to the proposed BPT effluent
limitations guidelines and standards.
EPA may also decide to adopt BPT effluent limitations based on
treatment technologies less stringent than the Regulatory Options that
are the basis for today's proposal. Consequently, EPA has also
evaluated the cost-reasonableness of BCT limits if EPA were to adopt
BPT limitations based on less stringent technologies. For all three
categories, this assessment does not support the adoption of BCT
limitations for conventional pollutants that are more stringent than
BPT limitations based on a reduced level of treatment.
3. BAT
EPA today is proposing BAT effluent limitations for all
subcategories of the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry based on the
same technologies selected for BPT for each subcategory. The BAT
effluent limitations proposed today would control identified priority
and non-conventional pollutants discharged from facilities.
EPA has not identified any more stringent treatment technology
option which it considered to represent BAT level of control applicable
to facilities in this industry for the metals, oils, and organics
subcategories, EPA identified an add-on treatment technology--carbon
adsorption--that should have further increased removals of pollutants
of concern. However, as explained above, EPA's data show increases
rather than decreases in concentrations of specific pollutants of
concern.
In the case for the Oily Waste Subcategory, EPA is co-proposing two
options for BAT: Options 2 and 3. EPA seeks comment on whether it
should adopt BAT limitations based on Oils Option 3 or Oils Option 4 if
the Agency decides to adopt Option 3 for BPT limitations for this
Subcategory. Both the Options 3 and 4 treatment systems achieve
increasingly greater levels of pollutant removal than Option 2. Both
represent demonstrated technologies currently in use in the industry.
However, the total costs for the industry over Option 2 are high. Given
the statutory injunction for the Agency to develop BAT effluent
limitations that reflect the best control measure economically
achievable, EPA believes BAT limitations which reflect these more
stringent effluent pollutant reduction levels may be appropriate. This
is particularly true if the additional treatment results in significant
reduction in pollutants discharged into the environment and thus
reasonable further progress towards the goal of the Act--elimination of
the discharge of pollutants to navigable waters. The Agency welcomes
comment on this issue.
EPA's data show that the costs of both Option 3 and Option 4 ($8.4
million and $10.0 million, respectively) are significantly greater than
Option 2 ($0.87 million). Nevertheless, the cost of per-pound removals,
$0.38 and $0.44, respectively, are reasonable. In addition, both
Options 3 and 4 are economically achievable because there would be not
change in the industry profitability status as a result of the adoption
of either Option. As stated earlier, the impact of limitations based on
either Option 1, 2, 3, or 4 is a decrease in profitability for one
direct discharger with increased profitability for three others.
However, adoption of BAT limits based on Oil Option 3 would provide
approximately 150,000 pounds of additional removals of pollutants over
Option 2 while BAT limitations based on costlier Option 4 would remove
fewer pollutants. In the circumstances, EPA has preliminarily
determined that is should not adopt Option 4 as the basis for BAT
limits if it decides to base BPT on Option 2.
As with BPT limitations, EPA is proposing to require monitoring for
compliance with the limitations at a point after treatment but prior to
combining the CWT process wastewater with other wastewater. Many
facilities operate other processes and the addition of this wastewater
to CWT wastewater may result in dilution due to the difference in
concentration of waste streams. Also, if a facility discharges non-
contaminated stormwater, the proposed regulation is requiring
monitoring of the CWT discharge prior to the addition of non-
contaminated stormwater.
As with BPT, monitoring for compliance with the regulation for the
Total Cyanide limitation at facilities in the Metals Subcategory which
treat concentrated cyanide-bearing metal waste is after cyanide
pretreatment and prior to metal treatment. This ensures that cyanide
will not interfere with metals treatment.
See Section V.F. for further information regarding Monitoring to
Demonstrate Compliance with the Regulation.
4. New Source Performance Standards
As previously noted, under Section 306 of the Act, new industrial
direct dischargers must comply with standards which reflect the
greatest degree of effluent reduction achievable through application of
the best available demonstrated control technologies. Congress
envisioned that new treatment systems could meet tighter controls than
existing sources because of the opportunity to incorporate the most
efficient processes and treatment systems into plant design. Therefore,
Congress directed EPA to consider the best demonstrated process
changes, in-plant controls, operating methods and end-of-pipe treatment
technologies that reduce pollution to the maximum extent feasible.
EPA is proposing NSPS that would control the same conventional,
priority, and non-conventional pollutants proposed for control by the
BPT effluent limitations. The technologies used to control pollutants
at existing facilities are fully applicable to new facilities.
Furthermore, EPA has not identified any technologies or combinations of
technologies that are demonstrated for new sources that are different
from those used to establish BPT/BCT/BAT for existing sources.
Therefore, EPA is establishing NSPS subcategories similar to the
subcategories for existing facilities and proposing NSPS limitations
that are identical to those proposed for BPT/BCT/BAT. Again, the Agency
is requesting comments to provide information and data on other
treatment systems that may be pertinent to the development of standards
for this industry.
EPA is specifically considering whether it should adopt NSPS for
the Oil Subcategory which reflect either Option 3 or Option 4 treatment
technologies. EPA does not believe there would be any barriers to entry
in this industry associated with adoption of Option 3 or 4. One
currently operating facility has demonstrated the performance of these
control technologies--EPA is assessing whether or not to adopt NSPS for
the Oil Subcategory that reflects this more stringent level of control.
EPA is soliciting comments on this issue. [[Page 5481]]
See Section V.F. for further information regarding Monitoring to
Demonstrate Compliance with the Regulation.
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
Indirect dischargers in the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry,
like the direct dischargers, accept for treatment wastes containing
many priority and non-conventional pollutants. As in the case of direct
dischargers, indirect dischargers may be expected to discharge many of
these pollutants to POTWs at significant mass and concentration levels.
EPA estimates that indirect dischargers annually discharge
approximately 85 million pounds of pollutants.
Section 307(b) requires EPA to promulgate pretreatment standards to
prevent pass-through of pollutants from POTWs to waters of the U.S. or
to prevent pollutants from interfering with the operation of POTWs. EPA
is establishing PSES for this industry to prevent pass-through of the
same pollutants controlled by BAT from POTWs to waters of the U.S.
a. Pass-through analysis. Before proposing pretreatment standards,
the Agency examines whether the pollutants discharged by the industry
pass through a POTW or interfere with the POTW operation or sludge
disposal practices. In determining whether pollutants pass through a
POTW, the Agency compares the percentage of a pollutant removed by
POTWs with the percentage of the pollutant removed by discharging
facilities applying BAT. A pollutant is deemed to pass through the POTW
when the average percentage removed nationwide by well-operated POTWs
(those meeting secondary treatment requirements) is less than the
percentage removed by facilities complying with BAT effluent
limitations guidelines for that pollutant.
This approach to the definition of pass-through satisfies two
competing objectives set by Congress: (1) That standards for indirect
dischargers be equivalent to standards for direct dischargers and (2)
that the treatment capability and performance of the POTW be recognized
and taken into account in regulating the discharge of pollutants from
indirect dischargers. Rather than compare the mass or concentration of
pollutants discharged by the POTW with the mass or concentration of
pollutants discharged by a BAT facility, EPA compares the percentage of
the pollutants removed by the plant with the POTW removal. EPA takes
this approach because a comparison of mass or concentration of
pollutants in a POTW effluent with pollutants in a BAT facility's
effluent would not take into account the mass of pollutants discharged
to the POTW from non-industrial sources nor the dilution of the
pollutants in the POTW effluent to lower concentrations from the
addition of large amounts of non- industrial wastewater. The volatile
override test is the last step in determining is a pollutant will
``pass-through.'' If a pollutant has a Henry's Law Constant greater
than 2.4 x 10-5 atm-m\3\/mole, or 10-3mg/m\3\/mg/m\3\, it is
determined to ``pass-through'' and will be regulated by PSES regardless
of the percent removal data.
For past effluent guidelines, a study of 50 well-operated POTWs was
used for the pass-through analysis. Because the data collected for
evaluating POTW removals included influent levels of pollutants that
were close to the detection limit, the POTW data were edited to
eliminate influent levels less than 10 times the minimum level and the
corresponding effluent values, except in the cases where none of the
influent concentrations exceeded 10 times the minimum level. In the
latter case, where no influent data exceeded 10 times the minimum
level, the data were edited to eliminate influent values less than 20
g/l and the corresponding effluent values. These editing rules
were used to allow for the possibility that low POTW removal simply
reflected the low influent levels.
EPA then averaged the remaining influent data and also averaged the
remaining effluent data from the 50 POTW database. The percent removals
achieved for each pollutant was determined from these averaged influent
and effluent levels. This percent removal was then compared to the
percent removal for the BAT option treatment technology. Due to the
large number of pollutants applicable for this industry, additional
data from the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) database was
used to augment the POTW database for the pollutants for which the 50
POTW Study did not cover. Based on this analysis, 78 of the 87
pollutants regulated under Regulatory Option 1 (the combinations of
Metals Option 3, Oils Option 2, and Organics Option 1) and 51 of the 87
pollutants regulated under Regulatory Option 2 (the combinations of
Metals Option 3, Oils Option 3, and Organics Option 1) for BAT passed
through POTWs and are proposed for regulation for PSES. The pollutants
determined not to ``pass-through'' are listed in Table V.E-1.
Table V.E-1.--Pollutants That Do Not Pass-through POTWs for the
Centralized Waste Treatment Industry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subcategory Pollutant
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals subcategory................. Barium.
Oils Subcategory--Option 2......... Nickel, Zinc, Tripropyleneglycol
Methyl Ether.
Organics Subcategory............... Phenol, 2-Propanone, Lead,
Pyridine, Zinc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Options considered. The Agency today is proposing to establish
pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES) based on the same
technologies as proposed for BPT and BAT for 78 of the 87 priority and
non-conventional pollutants regulated under BAT for Regulatory Option 1
(the combinations of Metals Option 3, Oils Option 2, and Organics
Option 1) and 81 of the 87 priority pollutants regulated under BAT for
Regulatory Option 2 (the combinations of Metals Option 3, Oils Option
3, and Organics Option 1) . These standards would apply to existing
facilities in all subcategories of the Centralized Waste Treatment
Industry that discharge wastewater to publicly-owned treatment works
(POTWs). These limitations were developed based on the same
technologies as proposed today for BPT/BAT, as applicable to each of
the affected subcategories. PSES set at these points would prevent
pass-through of pollutants, help control sludge contamination and
reduce air emissions.
EPA estimated the cost and economic impact of installing BPT/BAT
PSES technologies at the indirect discharging facilities. The total
estimated annualized cost in 1993 for all the subcategories is
approximately $22.9 million (if PSES is Oils Option 3) and
approximately $2.78 million (if PSES is Oils Option 2). EPA concluded
the cost of installation of these control technologies, in the case of
metal-bearing and organic-bearing waste streams, is clearly
economically achievable. EPA's assessment shows none of the indirect
discharging facilities in these subcategories go from a profitable to
unprofitable status as a result of the installation of the necessary
technology.
EPA is asking for comment on whether it should adopt Oils Option 3
as PSES for this subcategory, given that annual costs are approximately
ten times greater than Option 2. EPA is particularly interested in
comments on whether Option 3 is economically achievable, given the EPA
economic assessment showing that despite its high [[Page 5482]] cost,
it results only in a slight increase in the number of facilities going
from a profitable to unprofitable status. In the case of Oils Option 2,
four of 31 indirect dischargers would go from a profitable to
unprofitable status and for Option 3, six would experience a change
from a profitable to unprofitable status. Additional information is
provided in the Economic Impact Analysis.
The Agency considered the age, size, processes, other engineering
factors, and non-water quality environmental impacts pertinent to
facilities in developing PSES. The Agency did not identify any basis
for establishing different PSES limitations based on age, size,
processes, or other engineering factors. As previously explained for
BPT, adoption of standards based on the proposed technologies for
metal-bearing wastes and organic-bearing wastes would have important
non-water quality effects. The metals standards should reduce landfill
disposal of metals treatment residuals and the organic waste streams
would reduce volatilization of organic compounds.
c. Monitoring to Demonstrate Compliance with the Regulation. See
Section V.F.
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources
Section 307(c) of the Act requires EPA to promulgate pretreatment
standards for new sources (PSNS) at the same time it promulgates new
source performance standards (NSPS). New indirect discharging
facilities, like new direct discharging facilities, have the
opportunity to incorporate the best available demonstrated
technologies, including process changes, in-facility controls, and end-
of-pipe treatment technologies.
As set forth in Section VIII.E.4(a) of this preamble, EPA
determined that a broad range of pollutants discharged by Centralized
Waste Treatment Industry facilities pass-through POTWs. The same
technologies discussed previously for BAT, NSPS, and PSES are available
as the basis for PSNS.
EPA is proposing that pretreatment standards for new sources be set
equal to NSPS for priority and non-conventional pollutants for all
subcategories. The Agency is proposing to establish PSNS for the same
priority and non-conventional pollutants as are being proposed for
NSPS. In addition, given the potential for dilution and the consequent
impracticality of monitoring at the point of discharge, EPA is again
proposing that monitoring to demonstrate compliance with these
standards be required immediately following treatment of the regulated
streams.
EPA considered the cost of the proposed PSNS technology for new
facilities. EPA concluded that such costs are not so great as to
present a barrier to entry, as demonstrated by the fact that currently
operating facilities are using these technologies. Again, EPA is
requesting comment on whether it should adopt PSNS for the Oily Waste
Subcategory that reflects effluent reduction levels achievable through
either Option 3 or Option 4 treatment systems. The Agency considered
energy requirements and other non-water quality environmental impacts
and found no basis for any different standards than the selected PSNS.
F. Monitoring To Demonstrate Compliance With the Regulation
The effluent limitations EPA is proposing today apply only to
discharges resulting from treatment of the subcategory wastes and not
to mixtures of subcategory wastes with other wastes or mixtures of
different subcategory wastes. In addition, these effluent limitations
do not apply to discharges from the treatment of subcategory wastes
that are mixed prior to or after treatment with other wastewater
streams prior to discharge. EPA has concluded that it is impractical
and infeasible to set limits for the pollutants proposed to be
regulated in this category at the point of discharge for mixed waste
streams, given the potential for mixing to avoid achievement of the
required effluent reductions.
Thus, many facilities in this industry may operate other processes
which generate wastes requiring treatment and may add these wastes to
CWT wastes before treatment and discharge. This may result in dilution
rather than required treatment of CWT wastes due to the difference in
concentration of waste streams. In addition, if a facility discharges
its non-contaminated stormwater, implementation of this proposal
requires a facility to monitor the CWT discharge prior to the addition
of non-contaminated stormwater. Similarly, for facilities which treat
concentrated cyanide-bearing metal wastes, the limitations for Total
Cyanide are based on cyanide levels that are demonstrated to be
achieved after cyanide pretreatment and prior to metals precipitation.
Separate pretreatment of cyanide in metal-bearing waste streams is
necessary in order to ensure that cyanide will not interfere with
metals treatment. Consequently, EPA has preliminarily determined that
it will require compliance monitoring immediately following treatment
of subcategory waste streams (e.g., metal-bearing, oily, or organic-
bearing, as appropriate) unless the facility can demonstrate that it is
achieving the required effluent reduction associated with separate
treatment of the waste streams in a mixed waste treatment system. (See
further discussion of this issue below at Section VIII.)
G. Determination of Long-Term Averages, Variability Factors, and
Limitations for BPT
The proposed effluent limitations and standards in today's notice
are based upon statistical procedures that estimate long-term averages
and variability factors. The following sections describe the
statistical methodology used to develop long-term averages, variability
factors, and limitations for BPT. The limitations for BCT, BAT, NSPS,
PSES, and PSNS are based upon the limitations for BPT for all
pollutants.
The proposed limitations for pollutants for each option, as
presented in today's notice, are provided as daily maximums and
maximums for monthly averages. In most cases, the daily maximum
limitation for a pollutant in an option is the product of the pollutant
long-term average and the group daily variability factor. In most
cases, the maximum for monthly average limitation for a pollutant for
an option is the product of the pollutant long-term average and the
group monthly variability factor. The procedures used to estimate the
pollutant long-term averages and group variability factors are briefly
described below. A more detailed explanation is provided in the
statistical support document.
The long-term averages, variability factors, and limitations were
based upon pollutant concentrations collected from two sources: EPA
sampling episodes and the 1991 Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire. These
data sources are described in Sections IV.B. and IV.D. (Data from the
same facility but from different sources were analyzed as though each
source provided information about a different facility.)
The long-term average for each pollutant was calculated for each
facility by arithmetically averaging the pollutant concentrations. The
pollutant long-term average for an option was the median of the long-
term averages from selected facilities with the BPT technology basis
for the option.
