[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 13, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2280-2357]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-130]



[[Page 2279]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Part 437



Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source 
Performance Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Point Source 
Category; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 13, 1999 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 2280]]



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 437

[FRL-6215-5]
RIN 2040-AB78


Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New 
Source Performance Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Point 
Source Category

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of availability of new information.

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

SUMMARY: This proposal represents the Agency's second look at Clean 
Water Act national effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment 
standards--first proposed in January 1995--for wastewater discharges 
from centralized waste treatment facilities. The proposed regulation 
would establish technology-based effluent limitations and pretreatment 
standards for wastewater discharges associated with the operation of 
new and existing centralized waste treatment facilities which accept 
hazardous or non-hazardous industrial wastes, wastewater, and/or used 
material from off-site for treatment and/or materials recovery.
    Compliance with this regulation is expected to reduce the discharge 
of pollutants by at least 14.3 million pounds per year of conventional 
pollutants and 4.1 million pounds per year of toxic and non-
conventional pollutants and cost an estimated $27.8 million ($1997) on 
an annual basis. EPA has estimated that the annual benefits of the 
proposal would range from $5.3 million to $15.9 million ($1997).

DATES: EPA must receive comments on the proposal by midnight of March 
15, 1999. EPA will present an assessment of its 1998 characterization 
sampling of non-hazardous oil treatment and recovery facilities, and 
conduct a public hearing on pretreatment standards on February 18, 1999 
from 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to, Ms. Jan Matuszko, Office of 
Water, Engineering and Analysis Division (4303), U.S. EPA, 401 M St. 
SW, Washington, DC 20460. Please submit any references cited in your 
comments. EPA requests an original and three copies of your comments 
and enclosures (including references). Commenters who want EPA to 
acknowledge receipt of their comments should enclose a self-addressed, 
stamped envelope. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. For 
additional information on how to submit electronic comments see 
``SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, How to Submit Comments.''
    EPA will present an assessment of its 1998 characterization 
sampling of non-hazardous oil treatment and recovery facilities, and 
conduct a public hearing on pretreatment standards in EPA's Auditorium, 
Waterside Mall, 401 M St. SW, Washington, DC. Persons wishing to 
present formal comments at the public hearing should contact Mr. 
Timothy Connor before the hearing and should have a written copy for 
submittal.
    The public record for this proposed rulemaking has been established 
under docket number W-98-21 and is located in the Water Docket East 
Tower Basement, 401 M St. SW, Washington, DC 20460. The record is 
available for inspection from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays. For access to the docket materials, 
call (202) 260-3027 to schedule an appointment. You may have to pay a 
reasonable fee for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information concerning 
today's proposed rule, contact Ms. Jan Matuszko at (202) 260-9126 or 
Mr. Timothy Connor at (202) 260-3164. For economic information contact 
Dr. William Wheeler at (202) 260-7905.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

    Entities potentially regulated by this action include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Category                  Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..............   Discharges from stand-alone waste
                         treatment and recovery facilities receiving
                         materials from off-site. These facilities may
                         treat and/or recover or recycle hazardous or
                         non-hazardous waste, hazardous or non-hazardous
                         wastewater, and/or used material from off-site.
                         Certain discharges from waste treatment
                         systems at facilities primarily engaged in
                         other industrial operations. Thus, industrial
                         facilities which process their own, on-site
                         generated, process wastewater with hazardous or
                         non-hazardous wastes, wastewaters, and/or used
                         material received from off-site, in certain
                         circumstances, may be subject to this proposal
                         with respect to a portion of their discharge.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The preceding table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 
provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated 
by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now 
aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of 
entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine 
whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully 
examine the applicability criteria proposed in Section 437.01 and 
detailed further in Section IV of the proposed rule. If you still have 
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular 
entity (after consulting Section IV), consult one of the persons listed 
for technical information in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section.