The daily variability factor for each pollutant at each facility is
the ratio of the estimated 99th percentile of the distribution of the
daily pollutant concentration values divided by the
[[Page 5483]] expected value, or mean, of the distribution of the daily
values. The monthly variability factor for each pollutant at each
facility is the estimated 95th percentile of the distribution of
monthly averages of the daily concentration values divided by the
expected value of the monthly averages. The number of measurements used
to calculate the monthly averages corresponds to the number of days
that the pollutant is assumed to be monitored during the month. For
example, the volatile organic compounds are expected to be monitored
once a week (which is approximately four times a month); therefore, the
monthly variability factor was based upon the distribution of four-day
averages. Certain pollutants such as BOD5 are expected to be
monitored daily; therefore, the monthly variability factor was based
upon the distribution of 20-day averages (most facilities operate only
on weekdays of which there are approximately 20 in each month). The
assumed monitoring frequency of each pollutant is identified in Table
V.G-1.
Table V.G-1.--Monitoring Frequencies Used To Estimate Monthly
Variability Factors
Assumed Daily Monitoring Frequency
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aluminum Manganese.
Antimony Mercury.
Arsenic Molybdenum.
Barium Nickel.
BOD5 Oil and Grease.
Cadmium Silver.
Chromium Tin.
Cobalt Titanium.
Copper TOC.
Iron Total Cyanide.
Lead TSS.
Magnesium Zinc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assumed Weekly Monitoring Frequency
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hexavalent Chromium Methylene Chloride.
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane m-Xylene.
1,1,1-Trichloroethane n-Decane.
1,1,2-Trichloroethane n-Docosane.
1,1-Dichloroethane n-Dodecane.
1,2,3-Trichloropropane n-Eicosane.
1,2-Dibromoethane n-Hexacosane.
1,2-Dichloroethane n-Hexadecane.
trans-1,2-dichloroethene n-Octadecane.
2,3-Dichloroaniline n-Tetradecane.
2-Propanone o&p-Xylene.
4-chloro-3-methyl phenol o-Cresol.
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone Phenol.
Acetophenone Pyridine.
Benzene p-Cresol.
Benzoic Acid Tetrachloroethene.
Butanone Tetrachloromethane.
Carbon Disulfide Toluene.
Chloroform Trichloroethene.
Diethyl ether Tripropyleneglycol methyl ether.
Hexanoic Acid
Ethylbenzene Vinyl Chloride.
The variability factors for each option were developed for groups
of pollutants in three steps. These steps are described here for the
daily variability factors. Similar steps were used to develop monthly
variability factors. The first step was to develop a daily variability
factor for each pollutant at each facility by fitting a modified delta-
lognormal distribution to the daily pollutant concentration values from
each facility. (For monthly variability factors, the modified delta-
lognormal distribution was fit to the monthly averages.) The second
step was to develop one daily variability factor for each pollutant for
each option by averaging the daily variability factors for the selected
facilities with the technology basis for the option. The third step was
to develop ``group'' daily variability factors for each option. Each
group contained pollutants that were chemically similar. The daily
variability factor for each group was the median of the daily
variability factors obtained in the second step for the pollutants in
the group and option. In some cases, none of the daily variability
factors for the pollutants within a group could be estimated. In some
of these cases, the daily variability factor for the group was
transferred from the other groups in the option that used the same
fraction in the chemical analysis. This transferred group daily
variability factor was the median of the daily variability factors from
the other groups. In the remaining cases where the group daily
variability factors could not be estimated, the group daily variability
factors were transferred from chemically similar pollutants or from
other options within the subcategory. The development of daily and
monthly variability factors is described further in the statistical
support document.
Because EPA is assuming that some pollutants (BOD5, TSS, oil
and grease, metals, total cyanide, and TOC) will be monitored daily,
the 20-day variability factors were based on the distribution of 20-day
averages. If concentrations measured on consecutive days are positively
correlated, then autocorrelation would have an effect on the 20-day
variability factors (long-term averages are not affected by
autocorrelation). However, the centralized waste treatment data used to
calculate the 20-day variability factors were, in most cases, not
consecutive daily measurements. Therefore, at this time, EPA does not
have sufficient data to examine in detail and incorporate (if
statistically significant) any autocorrelation between concentrations
measured on adjacent days. Furthermore, EPA believes that
autocorrelation may not be present in daily measurements from
wastewater from this industry. Unlike other industries, where the
industrial processes are expected to produce the same type of
wastewater from one day to the next, the wastewater from Centralized
Waste Treatment Industry is generated from treating wastes from
different sources and industrial processes. The wastes treated on a
given day will often be different than the waste treated on the
following day. Because of this, autocorrelation would not be expected
to be present in measurements of wastewater from the Centralized Waste
Treatment Industry. In Section VIII.B.7, EPA requests additional
wastewater monitoring data. EPA will use these data to further evaluate
autocorrelation in the data for the pollutants that will be monitored
daily.
H. Regulatory Implementation
1. Applicability
The regulation proposed today is just that--a proposed regulation.
While today's proposal represents EPA's best judgment at this time, the
effluent limitations and standards may still change based on additional
information or data submitted by commenters or developed by the Agency.
Consequently, the permit writer should consider the proposed limits in
developing permit limits. Although the information provided in the
Development Document may provide useful information and guidance to
permit writers in determining best professional judgment permit limits,
the permit writer will still need to justify any permit limits based on
the conditions at the individual facility.
2. Upset and Bypass Provisions
A ``bypass'' is an intentional diversion of waste streams from any
portion of a treatment facility. An ``upset'' is an exceptional
incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance
with technology-based permit effluent limitations because of factors
beyond the reasonable control of the permittee. EPA's regulations
concerning bypasses and upsets are set forth at 40 CFR 122.41(m) and
(n).
[[Page 5484]]
3. Variances and Modifications
The CWA requires application of the effluent limitations
established pursuant to Section 301 or the pretreatment standards of
Section 307 to all direct and indirect dischargers. However, the
statute provides for the modification of these national requirements in
a limited number of circumstances. Moreover, the Agency has established
administrative mechanisms to provide an opportunity for relief from the
application of national effluent limitations guidelines and
pretreatment standards for categories of existing sources for priority,
conventional and non- conventional pollutants.
a. Fundamentally Different Factors Variances. EPA will develop
effluent limitations or standards different from the otherwise
applicable requirements if an individual existing discharging facility
is fundamentally different with respect to factors considered in
establishing the limitation or standards applicable to the individual
facility. Such a modification is known as a ``fundamentally different
factors'' (FDF) variance.
Early on, EPA, by regulation, provided for FDF modifications from
BPT effluent limitations, BAT limitations for priority and non-
conventional pollutants and BCT limitation for conventional pollutants
for direct dischargers. For indirect dischargers, EPA provided for FDF
modifications from pretreatment standards for existing facilities. FDF
variances for priority pollutants were challenged judicially and
ultimately sustained by the Supreme Court. Chemical Manufacturers Ass'n
v. NRDC, 479 U.S. 116 (1985).
Subsequently, in the Water Quality Act of 1987, Congress added new
Section 301(n) of the Act explicitly to authorize modification of the
otherwise applicable BAT effluent limitations or categorical
pretreatment standards for existing sources if a facility is
fundamentally different with respect to the factors specified in
Section 304 (other than costs) from those considered by EPA in
establishing the effluent limitations or pretreatment standard. Section
301(n) also defined the conditions under EPA may establish alternative
requirements. Under Section 301(n), an application for approval of FDF
variance must be based solely on 1) information submitted during the
rulemaking raising the factors that are fundamentally different or 2)
information the applicant did not have an opportunity to submit. The
alternate limitation or standard must be no less stringent than
justified by the difference and not result in markedly more adverse
non-water quality environmental impacts than the national limitation or
standard.
EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 125 Subpart D, authorizing the
Regional Administrators to establish alternative limitations and
standards, further detail the substantive criteria used to evaluate FDF
variance requests for existing direct dischargers. Thus, 40 CFR
125.31(d) identifies six factors (e.g., volume of process wastewater,
age and size of a discharger's facility) that may be considered in
determining if a facility is fundamentally different. The Agency must
determine whether, on the basis of one or more of these factors, the
facility in question is fundamentally different from the facilities and
factors considered by the EPA in developing the nationally applicable
effluent guidelines. The regulation also lists four other factors
(e.g., infeasibility of installation within the time allowed or a
discharger's ability to pay) that may not provide a basis for an FDF
variance. In addition, under 40 CFR 125.31(b)(3), a request for
limitations less stringent than the national limitation may be approved
only if compliance with the national limitations would result in either
(a) a removal cost wholly out of proportion to the removal cost
considered during development of the national limitations, or (b) a
non-water quality environmental impact (including energy requirements)
fundamentally more adverse than the impact considered during
development of the national limits. EPA regulations provide for an FDF
variance for existing indirect discharger at 40 CFR 403.13. The
conditions for approval of a request to modify applicable pretreatment
standards and factors considered are the same as those for direct
dischargers.
The legislative history of Section 301(n) underscores the necessity
for the FDF variance applicant to establish eligibility for the
variance. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 125.32(b)(1) are explicit in
imposing this burden upon the applicant. The applicant must show that
the factors relating to the discharge controlled by the applicant's
permit which are claimed to be fundamentally different are, in fact,
fundamentally different from those factors considered by the EPA in
establishing the applicable guidelines. The pretreatment regulation
incorporate a similar requirement at 40 CFR 403.13(h)(9).
An FDF variance is not available to a new source subject to NSPS or
PSES.
b. Economic Variances. Section 301(c) of the CWA authorizes a
variance from the otherwise applicable BAT effluent guidelines for non-
conventional pollutants due to economic factors. The request for a
variance from effluent limitations developed from BAT guidelines must
normally be filed by the discharger during the public notice period for
the draft permit. Other filing time periods may apply, as specified in
40 CFR 122.21(l)(2). Specific guidance for this type of variance is
available from EPA's Office of Wastewater Management.
c. Water Quality Variances. Section 301(g) of the CWA authorizes a
variance from BAT effluent guidelines for certain nonconventional
pollutants due to localized environmental factors. These pollutants
include ammonia, chlorine, color, iron, and total phenols.
d. Permit modifications. Even after EPA (or an authorized State)
has issued a final permit to a direct discharger, the permit may still
be modified under certain conditions. (When a permit modification is
under consideration, however, all other permit conditions remain in
effect.) A permit modification may be triggered in several
circumstances. These could include a regulatory inspection or
information submitted by the permittee that reveals the need for
modification. Any interested person may request modification of a
permit modification be made. There are two classifications of
modifications: major and minor. From a procedural standpoint, they
differ primarily with respect to the public notice requirements. Major
modifications require public notice while minor modifications do not.
Virtually any modifications that results in less stringent conditions
is treated as a major modification, with provisions for public notice
and comment. Conditions that would necessitate a major modification of
a permit are described in 40 CFR 122.62. Minor modifications are
generally non-substantive changes. The conditions for minor
modification are described in 40 CFR 122.63.
e. Removal credits. As described previously, many industrial
facilities discharge large quantities of pollutants to POTWs where
their wastewater mix with wastewater from other sources, domestic
sewage from private residences and run-off from various sources prior
to treatment and discharge by the POTW. Industrial discharges
frequently contain pollutants that are generally not removed as
effectively by treatment at the POTWs as by the industries themselves.
The introduction of pollutants to a POTW from industrial discharges
may pose several problems. These include potential interference with
the POTW's operation or pass-through of pollutants [[Page 5485]] if
inadequately treated. As discussed, Congress, in Section 307(b) of the
Act, directed EPA to establish pretreatment standards to prevent these
potential problems. Congress also recognized that, in certain
instances, POTWs could provide some or all of the treatment of an
industrial user's wastewater that would be required pursuant to the
pretreatment standard. Consequently, Congress established a
discretionary program for POTWs to grant ``removal credits'' to their
indirect dischargers. The credit, in the form of a less stringent
pretreatment standard, allows an increased concentration of a pollutant
in the flow from the indirect discharger's facility to the POTW.
Section 307(b) of the CWA establishes a three-part test for
obtaining removal credit authority for a given pollutant. Removal
credits may be authorized only if (1) the POTW ``removes all or any
part of such toxic pollutant,'' (2) the POTW's ultimate discharge would
``not violate that effluent limitation, or standard which would be
applicable to that toxic pollutant if it were discharged'' directly
rather than through a POTW and (3) the POTW's discharge would ``not
prevent sludge use and disposal by such [POTW] in accordance with
Section [405]. . . .'' Section 307(b).
EPA has promulgated removal credit regulations in 40 CFR 403.7. The
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has interpreted
the statute to require EPA to promulgate comprehensive sewage sludge
regulations before any removal credits could be authorized. NRDC v.
EPA, 790 F.2d 289, 292 (3rd Cir. 1986) cert. denied. 479 U.S. 1084
(1987). Congress made this explicit in the Water Quality Act of 1987
which provided that EPA could not authorize any removal credits until
it issued the sewage sludge use and disposal regulations required by
Section 405(d)(2)(a)(ii).
Section 405 of the CWA requires EPA to promulgate regulations that
establish standards for sewage sludge when used or disposed for various
purposes. These standards must include sewage sludge management
standards as well as numerical limits for pollutants that may be
present in sewage sludge in concentrations which may adversely affect
public health and the environment. Section 405 requires EPA to develop
these standards in two phases. On November 25, 1992, EPA promulgated
the Round One sewage sludge regulations establishing standards,
including numerical pollutant limits, for the use or disposal of sewage
sludge. 58 FR 9248. EPA established pollutant limits for ten metals
when sewage sludge is applied to land, for three metals when it is
disposed of on a surface disposal site and for seven metals and a total
hydrocarbon operational standard, a surrogate for organic pollutant
emissions, when sewage sludge is incinerated. These requirements are
codified at 40 CFR Part 503.
The Phase One regulations partially fulfilled the Agency's
commitment under the terms of a consent decree that settled a citizens
suit to compel issuance of the sludge regulations. Gearhart, et al. v.
Reilly, Civil No. 89-6266-JO (D. Ore). Under the terms of that decree,
EPA must propose and take final action on the Round Two sewage sludge
regulations by December 15, 2001.
At the same time EPA promulgated the Round One regulations, EPA
also amended its pretreatment regulations to provide that removal
credits would be available for certain pollutants regulated in the
sewage sludge regulations. See 58 FR 9386. The amendments to Part 403
provide that removal credits may be made potentially available for the
following pollutants:
(1) If a POTW applies its sewage sludge to the land for beneficial
uses, disposes of it on surface disposal sites or incinerates it,
removal credits may be available, depending on which use or disposal
method is selected (so long as the POTW complies with the requirements
in Part 503). When sewage sludge is applied to land, removal credits
may be available for ten metals. When sewage sludge is disposed of on a
surface disposal site, removal credits may be available for three
metals. When the sewage sludge is incinerated, removal credits may be
available for seven metals and for 57 organic pollutants. See 40 CFR
403.7(a)(3)(iv)(A).
(2) In addition, when sewage sludge is used on land or disposed of
on a surface disposal site or incinerated, removal credits may also be
available for additional pollutants so long as the concentration of the
pollutant in sludge does not exceed a concentration level established
in Part 403. When sewage sludge is applied to land, removal credits may
be available for two additional metals and 14 organic pollutants. When
the sewage sludge is disposed of on a surface disposal site, removal
credits may be available for seven additional metals and 13 organic
pollutants. When the sewage sludge is incinerated, removal credits may
be available for three other metals. See 40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(iv)(B).
(3) When a POTW disposes of its sewage sludge in a municipal solid
waste landfill that meets the criteria of 40 CFR Part 258 (MSWLF),
removal credits may be available for any pollutant in the POTW's sewage
sludge. See 40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(iv)(C). Thus, given compliance with the
requirements of EPA's removal credit regulations,\3\ following
promulgation of the pretreatment standards being proposed here, removal
credits may be authorized for any pollutant subject to pretreatment
standards if the applying POTW disposes of its sewage sludge in a MSWLF
that meets the requirements of 40 CFR Part 258. If the POTW uses or
disposes of its sewage sludge by land application, surface disposal or
incineration, removal credits may be available for the following metal
pollutants (depending on the method of use or disposal): arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel,
selenium and zinc. Given compliance with Section 403.7, removal credits
may be available for the following organic pollutants (depending on the
method of use or disposal) if the POTW uses or disposes of its sewage
sludge: benzene, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,2-dibromoethane, ethylbenzene,
methylene chloride, toluene, tetrachloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane,
1,1,2-trichloroethane and trans-1,2-dichloroethene.
\3\Under Section 403.7, a POTW is authorized to give removal
credits only under certain conditions. These include applying for,
and obtaining, approval from the Regional Administrator (or Director
of a State NPDES program with an approved pretreatment program), a
showing of consistent pollutant removal and an approved pretreatment
program. See 40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(I), (ii) and (iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some facilities may be interested in obtaining removal credit
authorization for other pollutants being considered for regulation in
this rulemaking for which removal credit authorization would not
otherwise be available under Part 403. Under Sections 307(b) and 405 of
the CWA, EPA may authorize removal credits only when EPA determines
that, if removal credits are authorized, that the increased discharges
of a pollutant to POTWs resulting from removal credits will not affect
POTW sewage sludge use or disposal adversely. As discussed in the
preamble to amendment to the Part 403 regulations (58 FR 9382-83), EPA
has interpreted these sections to authorize removal credits for a
pollutant only in one of two circumstances. Removal credits may be
authorized for any categorical pollutant (1) for which EPA has
established a numerical pollutant limit in Part 503; or (2) which EPA
has determined will not threaten human health and the environment when
used or disposed of in sewage sludge. The pollutants described in
paragraphs (1)-(3) above [[Page 5486]] include all those pollutants
that EPA either specifically regulated in Part 503 or evaluated for
regulation and determined would not adversely affect sludge use and
disposal.
Consequently, in the case of a pollutant for which EPA did not
perform a risk assessment in developing the Phase One sewage sludge
regulations, removal credit for pollutants will only be available when
the Agency determines either a safe level for the pollutant in sewage
sludge or that regulation of the pollutant is unnecessary to protect
public health and the environment from the reasonably anticipated
adverse effects of such a pollutant.\4\ Therefore, any person seeking
to add additional categorical pollutants to the list for which removal
credits are now available would need to submit information to the
Agency to support such a determination. The basis for such a
determination may include information showing the absence of risks for
the pollutant (generally established through an environmental pathway
risk assessment such as EPA used for Phase One) or data establishing
the pollutant's presence in sewage sludge at low levels relative to
risk levels or both. Parties, however, may submit whatever information
they conclude is sufficient to establish either the absence of any
potential for harm from the presence of the pollutant in sewage sludge
or data demonstrating a ``safe'' level for the pollutant in sludge.
Following submission of such a demonstration, EPA will review the data
and determine whether or not it should propose to amend the list of
pollutants for which removal credits would be available.
\4\In the Round One sewage sludge regulation, EPA concluded, on
the basis of risk assessments, that certain pollutants (see Appendix
G to Part 403) did not pose an unreasonable risk to human health and
the environment and did not require the establishment of sewage
sludge pollutant limits. As discussed above, so long as the
concentration of these pollutants in sewage sludge are lower than a
prescribed level, removal credits are authorized for such
pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has already begun the process of evaluating a number of
pollutants for adverse potential to human health and the environment
when present in sewage sludge. In May, 1993, pursuant to the terms of
the consent decree in the Gearhart case, the Agency notified the United
States District Court for the District of Oregon that, based on the
information then available at that time, it intended to propose 31
pollutants for regulation in the Round Two sewage sludge regulations.
These are acetic acid (2,4-dichlorophenoxy), aluminum, antimony,
asbestos, barium, beryllium, boron, butanone, carbon disulfide, cresol
(p-), cyanides (soluble salts and complexes), dioxins/dibenzofurans
(all monochloro to octochloro congeners), endsulfan-II, fluoride,
manganese, methylene chloride, nitrate, nitrite, pentachloro-
nitrobenzene, phenol, phthalate (bis-2-ethylhexyl), polychlorinated
biphenyls (co-planar), propanone (2-), silver, thallium, tin, titanium,
toluene, trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2, 4, 5-),
trichlorphenoxypropionic acid ([2--(2, 4, 5-)], and vanadium.
The Round Two regulations are not scheduled for proposal until
December, 1999 and promulgation in December 2001. However, given the
necessary factual showing, as detailed above, EPA could conclude before
the contemplated proposal and promulgation dates that regulation of
some of these pollutants is not necessary. In those circumstances, EPA
could propose that removal credits should be authorized for such
pollutants before promulgation of the Round Two sewage sludge
regulations. However, given the Agency's commitment to promulgation of
effluent limitations and guidelines under court-supervised deadlines,
it may not be possible to complete review of removal credit
authorization requests by the time EPA must promulgate these guidelines
and standards.
4. Relationship of Effluent Limitations to NPDES Permits and Monitoring
Requirements
Effluent limitations act as a primary mechanism to control the
discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States. These
limitations are applied to individual facilities through NPDES permits
issued by the EPA or authorized States under Section 402 of the Act.
The Agency has developed the limitations and standards for this
proposed rule to cover the discharge of pollutants for this industrial
category. In specific cases, the NPDES permitting authority may elect
to establish technology-based permit limits for pollutants not covered
by this proposed regulation. In addition, if State water quality
standards or other provisions of State or Federal Law require limits on
pollutants not covered by this regulation (or require more stringent
limits on covered pollutants), the permitting authority must apply
those limitations.
For determination of effluent limits where there are multiple
categories and subcategories, the effluent guidelines are applied using
a flow-weighted combination of the appropriate guideline for each
category or subcategory. Where a facility treats a CWT waste stream and
process wastewater from other industrial operations, the effluent
guidelines would be applied by using a flow-weighted combination of the
BPT/BAT/PSES limit for the CWT subcategory and the other industrial
operations to derive the appropriate limitations. However, as stated
above, if State water quality standards or other provisions of State or
Federal Law require limits on pollutants not covered by this regulation
(or require more stringent limits on covered pollutants), the
permitting authority must apply those limitations regardless of the
limitation derived using the flow-weighted combinations.
Working in conjunction with the effluent limitations are the
monitoring conditions set out in a NPDES permit. An integral part of
the monitoring conditions is the point at a facility must monitor to
demonstrate compliance. The point at which a sample is collected can
have a dramatic effect on the monitoring results for that facility.
Therefore, it may be necessary to require internal monitoring points in
order to assure compliance. Authority to address internal waste streams
is provided in 40 CFR 122.44(I)(1)(iii) and 122.45(h). Today's proposed
integrated rule establishes several internal monitoring points to
ensure compliance with the effluent guideline limitations. Permit
writers may establish additional internal monitoring points to the
extent consistent with EPA's regulations.
5. Implementation for Facilities with Operations in Multiple
Subcategories
According to the 1991 Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire,
thirty percent of facilities in the Centralized Waste Treatment
Industry have been identified as accepting waste that is included in
two or more of the subcategories being proposed for regulation here. In
other words, the facilities actively accept a variety of waste types.
This is not to be confused with the fact that metal-bearing waste
streams may include low level organics or that oily wastes may include
metals due to the origin of the waste stream accepted for treatment.
The limitations and standards EPA is today proposing are based on
treatment of wastes that have not been commingled for treatment without
the appropriate pretreatment. EPA's sampling program and other data in
the record demonstrate that mixing of wastes before treatment does not
provide appropriate pollutant removals but may merely mask the absence
of removal through dilution. Consequently, the proposal required
monitoring immediately following the treatment of the regulated waste
stream to demonstrate compliance. Wastes [[Page 5487]] treated in the
Centralized Waste Treatment Industry have been characterized as
concentrated, difficult to treat wastewater, sludges, off-spec
products, etc. and are often unlike waste streams found at other
categorical industries. Therefore, special attention should be taken
when facilities determine which waste streams are accepted for
treatment.
If a facility accepts for treatment a mixture of waste types, it is
still subject to limitations and standards (and monitoring to
demonstrate compliance) that reflect the treatment performance
achievable for the unmixed streams. In other words, if a facility
accepts for treatment metal-bearing and oily waste, the facility must
comply with the limitations and standards based on a treatment system
which employs emulsion-breaking, ultrafiltration, and carbon adsorption
to ``adequately treat'' the oily waste for the oils and organics
constituents. Similarly, discharges from the metal-bearing stream must
comply with the limitations and standards defined by a treatment system
employing selective metals precipitation. Compliance with the
limitations and standards must be demonstrated following treatment. EPA
has concluded that if oily wastes that have not been pretreated are
mixed with the metal-bearing waste stream for selective metals
precipitation, the unit will not meet the required performance level
for metals.
The effluent guideline would be applied by using a flow-weighted
combination of BPT/BAT/PSES limitations for the subcategories of
concern to derive the facility limit. The permit writer may establish
limitations and standards based on separate treatment for each
subcategory's operation.
Mixing of dissimilar waste streams may result in dilution of
pollutants because the waste streams do not contain the same pollutants
or may result in dilution of the stream to the point that pollutants
are non-detectible. For waste streams which contain the same pollutants
at similar concentration, pretreatment may not be necessary.
The Agency attempted to establish one set of limitations for
facilities in all subcategories, but due to the fact that performances
levels and the pollutants of concern are not the same for all
subcategories, this task could not be done. The Agency solicits comment
on its approach to multiple subcategory facilities. EPA is requesting
commenters to supply additional data which they may have that would aid
in characterizing the efficiency of waste treatment systems for
facilities which commingle waste from multiple subcategories prior to
treatment.
EPA considered and rejected another approach which did not require
monitoring to demonstrate compliance with CWT limitations and standards
in the case of facilities which mixed categorical waste streams with
CWT wastes. Rather, for such facilities, permit writers would require
the facility to identify the sources of the CWT wastestreams and then
develop facility limits applying the combined waste stream formula,
using the applicable guidelines and limitations for the CWT waste
source. If CWT wastes were treated separately at such a facility, then
the permit writer would just apply the CWT limitations and standards in
developing the limits. EPA is asking for comment on whether to
reconsider such an approach.
VI. Costs and Impacts of Regulatory Alternatives
A. Costs
The Agency estimated the cost for CWT facilities to achieve each
of the effluent limitations and standards proposed today. These
estimated costs are summarized in this section and discussed in more
detail in the Technical Development Document. All cost estimates in
this section are expressed in terms of 1993 dollars. The cost
components reported in this section represent estimates of the
investment cost of purchasing and installing equipment, the annual
operating and maintenance costs associated with that equipment,
additional costs for discharge monitoring, and costs for facilities to
modify existing RCRA permits. In Sections VI.B., costs are expressed in
terms of a different cost component, total annualized cost. The total
annualized cost, which is used to estimate economic impacts, better
describes the actual compliance cost that a company will incur,
allowing for interest, depreciation, and taxes. A summary of the
economic impact analysis for the proposed regulation is contained in
Section VI.B. of today's notice. See also the economic impact analysis.
1. BPT Costs
The Agency estimated the cost of implementing the proposed BPT
effluent limitations guidelines and standards by calculating the
engineering costs of meeting the required effluent reductions for each
direct discharging CWT. This facility-specific engineering cost
assessment for BPT began with a review of present waste treatment
technologies. For facilities without treatment technology in-place
equivalent to the BPT technology, EPA estimated the cost to upgrade its
treatment technology, to use additional treatment chemicals to achieve
the new discharge standards, and to employ additional personnel, where
applicable for the option. The only facilities given no cost for
compliance were facilities with the treatment-in-place prescribed for
that option. The Agency believes that this approach overestimates the
costs to achieve the proposed BPT because many facilities can achieve
BPT level discharges without using all of the components of the
technology basis described in Section V.E. The Agency solicits comment
on these costing assumptions. Table VI.A-1 summarizes, by subcategory,
the capital expenditures and annual O&M costs for implementing BPT.
Costs are presented for Regulatory Option 1 (the combination of Metals
Option 3, Oils Option 2, and Organics Option 1) and Regulatory Option 2
(the combination of Metals Option 3, Oils Option 3, and Organics Option
1). The capital expenditures for the process change component of BPT
are estimated to be $17.7 million with annual O&M costs of $14.3
million for Regulatory Option 1 and $20.6 million with annual O&M costs
of $21.7 million for Regulatory Option 2.
[[Page 5488]]
Table VI.A-1.--Cost of Implementing BPT Regulations
[In millions of 1993 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of Capital Annual O&M
Subcategory facilities\1\ costs costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Treatment and Recovery.... 12 15.4 10.5
Oils Treatment and Recovery--
Regulatory Option 1............. 4 1.02 0.779
Oils Treatment and Recovery--
Regulatory Option 2............. 4 3.84 8.15
Organics Treatment............... 6 1.32 3.06
Regulatory Option 1.............. 16 17.7 14.3
Regulatory Option 2.............. 16 20.6 21.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\There are 16 direct dischargers. Because some direct dischargers
include operations in more than one subcategory, the sum of the
facilities with operations in any one subcategory exceeds the total
number of facilities.
2. BCT/BAT Costs
The Agency estimated that there would be no cost of compliance for
implementing BCT/BAT, because the technology is identical to BPT and
the costs are included with BPT.
3. PSES Costs
The Agency estimated the cost for implementing PSES with the same
assumptions and methodology used to estimate cost of implementing BAT.
Table VI.A-2 summarizes, by subcategory, the capital expenditures and
annual O&M costs for implementing PSES. Costs are presented for
Regulatory Option 1 (the combination of Metals Option 3, Oils Option 2,
and Organics Option 1) and Regulatory Option 2 (the combination of
Metals Option 3, Oils Option 3, and Organics Option 1). The capital
expenditures for the process change component of PSES are estimated to
be $43.8 million with annual O&M costs of $26.8 million for Regulatory
Option 1 and $52.6 million with annual O&M costs of $45.9 million for
Regulatory Option 2.
Table VI.A-2.--Cost of Implementing PSES Regulations
[In millions of 1993 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of Capital Annual O&M
Subcategory facilities\1\ costs costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Treatment and Recovery... 44 28.5 23.0
Oils Treatment and Recovery--
Regulatory Option 1............ 31 4.21 2.37
Oils Treatment and Recovery--
Regulatory Option 2............ 31 13.0 21.5
Organics Treatment.............. 16 11.1 1.41
Regulatory Option 1............. 56 43.8 26.8
Regulatory Option 2............. 56 52.6 45.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\There are 16 direct dischargers. Because some direct dischargers
include operations in more than one subcategory, the sum of the
facilities with operations in any one subcategory exceeds the total
number of facilities.
B. Pollutant Reductions
The Agency estimated the reduction in the mass of pollutants that
would be discharged from CWT facilities after the implementation of the
regulations being proposed today.
1. Conventional Pollutant Reductions
EPA has calculated how much adoption of the proposed BPT/BCT
limitations would reduce the total quantity of conventional pollutants
that are discharged. To do this, for each subcategory, the Agency
developed an estimate of the long- term average loading (LTA) of
BOD5, TSS, and Oil and Grease that would be discharged after the
implementation of BPT. Next, these BPT/BCT LTAs for BOD5, TSS, and
Oil and Grease were multiplied by 1989 wastewater flows for each direct
discharging facility in the subcategory to calculate BPT/BCT mass
discharge loadings for BOD5, TSS, and Oil and Grease for each
facility. The BPT/BCT mass discharge loadings were subtracted from the
estimated current loadings to calculate the pollutant reductions for
each facility. Each subcategory's BPT/BCT pollutant reduction was
summed to estimate the total facility's pollutant reduction for those
facilities treating wastes in multiple subcategories. Subcategory
reductions, obviously, were obtained by summing individual subcategory
results. The Agency estimates that the proposed regulations will reduce
BOD5 discharges by approximately 34.5 million pounds per year for
Regulatory Option 1 (the combination of Metals Option 3, Oils Option 2,
and Organics Option 1) and 36.9 million pounds per year for Regulatory
Option 2 (the combination of Metals Option 3, Oils Option 3, and
Organics Option 1); TSS discharges by approximately 30.3 million pounds
per year for both Regulatory Options; and Oil and Grease discharges by
approximately 52.4 million pounds per year for Regulatory Option 1 (the
combination of Metals Option 3, Oils Option 2, and Organics Option 1)
and 56.9 million pounds per year for Regulatory Option 2 (the
combination of Metals Option 3, Oils Option 3, and Organics Option 1).
2. Priority and Nonconventional Pollutant Reductions
a. Methodology. Today's proposal, if promulgated, will also reduce
discharges of priority and non-conventional pollutants. Applying the
same methodology used to estimate conventional pollutant reductions
attributable to application of BPT/BCT control technology, EPA has also
estimated priority and non-conventional pollutant reductions for each
facility by subcategory. Because EPA has proposed BAT limitations
equivalent to BPT, there are obviously no further pollutant reductions
associated with BAT limitations. [[Page 5489]]
Current loadings were estimated by using data collected by the
Agency in the field sampling program and from the questionnaire data
supplied by the industry. For many facilities, data were not available
for all pollutants of concern or without the addition of other non-CWT
wastewater. Therefore, methodologies were developed to estimate current
performance for each subcategory assessing performance of on-site
treatment technologies, by using wastewater permit information and
monitoring data supplied in the 1991 Waste Treatment Industry
Questionnaire and the Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire as described in
Section V.B.
b. Direct Facility Discharges (BPT/BAT) The estimated reductions in
pollutants directly discharged in treated final effluent resulting from
implementation of BPT/BAT are listed in Table VI.B-1. Pollutant
reductions are presented for Regulatory Option 1 (the combination of
Metals Option 3, Oils Option 2, and Organics Option 1) and Regulatory
Option 2 (the combination of Metals Option 3, Oils Option 3, and
Organics Option 1). The Agency estimates that proposed BPT/BAT
regulations will reduce direct facility discharges of priority, and
non-conventional pollutants by 5.0 million pounds per year for
Regulatory Option 1 and 8.0 million pounds per year for Regulatory
Option 2.