How To Submit Comments

    Comments may also be sent via e-mail to 
matuszko.jan@epamail.epa.gov. Electronic comments must be identified by 
the docket number W-98-21 and must be submitted as an ASCII or 
WordPerfect 6.1 file avoiding the use of special characters and any 
form of encryption. Electronic comments on this notice may be filed 
online at many Federal Depository Libraries. No confidential business 
information (CBI) should be sent via e-mail.

Protection of Confidential Business Information

    EPA notes that many documents in the record supporting the proposed 
rule have been claimed as CBI 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, alternatively, is masking facility identities in order to 
preserve confidentiality claims. Further, the Agency has withheld from 
disclosure some data not claimed as CBI because release of this 
information could indirectly reveal information claimed to be 
confidential.
    Some facility-specific data, claimed as CBI, are available to the 
company that submitted the information. To ensure

[[Page 2281]]

that all CBI is protected in accordance with EPA regulations, any 
requests for company-specific data should be submitted to EPA on 
company letterhead and signed by a responsible official authorized to 
receive such data. The request must list the specific data requested 
and include the following statement, ``I certify that EPA is authorized 
to transfer confidential business information submitted by my company, 
and that I am authorized to receive it.''

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.

Table of Contents

I. Legal Authority
II. Legislative Background
    A. Clean Water Act
    B. Section 304(m) Consent Decree
    C. The Land Disposal Restrictions Program
III. Centralized Waste Treatment Industry Effluent Guideline 
Rulemaking History
    A. January 27, 1995 Proposal
    B. September 16, 1996 Notice of Data Availability
IV. Scope/Applicability of the Proposed Regulation
    A. General Overview
    B. Facilities Subject to 40 CFR (Parts 400 through 471)
    C. Pipeline Transfers (Fixed Delivery Systems)
    D. Product Stewardship
    E. Solids, Soils and Sludges
    F. Sanitary Wastes
    G. Transporters and/or Transportation Equipment Cleaners
    H. Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs)
    I. Silver Recovery Operations from Used Photographic and X-Ray 
Materials
    J. High Temperature Metals Recovery
    K. Landfill Wastewaters
    L. Industrial Waste Combustors
    M. Solvent Recycling/Fuel Blending
    N. Re-refining
    O. Used Oil Filter Recycling
    P. Marine Generated Wastes
    Q. Stabilization
    R. Grease Trap/Interceptor Wastes
    S. Small Businesses
    T. Hazardous vs. Non-hazardous Wastes
V. Industry Profile
    A. Description of the Industry
    B. Off-Site Treatment Incentives and Comparable Treatment
VI. Summary of EPA Activities and Data Gathering Efforts
    A. Preliminary Data Summary for the Hazardous Waste Treatment 
Industry
    B. Survey Questionnaires (1991 Waste Treatment Industry 
Questionnaire and Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire)
    C. Wastewater Sampling and Site Visits
    D. Analytical Methods
    E. Public Comments to the 1995 Proposal and the1996 Notice of 
Data Availability
    F. Database Sources
    G. Summary of Public Participation
    H. Small Business Advocacy Review Panel
    I. Examination of the Effect of Total Dissolved Solids on Metals 
Precipitation
VII. Subcategorization
    A. Methodology and Factors Considered for Basis of 
Subcategorization
    B. Proposed Subcategories
    C. General Description of Facilities in Each Subcategory
    D. Mixed Waste Subcategory Consideration
VIII. Wastewater Characterization
    A. Wastewater Sources
    B. Wastewater Characterization
    C. Wastewater Flow and Discharge
IX. Development of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
    A. Description of Available Technologies
    B. Technology Options Considered and Treatment Systems Selected 
for Basis of Regulation
    C. Non-regulated Pollutants of Concern
    D. Monitoring to Demonstrate Compliance with the Regulation
    E. Determination of Long Term Averages, Variability Factors, and 
Limitations
X. Costs and Impacts of Regulatory Alternatives
    A. Methodology for Estimating Costs and Pollutant Reductions 
Achieved by Treatment Technologies
    B. Regulatory Costs
    C. Pollutant Reductions
XI. Economic Analyses
    A. Introduction
    B. Economic Description of the CWT Industry and Baseline 
Conditions
    C. Economic Impact and Closure Methodology
    D. Costs and Economic Impacts of Proposed BPT
    E. Results of BCT Cost Test
    F. Costs and Economic Impacts of BAT Options
    G. Costs and Economic Impacts of Proposed PSES Options
    H. Economic Impacts for New Sources
    I. Firm Level Impacts
    J. Community Impacts
    K. Foreign Trade Impacts
    L. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    M. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
XII. Water Quality Analyses and Environmental Benefits
    A. Reduced Human Health Cancer Risk
    B. Reduced Lead Health Risk
    C. Reduced Noncarcinogenic Human Health Hazard
    D. Improved Ecological Conditions and Recreational Activity
    E. Improved POTW Operations
    F. Other Benefits not Quantified
    G. Summary of Benefits
XIII. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
    A. Air Pollution
    B. Solid Waste
    C. Energy Requirements
XIV. Regulatory Implementation
    A. Applicability
    B. Upset and Bypass Provisions
    C. Variances and Modifications
    D. Relationship of Effluent Limitations and Pretreatment 
Standards to Monitoring Requirements
    E. Subcategorization Determination
    F. Implementation for Facilities in Multiple Subcategories
XV. Related Acts of Congress, Executive Orders, and Agency 
Initiatives
    A. Executive Order 12866
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
    C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    D. Paperwork Reduction Act
    E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    G. The Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act
    H. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing Intergovernmental 
Partnerships
    I. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
XVI. Solicitation of Data and Comments
    A. Introduction and General Solicitation
    B. Specific Data and Comment Solicitations
Appendix A: Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations Used in This 
Notice