Table VI.B-1.--Reduction in Direct Discharge of Priority and
Nonconventional Pollutants After Implementation of BPT/BAT Regulations
[Units=lbs/year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metal Organic
Subcategory compounds compounds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Treatment and Recovery................... 871,832 245,525
Oils Treatment and Recovery--Regulatory Option 1 294,543 556,627
Oils Treatment and Recovery--Regulatory Option 2 319,847 610,937
Organics Treatment.............................. 3,065,679 \1\0
Regulatory Option 1............................. 4,232,054 802,153
Regulatory Option 2............................. 7,617,580 1,413,091
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The organic compounds pollutant reduction for the Organics
Subcategory was estimated to be 0, because all facilities had the
treatment-in-place for removal of organic compounds.
c. PSES Effluent Discharges to POTWs. The estimated reductions in
pollutants indirectly discharged to POTWs resulting from implementation
of PSES are listed in Table VI.B-2. Pollutant reductions are presented
for Regulatory Option 1 (the combination of Metals Option 3, Oils
Option 2, and Organics Option 1) and Regulatory Option 2 (the
combination of Metals Option 3, Oils Option 3, and Organics Option 1).
The Agency estimates that proposed PSES regulations will reduce
indirect facility discharge to POTWs by 6.5 million pounds per year for
Regulatory Option 1 and 12 million pounds per year for Regulatory
Option 2.
Table VI.B-2.--Reduction in Indirect Discharge of Priority and
Nonconventional Pollutants After Implementation of PSES Regulations
[Units=lbs/year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metal Organic
Subcategory compounds compounds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Treatment and Recovery................... 428,040 120,545
Oils Treatment and Recovery--Regulatory Option 1 709,834 1,341,439
Oils Treatment and Recovery--Regulatory Option 2 771,668 1,474,708
Organics Treatment.............................. 415,812 3,521,560
Regulatory Option 1............................. 1,553,686 4,983,544
Regulatory Option 2............................. 2,741,166 9,979,812
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Economic Impact Assessment
1. Introduction
EPA's economic impact assessment is set forth in a report titled
``Economic Impact Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry''
(hereinafter ``EIA''). This report estimates the economic and financial
effects of compliance with the proposed regulation in terms of facility
and company profitability and assesses the economic effect of
compliance on six regional markets. Community impacts and the effects
on local communities and new centralized waste treatment (CWT)
facilities are also presented. The EIA also includes a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis detailing the effects on small businesses for this
industry.
As discussed previously, a total of 85 Centralized Waste Treatment
facilities owned and operated by 57 companies are potentially subject
to the proposed regulation. EPA has projected that 72 of these
facilities will incur costs as a result of this regulation. The
economic impact on each of the 72 direct and indirect dischargers was
calculated based on the cost of compliance with the required effluent
discharge levels for the appropriate subcategory. Impacts on direct
dischargers were calculated for compliance with the proposed BPT/BCT/
BAT; impacts on indirect dischargers were calculated for compliance
with PSES.
Because two options are being proposed for the Oils Subcategory,
EPA calculated the cost of compliance with each option. Regulatory
Option 1 (the combination of Metals Option 3, Oils Option 2, and
Organics Option 1) is estimated to have a total annualized cost of
$49.1 million, and Regulatory Option 2 (the combination of Metals
Option 3, Oils Option 3, and Organics Option 1) is estimated to have a
total annualized cost of $76.8 million. In Table VI.C-1, the total
annualized costs for BPT/BCT/BAT and PSES are presented in 1993
dollars.
Table VI.C-1.-- Total Annualized Costs (10\6\ $1993)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPT/
Option BCT/ PSES Total
BAT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1........................................ 14.2 34.9 49.1
Option 2........................................ 21.8 55.0 76.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also conducted an analysis of the cost-effectiveness of the
alternative treatment technology options considered by the Agency. The
results of this cost-effectiveness analysis are expressed in terms of
the incremental costs per pound of toxic-equivalent removed. Toxic-
equivalents weights are used to account for the differences in toxicity
among the pollutants removed. The number of pounds of a pollutant
removed by each option is multiplied by a toxic weighting factor. The
toxic weighting factor is derived using ambient water quality criteria
and toxicity values. The toxic weighting factors are standardized by
relating them to copper. Cost-effectiveness is calculated as the ratio
of incremental annualized costs of an option to the incremental pounds-
equivalent removed by that option. The report, ``Cost-Effectiveness of
Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the
Centralized Waste Treatment Industry'' (hereinafter, ``Cost-
Effectiveness Report''), is included in the record of this rulemaking.
[[Page 5490]]
The Agency recognizes that its data base, which represents
conditions in 1989, may not precisely reflect current conditions in the
industry today. EPA recognizes that the questionnaire data were
obtained several years ago and thus may not precisely mirror present
conditions at every facilities. Nevertheless, EPA concluded that the
data provide a sound and reasonable basis for assessing the overall
ability of the industry to achieve compliance with the regulations. The
purpose of the impact analysis is to characterize the impact of the
proposed regulation for the industry as a whole and for major groupings
within the industry.
2. Baseline Industry Analysis
Of the 85 Centralized Waste Treatment facilities, 53 facilities are
strictly commercial, accepting waste generated by other for treatment
and management for a fee. Fourteen facilities are non-commercial,
``captive'' facilities that accept waste from off-site for treatment
exclusively from facilities under the same ownership. The remaining 16
are mixed commercial/non-commercial facilities. They manage their own
company's wastes and accept some waste from other sources for a fee.
For the purposes of this analysis, 15 mixed commercial/non-commercial
facilities have been included with the commercial facilities because a
majority of their operations are commercial. The one remaining mixed
commercial/non-commercial facility has been included with the non-
commercial facilities because most of the operations are non-
commercial.
The companies that own CWT facilities range from large, multi-
facility manufacturing companies to small companies that own only a
single facility (see Table VI.C-2). Of these 57 companies, 13 are small
businesses (i.e., companies with less than $6 million in annual
revenues). For the commercial facilities, the ability of companies to
continue to support unprofitable operations will depend on company
size, as well as baseline financial status.
The baseline economic analysis (presented in Table VI.C-2)
evaluated each facility's financial operating condition prior to
incurring compliance costs for this regulation. In 1989, about 20
percent of the commercial CWT facilities were unprofitable. Several
others were only marginally profitable. The industry had expanded
capacity during the 1980s, but since the late 1980s, there has been a
reduction in demand for these services perhaps due to pollution
prevention efforts by industrial waste generators. EPA staff learned in
conversations with personnel at a number of these facilities that,
while some of these facilities were now profitable, most of the
remaining unprofitable facilities were still in operation three years
after the questionnaire. The continued operation of such a large share
of unprofitable facilities in the industry raises a significant issue.
It suggests that the traditional tools of economic analysis used to
project potential closures in an industry due to the costs of
compliance may not accurately predict real world behavior in a market
where owners have historically demonstrated a willingness to continue
operating unprofitable facilities.
Table VI.C-2.--Baseline Conditions in the CWT Industry
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of CWT Facilities by Commercial and Discharge
Status Commercial
Discharge status -----------------------------------------------------
Profit >0 Profit <0 noncommercial="" total="" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" direct....................................................="" 5="" 2="" 9="" 16="" indirect..................................................="" 35="" 15="" 6="" 56="" zero......................................................="" 8="" 5="" 0="" 13="" -----------------------------------------------------="" total...............................................="" 48="" 22="" 15="" 85="" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" companies="" owning="" cwt="" facilities="" ------------------------------------------------------------------------="" number="" of="" number="" of="" companies="" facilities="" ------------------------------------------------------------------------="" small="" companies="" (sales="">< $6="" million)..........="" 13="" 13="" all="" other="" companies="" (sales=""> $6 million)...... 44 72
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likelihood of Company Bankruptcya
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small All other
companies companies Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likely................................................................... 1 5 6
Indeterminate............................................................ 3 13 16
Unlikely................................................................. 8 18 26
--------------------------------------
12 36 48
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aBankruptcy prediction is based on Z-score and Z''-score. Nine companies had insufficient data to compute these
scores.
Several reasons may explain why unprofitable facilities remain in
operation rather than being closed by their owners. First, most
facilities are regulated under RCRA. Closure of a RCRA facility
requires that the site undergo RCRA clean-up procedure prior to
closure, which would entail expensive long-term monitoring and possibly
clean-up of the site. According to information received from
facilities, owners may find it less costly to keep unprofitable
facilities in operation rather than incurring the costs of RCRA
closure. Second, many facilities stay in business hoping that new
environmental regulation, such as the upcoming RCRA Phase 3 rule, may
[[Page 5491]] create more business for facilities. Finally, some
facilities perform a service for the rest of their company, such as
generating a metal-rich sludge which may be incorporated into the
parent companies smelting processes.
For these reasons and because of the captive nature of many
facilities, company-level impacts are a more appropriate indicator of
economic achievability, as they measure the decision making process of
companies and the resources available to achieve compliance. Facility-
level changes in revenues where applicable and costs are computed as
inputs to the company level analysis.
3. Economic Impact Methodology
Standard economic and financial analysis methods are used to assess
the economic effects of the proposed regulation. These methods
incorporate an integrated view of Centralized Waste Treatment
facilities, the companies that own these facilities, the markets the
facilities serve, and the communities where they are located.
Faced with increased costs of the proposed regulation, owners of
CWT facilities have three choices: (1) Comply with the guidelines and
incur the costs, (2) if a facility has operations in more than one
subcategory, close the most affected operation, or (3) close the
facility. Conventional economic reasoning argues that companies will
make their decision based on an assessment of the benefits and costs of
the facility to the company.
For commercial CWT facilities, the cost and benefits are readily
observable--benefits to the company are the total revenues received;
costs to the company include the payments made to the factors of
production (labor, materials, etc.) plus the opportunity costs of self-
owned resources (e.g., the land and capital equipment). As previously
discussed, the cost associated with closure of a RCRA facility have
caused facilities to remain open even when experiencing economic and
financial difficulties.
For captive facilities, there is no quantifiable measure of
benefits to the company of having the capacity to manage the wastes in
a facility owned by the company because there is no easily defined
relationship between the wastes and the products that generate the
wastes. Clearly, however, companies do weigh the benefits and costs of
operating a CWT facility, and the benefits in this case may include
lower expected future liability costs, more control over the costs and
scheduling of treatment, and certainty that treatment capacity exists
for their wastes.
According to conversations with captive facilities, most are in
business solely for the purpose of lower liability costs associated
with the self-management of hazardous wastes.
Changes in the costs of treatment in CWT facilities may be expected
to result in an increase in the price of services, which will feed back
to the revenue side of commercial facilities. Overall, as long as
generators have alternatives to commercial treatment (e.g., on site
treatment, pollution prevention) the quantity of services traded may be
expected to fall as a result of the guidelines and standards. But for
some services, such as cyanide treatment or treatment of concentrated
metals sludges, there are no other alternatives to commercial
treatment.
Changes in the economic conditions in the CWT industry may impact
the viability of the companies that own CWTs. Specifically, some
companies that are already marginal or that operate a single
unprofitable facility may go out of business either by simply
liquidating their assets, or by declaring bankruptcy.
Finally, the communities where the CWT facilities are located may
be impacted. Obviously, if facilities cut back operations, employment
and income may fall sending ripple effects throughout the local
community. On the other hand, there may be increased employment
associated with operating the pollution controls associated with the
regulation resulting in increased community employment and income. At
the same time, for the communities in which CWTs are located, water
quality may be expected to improve.
4. Application of the Market Analysis
For the market analysis, EPA characterized each facility
individually based on the quantity of each type of waste treatment
service they provide, their revenues and costs, employment, market
share for each type of service provided, ownership, releases, and
location in terms of the community where they are located and the
regional market they serve. Six regional markets are defined.
Costs of CWT facilities include both those that vary with the
quantity of CWT services provided (variable costs) and those whose
value is fixed. Per-gallon variable costs are assumed constant to the
capacity output rate. Revenues from CWT operations are estimated by
multiplying the market price of the CWT service by the quantity of
waste treated in the CWT service. Most CWT facilities also have
revenues from other sources, which are treated as exogenous.
The demand for CWT services is characterized based on the
responsiveness of quantity demanded to price. CWT services are
intermediate goods demanded because they are inputs to production of
other goods and services. The sensitivity of quantity demanded to price
for an intermediate good depends on the demand characteristics
(elasticity) of the good or service it is used to produce, the share of
manufacturing costs represented by CWT costs, and the availability of
substitutes for CWT services. The elasticity of demand for manufactured
products varies widely. CWT services costs as a share of manufacturing
costs is generally quite small. Substitutes for CWT services include
other types of off-site waste management such as underground injection,
on-site treatment, or pollution prevention. Overall, the change in
quantity demanded for CWT services is assumed to be approximately
proportional to any price change (e.g., a one percent increase in the
price of a CWT service is expected to reduce the quantity demanded for
the service by about one percent).
The markets for CWT services are regional. This market
characterization is based on responses to the questionnaire and is
consistent with the theory of economic geography. Within each market,
there are a relatively small number of suppliers and a relatively large
number of demanders. Thus the market structure is treated as being
imperfectly competitive. This implies that the competition each
facility faces is limited to facilities in its region so that all
suppliers have a degree of market power.
This characterization of facilities, companies and markets is
incorporated in a model that takes the engineering estimates of the
costs of compliance with the effluent limitations guidelines and
standards and projects impacts on facilities, companies, markets and
communities. Each CWT faced with higher costs of providing CWT services
may find it economical to reduce the quantity of waste it treats. This
decision is simultaneously modeled for all facilities within a regional
market, to develop consistent estimates of the facility and market
impacts. Changes in the quantity of CWT services offered result in
changes in the inputs used to produce these services (most importantly,
labor).
For commercial facilities, the EIA thus projects changes in
employment at CWT facilities. Changes in facility revenues and costs
result in changes in the revenues and costs of the companies owning the
facilities, and thus changes [[Page 5492]] in company profits.
Increased borrowing and changes in the assets owned by the companies,
together with changes in profits, result in changes in overall company
financial health. The EIA projects changes in the likelihood of company
bankruptcy as a result of the effluent limitations guidelines and
standards. These effects are separately calculated for small
businesses. Changes in employment are specified by location to
determine the community impacts.
For non-commercial facilities, financial viability was determined
on a company level. This is because the non- commercial facilities are
generally cost centers for their companies. They do not explicitly
receive revenues for their services. They exist to perform a service
for the rest of the company and are not expected to be ``profitable''
as a unit. These facilities are included in the market analysis because
prices charged for their commercial operations may change. Companies
with some commercial operations will raise prices to cover the variable
costs of the treatment and help pay for some of their fixed costs (e.g.
underwrite the company waste treatment costs). Thus, no change in the
quantity of CWT wastes treated are projected for non-commercial aspect
of these facilities nor are market effects analyzed for the products of
the parent company, since the share of waste treatment costs in the
marketed products are minimal.
5. Results of the Economic Impact Analysis
Results may be reported at the facility, company, market, or
community level. All facilities are either direct or indirect
dischargers. Most companies own either facilities that are direct
dischargers or indirect dischargers, although two companies own both
direct and indirect discharging facilities. Market level impacts are
the combined result of both types of dischargers simultaneously
complying with the regulation. Because markets for CWT services combine
facilities that are direct dischargers and facilities that are indirect
dischargers, it is not possible to break the market-level impacts into
impacts of BPT/BCT/BAT as distinguished from impacts of PSES.
Community-level impacts are also reported based on the combined impacts
of BPT/BCT/BAT and PSES. Company-level impacts are reported separately
for BPT/BCT/BAT and PSES.
The impacts of complying with BAT controls under Regulatory Options
1 and 2 for the 57 companies operating CWT facilities are shown in
Table VI.C-3 (for companies owning facilities that discharge directly)
and Table VI.C-4 (for companies owning facilities that discharge
indirectly).
Table VI.C--3.--Impacts of the BPT/BCT/BAT Regulatory Optionsa
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likelihood of bankruptcy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company impacts of compliance with Option 1 Option 2
BPT/BCT/BAT regulatory options -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Small
companies Others Total companies Others Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likely............................ 0 1 1 0 1 1
Indeterminate..................... 0 2 2 0 2 2
Unlikely.......................... 0 11 11 0 11 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aTwo companies own both direct and indirect dischargers. Company-level impacts combine the effects of complying
with BPT/BCT/BAT and PSES controls. These two companies appear in both tables.