I. Legal Authority

    These regulations are proposed under the authority of Sections 301, 
304, 306, 307, 308, 402, and 501 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.1311, 
1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342, and 1361.

II. Legislative Background

A. Clean Water Act

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

[[Page 2282]]

U.S.C. 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 wastewaters 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.
1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)--
Section 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 also considers the age of the equipment 
and facilities, the processes employed and any required process 
changes, engineering aspects of the control technologies, non-water 
quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements), and such 
other factors as the Agency deems appropriate (CWA 304(b)(1)(B)). 
Traditionally, EPA establishes BPT effluent limitations based on the 
average of the best performances of facilities within the industry of 
various ages, sizes, processes, or other common characteristics. Where, 
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 (for example, TSS, pH, BOD5). 
However, nothing on the face of the statute explicitly restricted 
BPT limitations to such pollutants. Following passage of the Clean 
Water Act of 1977 with its requirement for point 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)--Section 
304(b)(4) of the CWA
    The 1977 amendments to the CWA required EPA to identify effluent 
reduction levels for conventional pollutants associated with BCT 
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).
3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)--Section 
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 CWA establishes BAT as a principal 
national means of controlling the direct discharge of toxic and 
nonconventional pollutants. 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 and such other factors as the Administrator deems 
appropriate. The Agency retains considerable discretion in assigning 
the weight to be accorded these factors. An additional statutory factor 
considered in setting BAT is economic achievability. Generally, EPA 
determines economic achievability on the basis of total costs to the 
industry and the effect of compliance with BAT limitations on overall 
industry and subcategory financial conditions. 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.
4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)--Section 306 of the CWA
    NSPS reflect effluent reductions that are achievable based on the 
best available demonstrated control technology. New 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 
(that is, conventional, nonconventional, and priority pollutants). In 
establishing NSPS, EPA is directed to take into consideration the cost 
of achieving the effluent reduction and any non-water quality 
environmental impacts and energy requirements.
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)--Section 307(b) 
of the CWA
    PSES are designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants that pass-
through, interfere-with, or are otherwise incompatible with the 
operation of publicly-owned treatment works (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. These regulations contain a definition of pass-
through that addresses localized rather than national instances of 
pass-through and establishes pretreatment standards that apply to all 
non-domestic dischargers. See 52 FR 1586, January 14, 1987.
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)--Section 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.