Table VI.C-4.--Impacts of the PSES Regulatory Optionsa
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likelihood of bankruptcy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company impacts of compliance with Option 1 Option 2
the PSES regulatory options -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Small
companies Others Total companies Others Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likely............................ 4 5 9 2 6 8
Indeterminate..................... 2 10 12 0 10 10
Unlikely.......................... 5 13 18 9 12 27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aTwo companies own both direct and indirect dischargers. Company-level impacts combine the effects of complying
with BPT/BCT/BAT and PSES controls. These two companies appear in both tables.
6. Market Impacts of EPA Regulatory Options
The markets for CWT services are regional. Within each region,
markets for overall types of treatment such as metal recovery or metal
treatment may be further subdivided into smaller markets on the basis
of the per-gallon cost of treatment. The price changes and quantity
changes projected at the regional and service level with each option
are combined into an overall national value for the CWT services. In
all cases, EPA's assessment projects that the prices of these services
will increase and utilization of service will fall. Thus, EPA would
expect, if the limitations and standards are promulgated as proposed, a
reduction in the absolute quantity of wastes commercially treated in
addition, of course, to the improvement in treatment. These market-
level adjustments in the quantity of wastes that are treated are
reflected in the reduction in the quantity of services provided by
individual commercial CWTs. In some cases, with less waste being
managed by these facilities, it is possible that some commercial
facilities could close. If demanders of waste management services are
assumed to have fewer substitutes for CWT services than assumed here,
then prices would increase more than projected here, quantities would
fall less and the facility and company level impacts (discussed below)
would be smaller.
Under Option 1, price increases range from 3 to 35 percent, while
quantities of waste treated decrease by between 3 percent and 20
percent. Under Option 2, price increases range from 3 to 42 percent,
while quantity decreases range from 3 percent to 65 percent. The larger
price increases occur in the Oils [[Page 5493]] Recovery and Oils
Treatment Markets. These higher price increases occur because of the
poor treatment operations currently in place (only one facility in the
Oils Recovery treats the wastewater generated from the oil recovery
process). Price increases may occur in this market because the present
market has inadequate treatment for the wastes generated.
Significant price increases have potential effects on the users of
CWT services. In order to account for impacts on the users of CWT
services, EPA estimated the consumer surplus share of dead weight loss
of the proposed regulation to be $6.8 million 1993 dollars for
Regulatory Option 1 (the combination of Metals Option 3, Oils Option 2,
and Organics Option 1) and $13.4 million 1993 dollars for Regulatory
Option 2 (the combination of Metals Option 3, Oils Option 3, and
Organics Option 1). These costs are not additive to the direct
implementation costs of the proposed regulation due to differences in
the technique for calculating the consumer surplus costs. But the costs
indicate the burden is not excessive in the context of the rule.
7. Impacts of BPT/BCT/BAT
Complying with the BPT/BCT/BAT effluent limitations guidelines and
standards will increase the cost of treating CWT wastes at affected
direct dischargers. This in turn will reduce the number of facilities
providing CWT services, resulting in an increase in the market price of
the treatment services and a decrease in use of CWT services. EPA
projects that changes in the prices of CWT services, combined with
facility-specific changes in the costs of treatment and the quantities
of waste treated, will result in changes in facility costs and revenues
from services sold. These changes result in changes in the revenues and
costs of companies owning CWT facilities. In addition, changes in the
liabilities and assets of companies owning CWT facilities result from
the borrowing and purchasing of capital equipment associated with
complying with the regulation. Thus, overall company viability may
change as a result of complying with the effluent limitations
guidelines and standards. The Agency conducted an analysis using a
multi-discriminant function called the Z-score, which combines several
financial ratios, to estimate changes in the likelihood of company
bankruptcy that result from compliance with the guidelines and
standards. As shown in Table VI.C-3, one company owning a direct
discharger is predicted to be likely to become bankrupt under both
Regulatory Options 1 and 2. However, this company was also predicted to
be bankrupt at baseline (see Table VI.C-2), so the Regulatory Options
for BPT/BCT/BAT do not have an incremental adverse effect on the
viability of companies owning direct dischargers.
8. Impacts of PSES
Complying with the PSES standards will increase the cost of
treating CWT wastes at affected indirect dischargers. This in turn will
reduce the supply of CWT services, resulting in an increase in the
market price and a decrease in use of CWT services. Changes in the
prices of CWT services, combined with facility-specific changes in the
costs of treatment and the quantities of waste treated, result in
changes in facility costs and revenues from services sold. These
changes result in changes in the revenues and costs of companies owning
CWT facilities. In addition, changes in the liabilities and assets of
companies owning CWT facilities result from the borrowing and purchases
of capital equipment associated with complying with the regulation.
Thus, overall company viability may change as a result of complying
with the effluent limitations guidelines and standards. As with BPT/
BCT/BAT, the Agency used the Z-score to estimate changes in the
likelihood of company bankruptcy that result from compliance with the
guidelines and standards. As shown in Table VI.C-4, EPA projects that
nine companies owning indirect dischargers will likely become bankrupt
under Regulatory Option 1, and eight companies owning indirect
dischargers are likely to become bankrupt under Regulatory Option 2. At
baseline, EPA analysis shows that five companies owning indirect
dischargers are bankrupt. Thus, the PSES controls are predicted to
result in only an incremental impact on company viability.
With the PSES controls under Regulatory Option 1, four additional
companies owning indirect dischargers are predicted to become bankrupt.
Under Regulatory Option 2, three additional companies owning indirect
dischargers are predicted to become bankrupt. Although the costs are
higher in general under Regulatory Option 2, the data show that the
companies owning indirect dischargers that incur these higher costs are
better able to withstand the impacts.
To the extent that predicted bankruptcies result in closure of CWT
facilities, the cost of such closure are attributable to this action.
EPA has not calculated the cost of closure for the treatment operations
although for RCRA-permitted facilities, under some circumstances, such
costs may be significant. The EPA solicits comment on the probability
for closure of such facilities impacted by the proposed regulation and
the costs associated with closure of the treatment operations.
9. Community Impacts of the Regulatory Options
Overall, the communities in which CWT facilities are located are
expected to experience fairly small, and generally positive, increases
in employment as a result of the Regulatory Options. In addition to the
negative employment changes estimated for facilities becoming
unprofitable under Options 1 and 2, employment increases may occur in
some facilities due to the operational changes related to the new
regulations or due to the increase in volume of waste treated. These
changes in employment may be positive for CWT facilities made better
off by the regulation (for example, those who sell more services), or
they may be negative for facilities becoming less profitable but not
moving from profitable to unprofitable. Nationwide, facilities becoming
unprofitable reduce their employment by 44 employees under Regulatory
Option 1 and by 52 employees under Regulatory Option 2. Combined with
market-related increases and decreases in employment at other
facilities, the total market-related reduction in employment under
Regulatory Option 1 is estimated to be 378 employees. Under Regulatory
Option 2, the national market-related reduction employees is estimated
to be 501 employees.
These decreases in employment result from market adjustments to the
proposed regulations must be compared to the employment increases
estimated to be required for operation and maintenance of the controls.
A large percentage of the costs estimated for facilities is attributed
to the high annual operating and maintenance costs. The Agency
estimates that the proper handling and treatment of the concentrated
wastes will require additional personnel and tanks to segregate and
monitor the wastes being treated. Therefore, under Regulatory Option 1,
the labor requirements of the controls are estimated to be 710
employees. Under Regulatory Option 2, the labor requirements are
estimated to be 735 employees. Overall, employment is projected to
increase by 333 employees under Regulatory Option 1 and by 234
employees under Regulatory Option 2. Thus, we expect community- level
impacts to be small and generally positive.
10. Foreign Trade Impacts
The EIA does not project any foreign trade impacts as a result of
the effluent limitations guidelines and standards. Although most of the
affected CWT facilities treat waste that is considered hazardous under
RCRA, international trade in CWT services for treatment of hazardous
wastes is virtually nonexistent.
11. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Agency performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis to
assess the relative severity of impacts on small entities, specifically
small companies, owning CWT facilities. Small companies are defined as
those having sales less than $6 million, which is the Small Business
Administration definition of a small business for SIC code 4953, Refuse
Systems. This is the SIC code that most CWTs listed in their
questionnaire responses. Thirteen of the 84 facilities not owned by the
Federal Government are small companies according to this definition.
One facility is owned by the Federal Government. To determine whether
the impacts on small companies are ``significant,'' EPA used the
following criteria:
(1) Annual compliance costs increase total costs of production for
small entities for the relevant process or product by more than 5
percent.
(2) Compliance costs as a percentage of sales for small entities
are at least 10 percent higher than compliance costs as a percentage of
sales for large entities.
(3) The requirements of the regulation are likely to result in
closures of small entities.
Six of the thirteen small companies are estimated to have
compliance costs exceeding 5 percent of baseline CWT costs. Larger
companies, however, have both a higher absolute number and a higher
percentage of companies incurring compliance costs that exceed 5
percent of baseline CWT costs. Thus, small businesses are affected less
than other facilities.
The median value for the ratio of compliance costs to sales for
small companies is very small: 0.6 percent. However, the median value
for larger companies is even smaller: less than 0.001 percent. Thus,
the ratio for small companies is more than 10 percent higher than the
ratio for larger companies. While this suggests that small companies
are more affected in comparison to the larger companies, the overall
level of impact is very low for all size categories.
The analysis does not estimate facility closures, but it does
assess the impact of the Regulatory Options on the likelihood of
company bankruptcy. As shown in Tables VI.C-3 and VI.C-4, three of four
additional companies predicted to become ``likely'' to incur bankruptcy
under Regulatory Option 1 are small. Of the three additional companies
becoming likely to incur bankruptcy as a result of Option 2, one is
small. Thus, under Regulatory Option 1, small businesses incur
relatively larger impacts according to this measure, but under
Regulatory Option 2, small businesses do not incur relatively larger
impacts.
Overall, while companies in all size categories are affected, small
companies may experience impacts that are somewhat greater relative to
those incurred by larger companies.
The Agency considered less stringent control options for each
subcategory. However, given the concentrated and difficult-to-treat
wastes handled at CWT facilities, the Agency does not believe a less
stringent level of control is BPT/BCT/BAT. From discussions with permit
writers for CWT facilities, under the present treatment standards, many
instances of water contamination and odor releases occur because of
Centralized Waste Treatment facilities as well as contamination of
sludge at POTWs. In comparison to other promulgated effluent
guidelines, this industry has some of the most concentrated and toxic
waste streams. Therefore, a stringent level of control is deemed
necessary.
12. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
For each of the Regulatory Options, cost-effectiveness is
calculated as the ratio of the incremental annual costs in 1981 dollars
to the incremental pounds-equivalent of pollutants removed. The
estimated pounds-equivalent removed were calculated by weighting the
number of pounds of each pollutant by the relative toxic weighting
factor for each pollutant. The use of pounds-equivalent gives
correspondingly more weight to more highly toxic pollutants. Thus, for
a given expenditure and pounds of pollutants removed, the cost per
pound-equivalent removed would be lower when more highly toxic
pollutants are removed than when less toxic pollutants are removed. The
analysis employed toxic weighting factors for weighting different
pollutants according to their relative toxicity.\5\ Table VI.C-5 and
Table VI.C-6 show the Total Cost-Effectiveness for each subcategory
option for BPT/BAT and PSES, respectively. [[Page 5494]]
\5\Further, EPA's toxic weighting factors do not provide
environmental ``credit'' for removal of certain regulated
pollutants. Thus, for example, the toxic weighting factors do not
account for removals of the conventional pollutant, oil and grease.
Consequently, a comparison of the difference in cost-effectiveness
associated with oil subcategory Regulatory Options 1 and 2 does not
account for the significantly greater removals of oil and grease
achieved through Regulatory Option 2 treatment technology.
Table VI.C-5.--BPT/BAT Cost Effectiveness Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost- Incremental cost-
Option Total costs Total removals effectiveness($/ effectiveness($/
($1981) (lb. eq.) lb. eq.) lb. eq.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Subcategory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1........................................... 2,278,827 1,085,922 5.54
2........................................... 8,541,863 1,142,279 51.52 111.13
3........................................... 8,840,764 1,148,324 61.79 49.45
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oils Subcategory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1........................................... 0 0 0 ................
2........................................... 628,228 113,500 5.54 5.54
3a.......................................... 6,143,622 119,256 51.52 958.19
[[Page 5495]]
4........................................... 7,262,456 117,540 61.79 -652.04
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organics Subcategory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1........................................... 293,131 843,908 0.35
2........................................... 2,280,094 25,585 89.12 -2.43
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aDue to the use of pounds equivalent for the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, the pollutant removals do not include
the incremental Oil & Grease removal of 1,308,503 lb/year for Oils Option 3. The incremental cost associated
with the removal of Oil and Grease ($0.39/pound removed) is commensurate with other effluent limitations
guidelines and standards, such as the $9.77/pound of TSS and Oils and Grease promulgated for the Offshore
Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category (EPA 821-R-93-003).
Table VI.C-6.--PSES Cost Effectiveness Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental
Total costs Total removals Cost cost
Option ($1981) (lb.eq.) effectiveness effectiveness
($/lb.eq.) ($/lb.eq.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Subcategory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................... 2,410,819 156,945 15.36 ..............
2............................................... 17,790,208 164,492 108.15 2,037.92
3............................................... 18,676,537 165,056 113.15 1,569.66
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oils Subcategory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................... 0 0 .............. ..............
2............................................... 2,021,483 146,606 13.79 13.79
3b.............................................. 16,570,113 148,780 111.37 6,692.49
4............................................... 19,864,864 148,264 133.98 -6,376.47
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organics Subcategory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................... 1,837,897 47,409 38.77 ..............
2............................................... 3,722,098 41,227 90.28 -304.83
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bDue to the use of pounds equivalent for the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, the pollutant removals do not include
the incremental Oil & Grease removal of 3,197,445 lb/year for Oils Option 3. The incremental cost associated
with the removal of Oil and Grease is commensurate with other effluent limitations guidelines and standards.
D. Water Quality Analyses
The water quality benefits of controlling discharges from CWTs to
surface waters and POTWs were evaluated in national analyses of direct
and indirect dischargers. CWT effluents contain priority,
nonconventional, and conventional pollutants. Discharge of these
pollutants into freshwater and estuarine ecosystems may alter aquatic
habitats, affect aquatic life, and adversely impact human health. Many
of these pollutants are either human carcinogens, human systemic
toxicants, or aquatic life toxicants. In addition, many of these
pollutants are persistent and bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms. These
pollutants can also affect POTW operations and cause POTW sludge
contamination. Four direct CWT wastewater dischargers and eight POTWs
receiving wastewater from 13 indirect CWT dischargers are currently
impairing receiving stream water quality (i.e., are listed on EPA's
304(l) short list of impaired water bodies). In addition, seven cases
of impairment of POTW operations have also been documented. (All 66
pollutants proposed for regulation have at least one toxic effect
(human health carcinogen and/or systemic toxicant or aquatic
toxicant)).
Discharge of conventional pollutants such as TSS, Oil & Grease, and
BOD\5\ can have adverse effects on human health and environment. For
example, habitat degradation can result from increased suspended
particulate matter that reduces light penetration and, thus, primary
productivity, or from accumulation of sludge particles that alters
benthic spawning grounds and feeding habitats. Oil & Grease can have
lethal effect on fish, by coating surface of gills causing asphyxia, or
depleting oxygen levels due to excessive biological oxygen demand, or
by reducing stream reaeration because of surface film. Oil and grease
can also have detrimental effects on waterfowl by destroying the
buoyancy and insulation of their feathers. Bioaccumulation of oil
substances can cause human health problems including tainting of fish
and bioaccumulation of carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic compounds. High
BOD\5\ levels can also deplete of oxygen levels resulting in mortality
or other adverse effects on fish. But the effects of conventional
pollutants and pollutant parameters, such as TOC and COD, are not
calculated when modelling the effect of the proposed regulation on the
water quality of receiving streams and POTW operations. The Agency
solicits comment on possible approaches for calculating the effect of
conventional pollutants and pollutant parameters, such as TOC and COD,
on the water quality of receiving streams and POTW operations in terms
of inhibition or sludge contamination. [[Page 5496]]
The effects of direct wastewater dischargers of toxic pollutants
(excluding conventional pollutants and pollutant parameters) on
receiving stream water quality are evaluated at current and proposed
BPT/BAT treatment levels for today's proposed rule. The potential
impacts of indirect wastewater dischargers on POTWs in terms of
inhibition of POTW operation, contamination of sludge and the effects
of POTWs effluents on receiving stream water quality are also evaluated
at current discharge levels and proposed PSES levels. Water quality
models are used to project pollutant in-stream concentrations based on
estimated releases at current and proposed treatment levels; the in-
stream concentrations are then compared to EPA-published water quality
criteria or to documented toxic effect levels where EPA water quality
criteria are not available for certain pollutants. POTW models are used
to estimate potential POTW inhibition and sludge contamination.