[[Page 2283]]

B. Section 304(m) Consent Decree

    Section 304(m) of the CWA, added by the Water Quality Act of 1987, 
requires EPA to establish schedules for (1) reviewing and revising 
existing effluent limitations guidelines and standards (``effluent 
guidelines'') and (2) promulgating new effluent guidelines. On January 
2, 1990, EPA published an Effluent Guidelines Plan (55 FR 80) that 
established schedules for developing new and revised effluent 
guidelines for several industry categories. One of the industries for 
which the Agency established a schedule was the centralized waste 
treatment industry.
    The Natural Resources 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 guidelines (NRDC et al. v. Browner, 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 effluent guidelines for the ``Centralized Waste Treatment 
Industry Category by April 31, 1994 and take final action on these 
effluent guidelines by January 31, 1996. On February 4, 1997, the court 
approved modifications to the Decree which revised the deadline to 
August 1999 for final action. EPA provided notice of these 
modifications on February 26, 1997 at 62 FR 8726.

C. The Land Disposal Restrictions Program

1. Introduction to RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR)
    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)).
    Under section 3004, the treatment standards that EPA develops may 
be expressed as either constituent concentration levels or as specific 
methods of treatment. The criteria for these standards is that they 
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. Land disposal 
restrictions are published in 40 CFR Part 268.
    EPA has used hazardous waste treatability data as the basis for 
land disposal restrictions standards. First, EPA has identified Best 
Demonstrated Available Treatment Technology (BDAT) for each listed 
hazardous waste. BDAT is that treatment technology that EPA finds to be 
the most effective for a waste which is also readily available to 
generators and treaters. In some cases, EPA has designated, for a 
particular waste stream, a treatment technology which has been shown to 
successfully treat 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.
    As part of the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR), Universal 
Treatment Standards (UTS) were promulgated as part of the RCRA phase 
two final rule (July 27,1994). The UTS are a series of concentrations 
for wastewaters and non-wastewaters that provide a single treatment 
standard for each constituent. Previously, the LDR regulated 
constituents according to the identity of the original waste; thus, 
several numerical treatment standards might exist for each constituent. 
The UTS simplified the standards by having only one treatment standard 
for each constituent in any waste residue.
    The LDR treatment standards established under RCRA may differ from 
the Clean Water Act effluent guidelines proposed here today both in 
their format and in the numerical values set for each constituent. 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 used for establishing the respective 
limits.
    The difference in format between the LDR and effluent guidelines is 
that LDR establishes a single daily limit for each pollutant parameter 
whereas the effluent guidelines generally establish monthly and daily 
limits. Additionally, the effluent guidelines provide for several types 
of discharge, including new vs. existing sources, and indirect vs. 
direct discharge.
    The differences in numerical limits established under the Clean 
Water Act may differ, not only from LDR and UTS, but also from point-
source category to point-source category (for example, 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 wastewater management and treatment practices. Differences in 
the limits reflect consideration of the CWA statutory factors that the 
Administrator is required to evaluate in developing technically and 
economically achievable limitations and standards. A consequence of 
these differing approaches is that similar waste streams can be 
regulated at different levels.
2. Overlap Between LDR Standards and the Centralized Waste Treatment 
Industry Effluent Guidelines
    EPA's survey for this guideline identified no facilities 
discharging wastewater effluent to land disposal units. There is, 
consequently, no overlap between the proposed regulations for the CWT 
Industry and the Universal Treatment Standards.

III. Centralized Waste Treatment Industry Effluent Guideline 
Rulemaking History

A. January 27, 1995 Proposal

    On January 27, 1995 (60 FR 5464), EPA proposed regulations to 
reduce discharges to navigable waters of toxic, conventional, and non-
conventional pollutants in treated wastewater from facilities defined 
in the proposal as ``centralized waste treatment facilities.'' As 
proposed, these effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment 
standards would have applied to ``any facility that treats any 
hazardous or non-hazardous industrial waste received from off-site by 
tanker truck, trailer/roll-off bins, drums, barge or other forms of 
shipment.'' Facilities which received waste from off-site solely via 
pipeline were excluded from the proposed rule. Facilities proposed for 
regulation included both stand-alone waste treatment and recovery 
facilities that treat waste received from off-site as well as those 
facilities that treat on-site generated process wastewater with wastes 
received from off-site.
    The Agency proposed limitations and standards for an estimated 85 
facilities

[[Page 2284]]

in three subcategories. The subcategories for the centralized waste 
treatment (CWT) industry were metal-bearing waste treatment and 
recovery, oily waste treatment and recovery, and organic waste 
treatment and recovery. EPA based the BPT effluent limitations proposed 
in 1995 on the technologies listed in Table III.A-1 below. EPA based 
BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS on the same technologies as BPT.

                        Table III.A-1. Technology Basis for 1995 BPT Effluent Limitations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Proposed subpart                             Name of subcategory                           Technology basis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.....................  Metal-Bearing Waste Treatment and Recovery........................  Selective Metals
                                                                                             Precipitation,
                                                                                             Pressure
                                                                                             Filtration,
                                                                                             Secondary
                                                                                             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 and Recovery.................................  Emulsion Breaking/
                                                                                             Gravity Separation
                                                                                             and
                                                                                             Ultrafiltration; or
                                                                                             Ultrafiltration,
                                                                                             Carbon Adsorption,
                                                                                             and Reverse
                                                                                             Osmosis.
C.....................  Organic Waste Treatment and Recovery..............................  Equalization, Air
                                                                                             Stripping,
                                                                                             Biological
                                                                                             Treatment, and
                                                                                             Multimedia
                                                                                             Filtration.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. September 16, 1996 Notice of Data Availability

    Based on comments received on the 1995 proposal and new 
information, EPA reexamined its conclusions about the Oily Waste 
Treatment and Recovery subcategory, or ``oils subcategory''. (The 1995 
proposal had defined facilities in this subcategory as ``facilities 
that treat, and/or recover oil from oily waste received from off-
site.'') Subsequently, in September, 1996 EPA noticed the availability 
of the new data on this subcategory (61 FR 48800). EPA explained that 
it had underestimated the size of the oils subcategory, and that the 
data used to develop the original proposal may have mischaracterized 
this portion of the CWT industry. EPA had based its original estimates 
on the size of this segment of the industry on information obtained 
from the 1991 Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire. The basis year 
for the questionnaire was 1989. However, many of the new oils 
facilities discussed in this notice began operation after 1989. EPA 
concluded that many of these facilities may have started up or modified 
their existing operations in response to requirements in EPA 
regulations, specifically, the provisions of 40 CFR part 279, 
promulgated on September 10, 1992 (Standards for the Management of Used 
Oil). These regulations govern the handling of used oils under the 
Solid Waste Disposal Act and CERCLA. EPA's 1996 notice discussed the 
additional facilities, provided a revised description of the 
subcategory, and described how the 1995 proposal limitations and 
standards, if promulgated, would have affected such facilities. The 
notice, among other items, also solicited comments on the use of 
dissolved air flotation in this subcategory.

IV. Scope/Applicability of the Proposed Regulation

    Over half of the comments received on the original proposal related 
to the applicability of the rule. For more background on the CWT 
industry, see Section V. EPA has reviewed these comments and is 
proposing a revised scope for this rule. Many of these issues are 
discussed in more detail below. EPA solicits comments on each of these 
issues as well as any other applicability issues which are not 
specifically addressed in today's notice.