The effects on receiving stream water quality for 15 direct and 45
indirect CWT facilities discharging up to 113 pollutants to 15
receiving streams and 33 POTWs respectively, are evaluated. These
analyses are first performed on subcategory-specific basis for the
three CWT subcategories (i.e., metals, oils, and organics
subcategories). The subcategory-specific analyses, however, consider
only impacts of discharges from individual subcategories, and
therefore, underestimate overall water quality impacts for facilities
with multiple subcategory operations. Over 40% of facilities in the
Centralized Waste Treatment Industry have operations in multiple
subcategories. In order to evaluate overall benefits of the proposed
BPT/BAT/PSES proposed options for pollutants (excluding conventional
pollutants and pollutant parameters), the water quality and POTW
analyses are also performed for multiple subcategory combinations, as
appropriate for individual facilities.
The subcategory-specific modeling results for pollutants (excluding
conventional and pollutant parameters) show that the proposed BPT/BAT/
PSES limitations reduce current excursions of chronic aquatic life and/
or human health criteria or toxic effect levels as follows: (1) for the
Metals Subcategory from 19 receiving streams to four streams; (2) for
the Oils Subcategory from seven receiving streams to one stream for
both co-proposed options; and (3) for the Organics Subcategory from 14
receiving streams to five streams. For the multiple subcategory
combinations (as applicable to individual facilities), the modeling
shows current excursions of chronic aquatic life and/or human health
criteria or toxic effect levels projected for 30 receiving streams
reduced to ten receiving streams for both co-proposed regulatory
options.
The potential impacts of 45 indirect dischargers, which discharge
up to 113 pollutants (excluding conventional pollutant and pollutant
parameters) into 33 POTWs are also evaluated in terms of inhibition of
POTW operations and contamination of sludge. Both, the subcategory-
specific analyses for these three CWT subcategories (i.e., metals,
oils, and organics subcategories), and for the multiple subcategory
combinations, as appropriate for individual facilities, are performed.
The subcategory-specific modeling results show the proposed PSES reduce
and/or eliminate current potential POTW inhibition and sludge
contamination problems as follows: (1) in the Metals Subcategory from 9
POTWs with potential inhibition problems to two POTWs, and from 11
POTWs with potential sludge contamination problems to one POTW; and (2)
in the Oils Subcategory from ten POTWs with potential inhibition
problems to three POTWs and from one POTW with potential sludge
contamination problem to none for both co-proposed options. No
potential POTW inhibition or sludge contamination problems are
projected for the Organics Subcategory at any level. For the multiple
subcategory combinations, the modeling shows the proposed PSES to
reduce current POTW inhibition problems projected for 17 POTWs to six
POTWs, and potential current sludge contamination problems projected
for 13 POTWs to one POTW.
The POTW inhibition and sludge values used in this analysis are
not, in general, regulatory values. They are based upon engineering and
health estimates contained in guidance or guidelines published by EPA
and other sources. Thus, EPA generally is not basing its regulatory
approach for proposed pretreatment discharge levels upon the finding
that some pollutants interfere with POTWs by impairing their treatment
effectiveness or causing them to violate applicable limits for their
chosen disposal methods. (Rather, the proposed discharge limits are
based upon a determination of pass through as explained earlier in
preamble). However, the values used in this analysis help indicate the
potential benefits for POTW operations and sludge disposal that may
result from the compliance with proposed pretreatment discharge levels.
E. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
The elimination or reduction of one form of pollution may create or
aggravate other environmental problems. Therefore, Sections 304(b) and
306 of the Act call for EPA to consider non- water quality
environmental impacts of effluent limitations guidelines and standards.
Accordingly, EPA has considered the effect of these regulations on air
pollution, solid waste generation, and energy consumption.
1. Air Pollution
CWT facilities generate wastewater that contain significant
concentrations of organic compounds, some of which are also on the list
of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP) in title 3 of the Clean Air Act
Amendments (CAAA) of 1990. These wastewater typically pass-through a
series of collection and treatment units that are open to the
atmosphere and allow wastewater containing organic compounds to contact
ambient air. Atmospheric exposure of the organic-containing wastewater
may result in significant volatilization of both volatile organic
compounds (VOC), which contribute to the formation of ambient ozone,
and HAP from the wastewater.
VOC and HAP are emitted from wastewater beginning at the point
where the wastewater first contacts ambient air. Thus, VOC and HAP from
wastewater may be of concern immediately as the wastewater is
discharged from the process unit. Emissions occur from wastewater
collection units such as process drains, manholes, trenches, sumps,
junction boxes, and from wastewater treatment units such as screens,
settling basins, and equalization basins, biological aeration basins,
air or steam strippers lacking air emission control devices, and any
other units where the wastewater is in contact with the air.
Today's proposed regulations for the Organics Subcategory are based
on the use of air stripping equipped with a carbon adsorption air
emission control device for controlling volatile organic compounds. For
the Metals and Oils Subcategories, where low levels of volatile organic
compounds were detected, treatment technologies are equipped air
scrubbers to control emissions.
No adverse air impacts are expected to occur due to the proposed
regulations. Based on raw wastewater loading estimates, air emissions
of volatile pollutants would decrease by 2.0 million pounds per year
due to the [[Page 5497]] use of air stripping equipped with carbon
adsorption air emission control devices. The proposed regulation,
however, does not require air stripping equipped with carbon adsorption
air emission control devices or any specific technology, but only
establishes the amount of pollutant that can be discharged to navigable
waters.
2. Solid Waste
Solid waste would be generated due to the following technologies,
if implemented to meet proposed regulations, selective metals
precipitation, ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis, carbon adsorption, and
air stripping. The solid wastes generated due to the implementation of
the technologies discussed above were costed for off-site disposal.
These costs were included in the economic evaluation of the proposed
technologies.
The filter cake from selective metals precipitation will generally
contain metal-bearing waste. Even though the filter cake generated from
selective metals precipitation may be recycled due to its high metal
content, the EPA developed costs for disposal of the filter cake in
Subtitle C and D landfills. EPA would expect that some portion of the
metal-rich filter cake will be recycled. EPA estimates that 39 million
pounds of filter cake will be generated annually by 56 facilities.
Reverse osmosis of oily streams results in the generation of a
concentrated residual stream. The concentrate contains oily and metal-
bearing wastes. The EPA estimates that 58 million gallons of reverse
osmosis concentrate will be generated annually by 35 facilities.
Ultrafiltration of oily streams results in the generation of a
concentrated residual stream which contain oily and organic waste. The
EPA estimates that 4.1 million gallons of ultrafiltration concentrate
will be generated annually by 35 facilities.
Granular activated carbon adsorption treatment of waste results in
the generation of exhausted or spent activated carbon. Approximately
1.6 million pounds of activated carbon will be exhausted or spent
annually by 35 facilities. The activated carbon may be regenerated on-
site or off-site by vendors. The EPA costed regeneration of the spent
activated carbon by off-site vendors.
Air stripping of waste streams results in the generation of
contaminated off-gas, which requires the application of an air
pollutant control device such as a catalytic oxidizer. When the
catalytic oxidizer becomes deactivated, the spent catalyst must be
replaced. Approximately 168.5 pounds annually of spent catalytic
oxidizer are used.
3. Energy Requirements
EPA estimates that the attainment of BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and
PSNS will increase energy consumption by a small increment over present
industry use. The main energy requirement in today's proposed rule is
for the operation of ultrafiltration units. Ultrafiltration units
operate at high pressures to separate the waste stream. The
ultrafiltration unit would require 9.4 million kilowatthours per year.
Energy requirements will also increase due to reverse osmosis and
liquid filtration units. Reverse osmosis and liquid filtrations units
would require approximately 4.1 and 4.9 million kilowatthours per year,
respectively. Overall, an increase of 22.0 million kilowatthours per
year would be required for the proposed regulation which equates to 40
barrels of oil per day. The United States currently consumes 19 million
barrels of oil per day.
VII. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket and Public Record
The public record for this rulemaking is available for public
review at EPA Headquarters, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460 in
the Office of Water Docket, Room L102 (in the basement of Waterside
Mall). The Docket is staffed by an EPA contractor, Labat-Anderson,
Inc., and interested parties are encouraged to call for an appointment.
The telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 260-3027. The EPA
information regulation (40 CFR Part 2) provides that a reasonable fee
may be charged for photocopying.
EPA notes that many documents in the record supporting these
proposed rules have been claimed as confidential business information
and, therefore, are not included in the record that is available to the
public in the Water Docket. To support the rulemaking, EPA is
presenting certain information in aggregated form or is masking
facility identities to preserve confidentiality claims. Further, the
Agency has withheld from disclosure some data not claimed as
confidential business information because release of this information
could indirectly reveal information claimed to be confidential.
B. Clean Water Act Procedural Requirements
As required by the Clean Water Act, EPA will conduct a public
hearing on the pretreatment standards portion of the proposed rule. The
public hearing will be conducted on March 24, 1995, from 8:30 a.m. to
10:30 a.m. in the Lake Michigan Conference Room at the U.S. EPA Region
V Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL.
C. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866, [58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)] the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory action''
because it may adversely affect a sector of the economy. As such this
action was submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB
suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the public record.
EPA has concluded that costs on the economy of this proposed rule
will be less than $100 million annually, and it has not prepared an
RIA.
D. Executive Order 12875
In developing the proposed CWT effluent limitations guidelines and
standards, EPA has already invested substantial time in discussions
with permit writers, the affected industries and environmental groups.
As previously noted, in March of this year, EPA held a public meeting,
attended by industry, states, and local permitting authorities to
discuss its efforts. The Agency also has had discussions concerning the
regulation at the 1994 Pretreatment Coordinators Workshop attended by
state and local permitting authorities, various industrial trade
association meetings, and effluent guideline task force meetings.
[[Page 5498]]
On October 26, 1993, President Clinton issued Executive Order No.
12875, ``Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership.'' This order is
intended to reduce the imposition of unfunded mandates upon State,
local and tribal governments. The order requires Federal agencies like
EPA that impose unfunded mandates upon such governments through
regulation either (1) to assure that the Federal government provides
the necessary funds for compliance or (2) to describe the extent of the
Agency's prior consultations with affected units of governments and the
nature of their concerns. The order calls for intergovernmental
consultation to begin as early as possible in the regulatory
development process, preferably before the publication of the notice of
proposed rulemaking. Consultation may continue after publication but
must occur prior to the formal promulgation of the regulatory action
containing the proposed mandate.
The rulemaking process to develop the CWT limitations guidelines
and standards antedates the issuance of E.O. 12875 by a number of years
as explained above. To meet its obligations under E.O. 12875, following
publication of the regulation, EPA plans extensive outreach efforts to
state and local governments. EPA will develop estimates of the upfront
and recurring costs likely incurred by State, local or tribal
governments in complying with the proposal, if adopted.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq., requires EPA
and other agencies to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis for regulations that have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities. EPA projects that today's
proposed rule, if promulgated, could affect small businesses. The
initial regulatory flexibility analysis for these proposed rules is
incorporated into the economic impact analysis and is discussed in
Section VI.A. Briefly, the small entity analysis estimates the economic
impacts of the new requirements on small companies and describes the
potential disparate impacts between the groups of large and Centralized
Waste Treatment facilities. The analysis also presents the Agency's
consideration of alternatives that might minimize the impacts on small
entities.
The reasons why EPA is proposing this rule are presented in Section
II. The legal basis for today's rule is presented in Legal Authority.
The number of small entities and the approach for defining small
entities are summarized in Section VI.A. and the economic effects on
small entities detailed in the economic impact analysis report for this
rulemaking. This assessment has led the Agency to conclude that small
businesses are not disproportionately impacted by the proposed rule.
Reporting and other compliance requirements are summarized in Sections
VI. and VII. and detailed in the technical development document. While
the Agency has not identified any duplicative, overlapping, or
conflicting Federal rules, a discussion of other related rulemakings is
presented in Section II.
F. Paperwork Reduction Act
The proposed effluent guidelines and standards contain no
information collection activities and, therefore, no information
collection request (ICR) has been submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and approval under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
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 proposal and that suggested revisions or corrections be
supported by data.
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 preamble for
technical contacts at EPA.
B. Specific Data and Comment Solicitations
EPA has solicited comments and data on many individual topics
throughout this preamble. The Agency incorporates each and every such
solicitation here, and reiterates its interest in receiving data and
comments on the issues addressed by those solicitations. In addition,
EPA particularly requests comments and data on the following issues:
1. Applicability of Regulation for Facilities Which Mix Centralized
Waste Treatment Waste Streams With Other Industrial Waste Prior to
Treatment or After Minimal Treatment
The Agency is asking for comment on whether the guidelines and
standards should apply to categorical facilities which receive limited
quantities of CWT waste streams for treatment. The Agency considered
two approaches for this proposal.
The first approach EPA considered would have limited the
applicability of the guidelines and standards to facilities which treat
only the defined CWT wastes without any mixing of wastes with other
categorical wastes. EPA, however, has rejected this approach for the
proposal because of concern that this would create a loophole. If CWT
wastes could be mixed with other wastes for treatment and escape
regulation as CWT wastes, there exists significant possibility that
economically achievable reduction of CWT pollutant discharge levels
will not be met. The Agency believes that if the guidelines and
standards do not apply to CWT wastes mixed with other waste streams
there is significant potential for blending waste streams to avoid
otherwise required effluent reduction levels.
Under the approach EPA is proposing, CWT wastes that are mixed with
other categorical waste streams or other waste streams will be subject
to CWT effluent limitations and standards. Even under this second
approach, however, there exists significant potential to avoid
achieving CWT effluent reduction levels by mixing wastes. Therefore, in
order to ensure that facilities mixing CWT wastes and non-CWT waste
streams actually treat the CWT wastes, the Agency is also proposing to
require separate monitoring for compliance with CWT standards or
limitations waste streams (or alternatively, a demonstration that
treatment of mixed CWT wastes and other waste streams achieves the
required pollutant reductions). (See discussion below.) In the absence
of a requirement for separate monitoring for compliance of CWT waste
streams, promulgation of the CWT guideline could have the perverse
result of, in fact, discouraging centralized treatment by encouraging
categorical facilities to accept CWT waste streams that are diluted
with other waste streams before treatment. The result would be no
treatment for the CWT wastes and no achievement of effluent reduction
obtainable at facilities treating only CWT wastes. The Agency is asking
for comment on this approach.
2. Monitoring To Demonstrate Compliance With CWT Limitations and
Standards
EPA is today proposing to require each CWT facility that discharges
wastewater resulting from the treatment of CWT wastes to monitor to
demonstrate compliance with [[Page 5499]] applicable subcategory
limitations and standards.
As discussed above, commingling of disparate waste streams may, in
many cases, allow achievement of discharge limits without any real
reduction in the quantity of discharges of certain pollutants. In fact,
EPA has data that show that CWT facilities which commingle subcategory
waste do not achieve the reductions in pollutant discharges that
separate treatment yields. One facility at which EPA sampled mixes oily
wastewater after chemical emulsion breaking with metal-bearing
wastewater. EPA measured the oily wastewater after emulsion breaking
and before mixing with the other subcategory wastes and found
measurable levels of regulated organic compounds. Samples of the mixed
wastewater showed non-detectable levels of the organic compounds. The
treatment for mixed wastewater included no treatment for organics
removal. Thus, this facility clearly provides no reduction in organic
pollutant discharges other than that provided by chemical emulsion
breaking of the surface oil. Separate treatment of oily wastes would,
however, remove significant quantities of organic pollutants. EPA has
preliminarily concluded that the reduced removals that may be
associated with the mixing of waste streams is inconsistent with the
requirements of the Act. EPA, consequently, as previously discussed, is
requiring that the CWT demonstrate to the POTW or permitting authority
that it is achieving removal of regulated pollutants that are
equivalent to that which would be obtained if the wastes are treated
separately.
EPA's proposal today does not require separate treatment of CWT and
non-CWT wastewater. Rather, EPA requires monitoring or other data
establishing that the required effluent levels are met. The Agency has
concluded, however, that separate treatment is economically achievable
and the Agency has concluded that mixing waste will not achieve the
pollutant reduction associated with best available technology.
Consequently, as explained above, EPA is proposing to require
monitoring for compliance at a point immediately following treatment of
the CWT waste stream. In the case of facilities that mix CWT wastes
with other wastes (or mix different subcategories of CWT waste streams)
for treatment, EPA has proposed to require a facility to demonstrate
that treatment processes employed result in reduction in the quantity
of pollutants discharged that is equivalent to that achieved by
separate treatment.
The Agency has concluded it has the authority to adopt such a
requirement. Under the Clean Water Act, effluent limitations must
ensure the achievement of the discharge levels associated with BPT/BCT/
BAT technology. The data collected by the Agency establishes that
today's proposed BPT/BCT/BAT limitations and standards are available at
a cost not incommensurate with the expected effluent reduction and no
more stringent limitations are economically achievable. Without a
requirement to demonstrate compliance with the limitations and
standards, EPA cannot ensure that the limitations and standards will be
met.