A. General Overview

    EPA is still proposing limitations and standards for three 
subcategories of CWT facilities. However, it would change the scope of 
the facilities and wastewater discharges that would be subject to 
regulation from that proposed earlier. The universe of facilities which 
would be potentially subject to this guideline generally include the 
following. First, except where noted otherwise, EPA is proposing to 
establish limitations and pretreatment standards for stand-alone waste 
treatment and recovery facilities receiving materials from off-site--
classic ``centralized waste treaters.'' These facilities may treat and/
or recover or recycle hazardous or non-hazardous waste, hazardous or 
non-hazardous wastewater, and/or used material from off-site. Second, 
discharges from waste treatment systems at facilities primarily engaged 
in other industrial operations may also fall within the scope of 
today's proposal in certain circumstances. Thus, industrial facilities 
which process their own, on-site generated, process wastewater with 
hazardous or non-hazardous wastes, wastewaters, and/or used material 
received from off-site may be subject to this proposal with respect to 
a portion of their discharge.
    The wastewater flows which EPA is proposing to subject to the 
requirements of this rule would include some or all off-site waste 
receipts and on-site wastewater generated as a result of CWT 
operations. The kinds of on-site wastewater generated at these 
facilities would include, for example, solubilization wastewater, 
emulsion breaking/gravity separation wastewater, used oil processing 
wastewater, treatment equipment washes, transport washes (tanker truck, 
drum, and roll-off boxes), laboratory-derived wastewater, air pollution 
control wastewater, industrial waste combustor wastewater from on-site 
industrial waste combustors, landfill wastewater from on-site 
landfills, and contaminated stormwater. A detailed discussion of CWT 
wastewaters is provided in Section VIII. In summary, all wastewater 
discharges to a receiving stream or the introduction of wastewater to a 
publicly owned treatment works from a facility which falls under the 
definition of centralized waste treatment facility would be subject to 
the provisions of this rule unless specifically excluded as discussed 
in the following sections.

B. Facilities Subject to 40 CFR (Parts 400 Through 471)

    At the time of the original proposal, EPA defined a centralized 
waste treatment facility as any facility which received waste from off-
site for treatment or recovery on a commercial or non-commercial basis. 
Non-commercial facilities were defined as facilities that accept off-
site wastes from facilities under the same ownership. EPA received many 
comments concerning the applicability of the CWT rule to facilities 
that perform waste treatment and/or recovery of off-site generated 
wastes, but whose primary business is something other than waste 
treatment or recovery. These facilities

[[Page 2285]]