3. Estimation of Industry Size
From the information obtained from the 1991 Waste Treatment
Industry Questionnaire, EPA estimates that there are 85 facilities in
the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry. Permit writers and industry
representatives believe this is an underestimation of the present
industry size. EPA's estimation of The industry size is based on data
provided from questionnaire mailed to facilities that EPA identified
using information available to it in 1989. As stated earlier,
facilities names were gathered from various sources, because no SIC
code exists for the industry. Therefore, there may have been CWT
facilities not included on the questionnaire mailing list. EPA solicits
information on the number, name, and location of facilities within the
industry.
4. Exclusion of Pipeline Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities From
Scope of Rule
The Agency proposes to exclude from this regulation facilities
which receive all waste from off-site by pipeline from the source of
waste generation.\6\ Based on the information gathered in the 1991
Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire, such facilities are
fundamentally different from those that are the subject of today's
proposal. These pipeline facilities receive steady flows of relatively
consistent pollutant profiles from facilities that in most cases are
subject to categorical regulations. By contrast, centralized waste
treatment facilities receive concentrated wastes with highly variable
pollutant content, such as sludges, tank bottoms, off-spec products,
and process residuals. Permit writers should use the building block
approach in conjunction with the appropriate guidelines for the
facilities discharging to the pipeline facility to derive the
appropriate BPJ effluent limitations for these facilities. The Agency
solicits comment on excluding such facilities from this scope of this
rule as well as comment on this approach to permitting pipeline
facilities.
\6\However, a facility which receives wastes by pipeline from a
facility which receives off-site wastes by truck, barge, etc. but
does not treat the wastes is still a CWT facility. The interposition
of an intermediate collection agent between generators of CWT waste
and a CWT treatment facility does not convert the treatment facility
into a non-CWT facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. De minimis Level for Scope of Regulation
According to comments received from the May 1994 Effluent
Guidelines Plan (59 FR 25859), the EPA should consider establishing a
de minimis level for the scope of the regulations due to possible
management practices at manufacturing facilities. Manufacturers may
receive small quantities of waste from off-site to treat in a
wastewater treatment system due to a site's ability to handle the waste
properly in comparison to the site at which the waste is generated.
Information collected from the 1991 Waste Treatment Industry
Questionnaire was not designed to collect this information due to the
method of creating the mailing list. EPA solicits additional data to
determine if a de minimis level should be established and information
on the appropriate level.
6. Characterization of Waste Received by Oils Subcategory Facilities
In the EPA sampling program for the Oils Subcategory, the EPA
focused on facilities which treat concentrated, stable oil-water
emulsions which are difficult to treat, because the majority of
facilities identified in 1989 with on-site treatment accepted this type
of waste. EPA requests information on the type of oily waste (stable,
unstable, etc.) accepted for treatment by facilities in the Oils
Subcategory as well as the constituents found in the waste.
7. Methodology for Estimating Current Performance
Many facilities in the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry
commingle waste receipts from off-site with other on-site generated
wastewater, such as non-contaminated stormwater and other industrial
wastewater, prior to discharging. This mixing of waste may occur prior
to or after treatment of the waste receipts. Because the commingling
occurs prior to the discharge point, monitoring data collected by
facilities at the discharge point cannot be used to estimate the
current treatment performance of certain [[Page 5500]] centralized
waste treatment operations. Under the approach EPA is proposing, in the
case of the introduction of stormwater after treatment but before
discharge, the allowable discharges from such a facility would be based
on the guideline limitations and standards before the introduction of
the stormwater. In the case of the stormwater or other wastes
introduced before treatment, as discussed previously, the EPA used
several methods to estimate current industry performance. EPA solicits
comment on the methodologies used to estimate current discharge
performance. EPA also requests discharge monitoring data from
facilities prior to commingling the Centralized Waste Treatment
wastewater with other sources of wastewater. These data will be used to
assess current discharge performance and to statistically analyze the
autocorrelation of concentrations measured on consecutive days (See
Section V.G. for an explanation of autocorrelation). Before submitting
discharge monitoring data, please contact Debra DiCianna at (202) 260-
7141 to ensure that the data provided include information to support
its use for calculating current performance and possible limitations.
8. Implementation of Regulation for Multiple Subcategory Facilities
Forty percent of the facilities in the Centralized Waste Treatment
Industry receive flows that fall within two or more of the proposed
subcategories for this industry. Since waste receipts in this industry
are concentrated and difficult to treat, the Agency believes that the
defined levels of effluent reductions will not be met if waste receipts
from different categories are treated in a single treatment system. EPA
has concluded that separate pretreatment steps are necessary in order
to treat the waste receipts adequately for its constituents prior to
commingling the wastes. For example, if oily wastes and metal-bearing
wastes are mixed, selective metals precipitation will not remove
certain constituents (i.e. n-decane, oil and grease) which would be
removed if the oily waste is pretreated before precipitation. As
discussed above, the approach which EPA has proposed would require
monitoring to demonstrate compliance after oily waste treatment and
after metal-bearing treatment. The EPA solicits comment on other
approaches for implementing the proposal in order to address the
problem of discharges from treatment of mixed subcategory wastes. EPA
also requests data on the performance of treatment systems which are
designed to treat waste that may be characterized in more than one
subcategory.
9. Applicability of Guideline to POTWs Treating CWT Wastes
EPA is soliciting comment today also on how to treat wastes
received for treatment at a POTW by tanker truck, trailer/roll-off bins
or barges or other forms of shipment. EPA is aware that there are
several POTWs receiving wastes for treatment that are not discharged to
the POTW through sewers or pipes. EPA welcomes additional information
and data on the subject.
The CWA provides that pretreatment standards apply to all
discharges which pass through or interfere with POTW operations and all
POTWs must comply with effluent limitations based on secondary
treatment requirements and any more stringent limitations, including
those necessary to meet water quality standards, treatment standards,
or schedules of compliance established pursuant to any other Federal
law or regulation. CWA Sections 301(a)(1) and 307(b). Under RCRA, under
certain conditions, a POTW may accept hazardous waste for treatment. A
POTW is deemed to have a permit for treatment of hazardous waste if,
among other things, the POTW complies with the conditions of its NPDES
permit and certain RCRA regulatory requirements (e.g., use of the RCRA
manifest system, maintaining certain records). In addition, the waste
must meet ``all Federal State, and local pretreatment requirements
which would be applicable to the waste if it were being discharged into
the POTW through a sewer, pipe or similar conveyance.'' 40 CFR
270.61(c)(4). Under this provision, therefore, EPA has concluded that a
POTW cannot accept wastes for treatment via any form of shipment which
are RCRA hazardous wastes unless these wastes comply with pretreatment
requirements in today's guideline. Moreover, it is EPA's view that
whether the CWT wastes are hazardous or non-hazardous, the pretreatment
standard would apply to the CWT wastes. As proposed today, the
pretreatment standards apply to the introduction of a pollutant to a
POTW irrespective of the mechanism for introducing that pollutant to
the POTW.
EPA is soliciting comment on how widespread is the practice of POTW
treatment of wastes received from off-site via any form of shipment as
well as its tentative conclusion that today's proposal would apply to
such wastes.
10. Treatment of Incidental Organic Pollutants Detected in the Metals
Subcategory
During the EPA sampling program, EPA collected analytical data on
the presence of organic pollutants in the Metals Subcategory. Various
organic pollutants were detected at low concentrations in the untreated
CWT wastewater. EPA sampled treatment technologies to control the
discharge of organic pollutants. In most circumstances, the organic
pollutants detected at low concentrations in the treatment facility
influent were found at non-detectable levels prior to any treatment for
the organic pollutants. Because the initial concentrations of organic
pollutants were very low, the addition of treatment chemicals and other
sources of CWT wastewater caused the concentrations to become lower and
thereby non-detectable. As previously discussed, EPA sampled carbon
adsorption units to use as add-on technologies for the removal of
organic compounds, but treatment performance for carbon adsorption
units was found to be uniformly poor throughout the industry. EPA
solicits comment on the necessity of control on low level organic
pollutants for the Metals subcategory and technologies appropriate for
the control of low level organics as well as analytical data to
characterize the performance of such treatment technologies.
11. Additional Technologies for the Control of Concentrated Cyanide-
Bearing Wastes
The BPT effluent limitations and standards for the pretreatment
control of cyanide in the Metals Subcategory is based on the use of
alkaline chlorination at specific operating conditions which enable the
destruction of concentrated cyanide complexes. Two additional treatment
technologies were sampled in the process of developing the proposed
regulation. Performance by one treatment technology was uniformly
inadequate for the treatment of concentrated cyanide waste. The
additional treatment technology sampled performed well in the treatment
of concentrated cyanide complexes, but is propriatary information. EPA
solicits information on additional treatment technologies applicable to
the treatment of concentrated cyanide complexes that are commercially
available.
12. Probability and Cost of RCRA-Permitted Facilities Undergoing
Closure
The Agency has predicted that a few companies may undergo
bankruptcy as [[Page 5501]] a result of the proposed rulemaking. The
predicted bankruptcies may result in closure of CWT facilities and the
cost of such closure is attributable to this action. For RCRA permitted
facilities, the cost of such closure may be significant. EPA solicits
comment on the probability of closure of such facilities impacted by
the proposed regulation and the costs associated with closure of the
treatment operations.
13. Assessing the Effects of Conventional Pollutants
A large portion of the pollutant reductions for the proposed
regulation are for conventional pollutants, especially oil and grease.
Due the present methodology for the environmental assessment, the
impacts of conventional pollutants are not taken into account for the
proposed regulation. The Agency solicits comment on possible approaches
for assessing the effect of conventional pollutants and pollutant
parameters, such as TOC and COD, on the water quality of receiving
streams and POTW operations in terms of inhibition and sludge
contamination.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 437
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Waste treatment and
disposal, Water pollution control.
Dated: December 15, 1994.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended by adding part
437 as follows:
PART 437--THE CENTRALIZED WASTE TREATMENT INDUSTRY POINT SOURCE
CATEGORY
General Provisions
Sec.
437.1 General definitions.
437.2 Applicability.
437.3 Monitoring requirements.
Subpart A--Metals Treatment and Recovery Subcategory
Sec.
437.10 Applicability; description of the Metals Subcategory.
437.11 Specialized definitions.
437.12 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
437.13 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
437.14 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).
437.15 New source performance standards (NSPS).
437.16 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
437.17 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart B--Oils Treatment and Recovery Subcategory
Sec.
437.20 Applicability; description of the Oils Subcategory.
437.21 Specialized definitions.
437.22 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
437.23 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
437.24 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).
437.25 New source performance standards (NSPS).
437.26 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
437.27 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart C--Organics Treatment or Recovery Subcategory
Sec.
437.30 Applicability; description of the Organics Subcategory.
437.31 Specialized definitions.
437.32 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
437.33 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
437.34 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).
437.35 New source performance standards (NSPS).
437.36 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
437.37 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, and 1361.
General Provisions
Sec. 437.1 General definitions.
In addition to the definitions set forth in 40 CFR part 401, the
following definitions apply to this part:
(a) Centralized waste treatment facility--Any facility that treats
any hazardous or non-hazardous industrial wastes received from off-site
by tanker truck, trailer/roll-off bins, drums, barge, or other forms of
shipment. A ``centralized waste treatment facility'' includes: A
facility that treats waste received from off-site exclusively; and a
facility that treats wastes generated on-site as well as waste received
from off-site.
(b) Centralized waste treatment wastewater--Water that comes in
contact with wastes received from off-site for treatment or recovery or
that comes in contact with the area in which the off-site wastes are
received, stored or collected.
(c) Conventional pollutants--The pollutants identified in section
304(a)(4) of the CWA and the regulations thereunder (biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD5), total suspended solids (TSS), oil and grease, pH,
and fecal coliform).
(d) Facility--A facility is all contiguous property owned,
operated, leased or under the control of the same person. The
contiguous property may be divided by public or private right-of-way.
(e) Metal-bearing wastes--Wastes that contain metal pollutants from
manufacturing or processing facilities or other commercial operations.
These wastes may include, but are not limited to, the following:
process wastewater, process residuals such as tank bottoms or stills
and process wastewater treatment residuals, such as treatment sludges.
(f) New source--``New source'' is defined at 40 CFR 122.2 and
122.29.
(g) Non-conventional pollutants--Pollutants that are neither
conventional pollutants nor priority pollutants.
(h) Off-site--``Off-site'' means outside the boundaries of a
facility.
(i) Oily wastes--Wastes that contain oil and grease from
manufacturing or processing facilities or other commercial operations.
These wastes may include, but are not limited to, the following: spent
lubricants, cleaning fluids, process wastewater, process residuals such
as tank bottoms or stills and process wastewater treatment residuals,
such as treatment sludges.
(j) On-site--``On-site'' means within the boundaries of a facility.
(k) Organic wastes--Wastes that contain organic pollutants from
manufacturing or processing facilities or other commercial operations.
These wastes may include, but are not limited to, process wastewater,
process residuals such as tank bottoms or stills and process wastewater
treatment residuals, such as treatment sludges. [[Page 5502]]
(l) Pipeline--``Pipeline'' means an open or closed conduit used for
the conveyance of material. A pipeline includes a channel, pipe, tube,
trench or ditch.
(m) POTW--Publicly-owned treatment works as defined at 40 CFR 403.3
(o).
(n) Priority pollutants--The pollutants designated by EPA as
priority in 40 CFR part 423, appendix A.
(o) Process wastewater--``Process wastewater'' is defined at 40 CFR
122.2.
Sec. 437.2 Applicability.
(a) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in subchapter N of
this chapter, the provisions of this part are applicable to that
portion of wastewater discharges from a centralized waste treatment
facility that result from the treatment or recovery of metals, oil, and
organics from metal-bearing wastes, oily wastes and organic-bearing
wastes received from off-site. The provisions of this Part are also
applicable to that portion of wastewater discharge from a CWT facility
contact water. The provisions of this part do not apply to that portion
of wastewater discharges from a CWT facility that results from the
treatment of wastes that are generated on-site which are subject to
other applicable provisions of Subchapter N of this chapter.
(b) The provisions of this part do not apply to wastewater
discharges at a centralized waste treatment facility that result from
the following treatment operations: thermal destruction, incineration,
stabilization, solidification, the blending of fuel and recycling of
solvents from hazardous and non-hazardous industrial wastes received
from off-site.
(c) The provisions of this part do not apply to discharges from a
centralized waste treatment facility that result from the treatment or
recovery of wastes received by pipeline from a facility that generates
the waste.
Sec. 437.3 Monitoring requirements.
The following monitoring requirements apply to this part:
(a) The ``monthly average'' regulatory values shall be the basis
for the monthly average effluent limitations in direct discharge
permits and pretreatment standards. Compliance with the monthly average
discharge limit is required regardless of the number of samples
analyzed and averaged.
(b) Any centralized waste treatment facility that discharges
wastewater that results from the treatment of metal-bearing waste, oily
waste, or organic-bearing waste must monitor as follows:
(1) A centralized waste treatment facility must monitor to
demonstrate compliance with applicable Subcategory A, B, or C
limitations or standards.
(2) When a Centralized Waste Treatment facility: is subject to
effluent limitations, new source performance standards or pretreatment
standards in more than one Subpart of this Part (or any other Part of
Subchapter N of this chapter), and (after treatment) mixes waste whose
wastewater treatment discharges are subject to more than one Subpart of
this Part (or any other Part of Subchapter N of this chapter), the
owner or operator of the Centralized Waste Treatment facility must
monitor for compliance with the limitations for each Subpart of this
Part after treatment and before mixing of the waste for discharge with
any other Subpart wastes, process wastewater subject to another
effluent limitation or standard in Subchapter N of this chapter, or
stormwater. A Centralized Waste Treatment facility is not required to
monitor for compliance after treatment and before mixing of Subpart
wastes that are mixed with other wastes for treatment and discharge if
the following condition is met. The owner or operator of the
Centralized Waste Treatment facility must demonstrate to the POTW or
permitting authority that the Centralized Waste Treatment facility
treating and discharging effluent from the mixture of wastes is capable
of achieving the effluent limitation or standard for each Subpart.
(3) When a Centralized Waste Treatment facility: is subject to
effluent limitations, new source performance standards or pretreatment
standards in more than one Subpart of this Part (or any other Part of
Subchapter N of this chapter), and (prior to treatment) mixes waste
whose wastewater treatment discharges are subject to more than one
Subpart of this Part (or any other Part of Subchapter N), the owner or
operator of the Centralized Waste Treatment facility must demonstrate
to the POTW or permitting authority that the Centralized Waste
Treatment facility treating and discharging effluent from the mixture
of wastes is capable of achieving the effluent limitation or standard
for each Subpart.
(4) A centralized waste treatment facility must monitor for cyanide
after cyanide treatment and before dilution with other waste streams.
Periodic analysis for cyanide is not required for a centralized waste
treatment facility in the metal-bearing waste subcategory when the
following condition is met: The owner or operator of the facility
certifies in writing to the POTW or permit issuing authority that the
centralized waste treatment system is not treating wastes that contain
more than 68 mg/l of Total Cyanide.
Subpart A--Metals Treatment and Recovery Subcategory
Sec. 437.10 Applicability; description of the Metals Subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are applicable to that portion of
wastewater discharges from a centralized waste treatment facility that
result from the treatment of, or recovery of metals from, metal-bearing
waste received from off-site and CWT facility contact water.
Sec. 437.11 Specialized definitions.
The general definitions, abbreviations, and methods of analysis set
forth in 40 CFR part 401 and Sec. 437.01 shall apply to this subpart.
Sec. 437.12 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the effluent
limitations listed in the following table representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
practicable control technology currently available (BPT). These
limitations apply to the pretreatment of metal-bearing waste which
contain cyanide and the metals treatment effluent.
In-Facility BPT Limitations for Cyanide Pretreatment.--Metals
Subcategory (mg/l)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant parameter for any Monthly
one day average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cyanide..................................... 350 130
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPT Effluent Limitations--Metals Subcategory (mg/l)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant parameter for any Monthly
one day average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional Pollutants:
Oil and Grease.................................. 45 11
TSS............................................. 55 18
Priority and Non-Conventional Pollutants:
Aluminum........................................ 0.72 0.16
Antimony........................................ 0.14 0.031
Arsenic......................................... 0.076 0.017
Barium.......................................... 0.14 0.032
Cadmium......................................... 0.73 0.16
Chromium........................................ 0.77 0.17
[[Page 5503]]
Cobalt.......................................... 0.73 0.16
Copper.......................................... 1.0 0.23
Hexavalent Chromium............................. 0.14 0.077
Iron............................................ 2.4 0.54
Lead............................................ 0.37 0.082
Magnesium....................................... 9.9 2.2
Manganese....................................... 0.18 0.039
Mercury......................................... 0.013 0.0030
Nickel.......................................... 5.4 1.2
Silver.......................................... 0.028 0.0063
Tin............................................. 0.20 0.044
Titanium........................................ 0.021 0.0047
Total Cyanide................................... 4.4 1.2
Zinc............................................ 1.2 0.27
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 437.13 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the effluent
limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best conventional pollutant control technology
(BCT). The limitations for TSS and Oil and Grease shall be the same as
those specified in Sec. 437.12 for the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
Sec. 437.14 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the effluent
limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best available technology economically
achievable (BAT). The limitations shall be the same as those specified
in Sec. 437.12 for the best practicable control technology currently
available (BPT) for the priority and non-conventional pollutants
listed.
Sec. 437.15 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve new source
performance standards (NSPS). These limitations apply to the metals
treatment effluent. The limitations shall be the same as those
specified in Sec. 437.12 for the best practicable control technology
currently available (BPT).
Sec. 437.16 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source
subject to this subpart that introduces pollutants into a publicly-
owned treatment works (or any source that introduces hazardous or non-
hazardous waste into a POTW from off-site by tanker truck, trailer/
roll-off bins, drums, barge or other form of shipment) must: Comply
with 40 CFR part 403; and achieve the following pretreatment standards
for existing sources (PSES).
In-Facility Pretreatment Standards for Cyanide Pretreatment.--Metals
Subcategory (mg/l)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant parameter for any Monthly
one day average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cyanide..................................... 350 130
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretreatment Standards.--Metals Subcategory (mg/l)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant parameter for any Monthly
one day average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aluminum.......................................... 0.72 0.16
Antimony.......................................... 0.14 0.031
Arsenic........................................... 0.076 0.017
Cadmium........................................... 0.73 0.16
Chromium.......................................... 0.77 0.17
Cobalt............................................ 0.73 0.16
Copper............................................ 1.0 0.23
Hexavalent Chromium............................... 0.14 0.077
Iron.............................................. 2.4 0.54
Lead.............................................. 0.37 0.082
Magnesium......................................... 9.9 2.2
Manganese......................................... 0.18 0.039
Mercury........................................... 0.013 0.0030
Nickel............................................ 5.4 1.2
Silver............................................ 0.028 0.0063
Tin............................................... 0.20 0.044
Titanium.......................................... 0.021 0.0047
Total Cyanide..................................... 4.4 1.2
Zinc.............................................. 1.2 0.27
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 437.17 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces pollutants into a publicly-owned treatment
works (or any new source that introduces hazardous or non-hazardous
waste into a POTW from off-site by tanker truck, trailer/roll-off bins,
drums, barge or other form of shipment) must: Comply with 40 CFR part
403; and achieve the pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS). The
limitations shall be the same as those specified in Sec. 437.16 for the
pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
Subpart B--Oils Treatment and Recovery Subcategory
Sec. 437.20 Applicability; description of the Oils Subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are applicable to that portion of
wastewater discharges from a centralized waste treatment facility that
result from the treatment of, or recovery of oils from, oily waste
received from off-site and CWT facility contact water.
Sec. 437.21 Specialized definitions
The general definitions, abbreviations, and methods of analysis set
forth in 40 CFR part 401 and Sec. 437.01 shall apply to this subpart.
Sec. 437.22 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction
attainable by the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
BPT Effluent Limitations.--Oils Subcategory (mg/l)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 2 Option 3
-------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant or pollutant parameter Maximum for Monthly Maximum for Monthly
any one day average any one day average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional Pollutants:
Oil and Grease...................................... 30,000 5,900 240 64
[[Page 5504]]
TSS................................................. 24 8.2 4.0 1.4
Priority and Non-Conventional Pollutants:
1,1,1-Trichloroethane............................... 1.6 1.0 0.18 0.12
2-Propanone......................................... 41 22 130 44
4-Chloro-3-Methyl Phenol............................ 5.2 4.4 0.96 0.54
Aluminum............................................ 2.3 0.57 0.085 0.038
Barium.............................................. 0.10 0.026 0.0027 0.0012
Benzene............................................. 9.0 6.8 1.8 1.4
Butanone............................................ 3.7 2.0 13 4.3
Cadmium............................................. 1.5 0.37 0.0046 0.0020
Chromium............................................ 2.2 0.54 0.010 0.0045
Copper.............................................. 2.0 0.50 0.016 0.0073
Ethylbenzene........................................ 1.1 0.86 0.085 0.066
Iron................................................ 75 19 0.40 0.18
Lead................................................ 5.0 1.2 0.076 0.034
Manganese........................................... 5.4 1.3 0.043 0.019
Methylene Chloride.................................. 3.9 2.0 2.2 0.91
m-Xylene............................................ 1.6 1.2 0.074 0.058
Nickel.............................................. 120 29 2.2 0.99
n-Decane............................................ 0.18 0.096 0.19 0.067
n-Docosane.......................................... 0.18 0.096 0.19 0.067
n-Dodecane.......................................... 0.18 0.096 0.19 0.067
n-Eicosane.......................................... 0.18 0.096 0.19 0.067
n-Hexacosane........................................ 0.18 0.096 0.19 0.067
n-Hexadecane........................................ 0.18 0.096 0.19 0.067
n-Octadecane........................................ 0.18 0.096 0.19 0.067
n-Tetradecane....................................... 0.18 0.096 0.19 0.067
o&p-Xylene.......................................... 0.86 0.65 0.045 0.035
Tetrachloroethene................................... 0.23 0.14 0.032 0.016
Tin................................................. 0.82 0.20 0.12 0.056
Toluene............................................. 17 13 1.8 1.4
Tripropyleneglycol Methyl Ether..................... 280 150 160 57
Zinc................................................ 22 5.6 0.54 0.24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 437.23 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction
attainable by the application of the best conventional pollutant
control technology (BCT). The limitations for TSS and Oil and Grease
shall be the same as those specified in Sec. 437.22 for the best
practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
Sec. 437.24 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction
attainable by the application of the best available technology
economically achievable (BAT). The limitations shall be the same as
those specified in Sec. 437.22 for the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT) for the priority and non-
conventional pollutants listed.
Sec. 437.25 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
new source performance standards (NSPS). These limitations apply to the
oils treatment effluent. The limitations shall be the same as those
specified in Sec. 437.22 for the best practicable control technology
currently available (BPT).
Sec. 437.26 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source
subject to this subpart that introduces pollutants into a publicly-
owned treatment works (or any source that introduces hazardous or non-
hazardous waste into a POTW from off-site by tanker truck, trailer/
roll-off bins, drums, barge or other form of shipment) must: comply
with 40 CFR part 403; and achieve the following pretreatment standards
for existing sources (PSES).
[[Page 5505]]
Pretreatment Standards.--Oils Subcategory (mg/l)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 2 Option 3
----------------------------------------
Pollutant or pollutant Maximum Maximum
parameter for any Monthly for any Monthly
one day average one day average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,1,1-Trichloroethane.......... 1.6 1.0 0.18 0.12
2-Propanone.................... 41 22 130 44
4-Chloro-3-Methyl Phenol....... 5.2 4.4 0.96 0.54
Aluminum....................... 2.3 0.57 0.085 0.038
Barium......................... 0.10 0.026 0.0027 0.0012
Benzene........................ 9.0 6.8 1.8 1.4
Butanone....................... 3.7 2.0 13 4.3
Cadmium........................ 1.5 0.37 0.0046 0.0020
Chromium....................... 2.2 0.54 0.010 0.0045
Copper......................... 2.0 0.50 0.016 0.0073
Ethylbenzene................... 1.1 0.86 0.085 0.066
Iron........................... 75 19 0.40 0.18
Lead........................... 5.0 1.2 0.076 0.034
Manganese...................... 5.4 1.3 0.043 0.019
Methylene Chloride............. 3.9 2.0 2.2 0.91
m-Xylene....................... 1.6 1.2 0.074 0.058
Nickel......................... NA NA 2.2 0.99
n-Decane....................... 0.18 0.096 0.19 0.067
n-Docosane..................... 0.18 0.096 0.19 0.067
n-Dodecane..................... 0.18 0.096 0.19 0.067
n-Eicosane..................... 0.18 0.096 0.19 0.067
n-Hexacosane................... 0.18 0.096 0.19 0.067
n-Hexadecane................... 0.18 0.096 0.19 0.067
n-Octadecane................... 0.18 0.096 0.19 0.067
n-Tetradecane.................. 0.18 0.096 0.19 0.067
o&p-Xylene..................... 0.86 0.65 0.045 0.035
Tetrachloroethene.............. 0.23 0.14 0.032 0.016
Tin............................ 0.82 0.20 0.12 0.056
Toluene........................ 17 13 1.8 1.4
Tripropyleneglycol Methyl Ether NA NA 160 57
Zinc........................... NA NA 0.54 0.24
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NA= No pretreatment standards are developed: pollutant was determined
not to ``pass-through.''
Sec. 437.27 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces pollutants into a publicly-owned treatment
works (or any new source that introduces hazardous or non-hazardous
waste into a POTW from off-site by tanker truck, trailer/roll-off bins,
drums, barge or other form of shipment) must: Comply with 40 CFR part
403; and achieve pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS). The
limitations shall be the same as those specified in Sec. 437.26 of this
subpart for the pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
Subpart C--Organics Treatment or Recovery Subcategory
Sec. 437.30 Applicability; description of the Organics Subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are applicable to that portion of
wastewater discharges from a centralized waste treatment facility that
result from the treatment of, or recovery of organics from, organic-
bearing waste received from off-site and CWT facility contact water.
Sec. 437.31 Specialized definitions.
The general definitions, abbreviations, and methods of analysis set
forth in 40 CFR part 401 and Sec. 437.01 shall apply to this subpart.
Sec. 437.32 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction
attainable by the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
BPT Effluent Limitations.--Organics Subcategory (mg/l)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant parameter for any Monthly
one day average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional Pollutants:
BOD5.............................................. 163 53
Oil and Grease.................................... 13 4.9
TSS............................................... 216 61
Priority and Non-Conventional Pollutants:
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane......................... 0.013 0.011
1,1,1-Trichloroethane............................. 0.021 0.018
1,1,2-Trichloroethane............................. 0.21 0.17
1,1-Dichloroethane................................ 0.037 0.027
1,2,3-Trichloropropane............................ 0.016 0.014
1,2-Dibromoethane................................. 0.014 0.011
1,2-Dichloroethane................................ 0.031 0.025
2,3-Dichloroaniline............................... 0.17 0.14
Butanone.......................................... 1.1 0.84
2-Propanone....................................... 1.6 1.3
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone.............................. 0.093 0.074
Acetophenone...................................... 0.048 0.022
Aluminum.......................................... 1.3 0.75
Antimony.......................................... 0.42 0.24
Barium............................................ 3.8 2.2
Benzene........................................... 0.014 0.011
[[Page 5506]]
Benzoic Acid...................................... 0.49 0.24
Carbon Disulfide.................................. 0.16 0.11
Chloroform........................................ 0.56 0.48
Diethyl Ether..................................... 0.070 0.056
Hexanoic Acid..................................... 0.51 0.25
Lead.............................................. 0.16 0.095
Methylene Chloride................................ 1.1 0.97
Molybdenum........................................ 0.98 0.57
m-Xylene.......................................... 0.014 0.011
o-Cresol.......................................... 0.051 0.025
Phenol............................................ 0.79 0.38
Pyridine.......................................... 0.71 0.24
p-Cresol.......................................... 0.098 0.040
Tetrachloroethene................................. 0.73 0.53
Tetrachloromethane................................ 0.013 0.011
Toluene........................................... 0.014 0.011
trans-1,2-dichloroethene.......................... 0.15 0.11
Trichloroethene................................... 1.2 0.86
Vinyl Chloride.................................... 0.071 0.052
Zinc.............................................. 0.43 0.25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 437.33 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction
attainable by the application of the best conventional pollutant
control technology (BCT). The limitations for BOD5. TSS, and Oil
and Grease shall be the same as those specified in Sec. 437.32 of this
subpart for the best practicable control technology currently available
(BPT).
Sec. 437.34 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve limitations
representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best available technology economically achievable
(BAT). The limitations shall be the same as those specified in
Sec. 437.32 for the best practicable control technology currently
available (BPT) for the priority and non-conventional pollutants
listed.
Sec. 437.35 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
new source performance standards (NSPS). These limitations apply to the
organics treatment effluent. The limitations shall be the same as those
specified in Sec. 437.32 for the best practicable control technology
currently available (BPT).
Sec. 437.36 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source
subject to this subpart that introduces pollutants into a publicly-
owned treatment works (or any source that introduces hazardous or non-
hazardous waste into a POTW from off-site by tanker truck, trailer/
roll-off bins, drums, barge or other form of shipment) must: comply
with 40 CFR part 403; and achieve the following pretreatment standards
for existing sources (PSES).
Pretreatment Standards--Organics Subcategory (mg/l)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant parameter for any Monthly
one day average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane........................... 0.013 0.011
1,1,1-Trichloroethane............................... 0.021 0.018
1,1,2-Trichloroethane............................... 0.21 0.17
1,1-Dichloroethene.................................. 0.037 0.027
1,2,3-Trichloropropane.............................. 0.016 0.014
1,2-Dibromoethane................................... 0.014 0.011
1,2-Dichloroethane.................................. 0.031 0.025
2,3-Dichloroaniline................................. 0.17 0.14
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone................................ 0.093 0.074
Acetophenone........................................ 0.048 0.022
Aluminum............................................ 1.3 0.75
Antimony............................................ 0.42 0.24
Barium.............................................. 3.8 2.2
Benzene............................................. 0.014 0.011
Benzoic Acid........................................ 0.49 0.24
Butanone............................................ 1.1 0.84
Carbon Disulfide.................................... 0.16 0.11
Chloroform.......................................... 0.56 0.48
Diethyl Ether....................................... 0.070 0.056
Hexanoic Acid....................................... 0.51 0.25
Methylene Chloride.................................. 1.1 0.97
Molybdenum.......................................... 0.98 0.57
m-Xylene............................................ 0.014 0.011
o-Cresol............................................ 0.051 0.025
p-Cresol............................................ 0.098 0.040
Tetrachloroethene................................... 0.73 0.53
Tetrachloromethane.................................. 0.013 0.011
Toluene............................................. 0.014 0.011
trans-1,2-dichloroethene............................ 0.15 0.11
Trichloroethene..................................... 1.2 0.86
Vinyl Chloride...................................... 0.071 0.052
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 437.37 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces pollutants into a publicly-owned treatment
works (or any new source that introduces hazardous or non-hazardous
waste into a POTW from off-site by tanker truck, trailer/roll-off bins,
drums, barge or other form of shipment) must: comply with 40 CFR part
403; and achieve pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS). The
limitations shall be the same as those specified in Sec. 437.36 for the
pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
[FR Doc. 95-47 Filed 1-26-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