are generally manufacturers who primarily treat wastes generated as a 
result of their on-site manufacturing operations, and whose wastewater 
discharges are already subject to existing effluent guidelines and 
standards. Many of these facilities also accept off-site generated 
wastes for treatment. In some instances, these off-site wastes received 
at these industrial facilities are generated by a facility under the 
same corporate ownership--intracompany transfer--and treated on a non-
commercial basis. In other instances, the off-site waste streams 
originate from a company under a different ownership, an intercompany 
transfer.
    In general, commenters urged that the scope of the guideline should 
be limited to facilities whose sole purpose is the treatment of off-
site wastes and wastewater. Reasons provided by commenters for not 
including facilities that treat off-site wastes along with their own 
on-site wastes within the scope of the guideline include:
     The wastes transferred from different locations within a 
company (and different companies) for treatment with on-site wastes are 
usually generated from the same categorical process as the on-site 
generated wastes. Since most of these facilities are already covered by 
an existing effluent guideline, coverage of these waste streams is 
redundant. Monitoring, record keeping, etc. would be duplicative.
     This proposed rule could prevent effective waste 
management practices at many manufacturing facilities. Currently, many 
companies operate a single, central treatment plant and transport waste 
from ``satellite'' facilities to the central treatment facility. This 
allows for effective treatment while controlling costs. Additionally, 
many facilities transfer a specific waste stream to other company-owned 
treatment systems (intracompany) that are designed for the most 
efficient treatment of that type of waste stream.
     Many of these types of facilities only accept waste 
streams which are comparable and compatible with the on-site generated 
process waste streams.
     These facilities are not primarily in the business of 
waste treatment. Only a small percentage of wastes treated are from 
off-site.
     EPA has not performed the technical analyses that are 
necessary to support application of the CWT rule to manufacturing 
facilities regulated by existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment 
standards.
    EPA reexamined the database of facilities which forms the basis of 
the CWT rule. EPA's database contains information on 17 manufacturing 
facilities which commingle waste generated by on-site manufacturing 
activities for treatment with waste generated off-site and one 
manufacturing facility which does not commingle waste generated by on-
site manufacturing activities for treatment with waste generated off-
site. Nine of these facilities treat waste on a non-commercial basis 
only while nine treat waste on a commercial basis. Of the eighteen 
facilities, eight facilities only accept and treat off-site wastes 
which are from the same categorical process as the on-site generated 
waste streams. Ten of the facilities, however, are clearly accepting 
off-site wastes which are not subject to the same categorical standards 
as the on-site generated wastewater. The percentage of off-site 
wastewaters being commingled for treatment with on-site wastewater 
varies from 0.06% to 80%, with the total volumes varying between 87,000 
gallons per year to 381 million gallons per year.
    The guidelines, as proposed in 1995, would have included all of 
these facilities within the scope of this rule. EPA included these 
facilities in the 1995 proposed CWT rule to ensure that all wastes 
receive adequate treatment--even those shipped between facilities 
already subject to existing effluent guidelines and standards. After 
reconsidering this issue for the current proposal, however, EPA agrees 
that, for off-site wastes which are generated by the same categorical 
process as on-site generated wastes, intracompany and intercompany 
transfers are a viable and often preferable method to treat waste 
streams efficiently at a reduced cost. EPA does not want to discourage 
these management practices. EPA is still concerned, however, that, in 
circumstances where the off-site generated wastes are not from the same 
categorical group as the on-site generated wastes, the effluent 
limitations and categorical standards currently in place for one 
industry may not ensure adequate treatment for wastes generated in 
another industry. It is not duplicative, in such circumstances, to 
include within the scope of the CWT guideline, wastewater that results 
from the treatment of off-site wastes not subject to the guidelines and 
standards applicable to the treatment of wastewater generated on-site. 
EPA has included these facilities in all of its economic analyses.
    Therefore, based on the Agency's evaluation of the comments 
submitted on its earlier proposal and consideration of additional 
information, EPA is today proposing to include within the scope of the 
CWT rule wastewater received from off-site from facilities in other 
industries that also generate on-site wastewater unless one of the 
following conditions is met:
     For facilities subject to national effluent limitations 
guidelines for existing sources, standards of performance for new 
sources, or pretreatment standards for new and existing sources 
(``categorical standards''), the wastes received from off-site for 
treatment would be subject to the same categorical standards as the on-
site generated wastes; or
     For facilities not subject to existing categorical 
standards, the waste received from off-site is from the same industry 
(other than the waste treatment industry) and is of a similar nature to 
the waste generated on-site (based on the best professional judgment of 
the permit writer).
For purposes of developing its effluent limitations and pretreatment 
standards, EPA has included manufacturing facilities which accept off-
site waste for treatment in all of its analyses unless the above 
mentioned conditions were met.
    EPA contemplates that this approach would be implemented in the 
following manner. A facility that is currently subject to either 
national effluent limitations or pretreatment standards receives 
wastewater from off-site for treatment. The wastewater is commingled 
for treatment with wastewater generated on-site. If the off-site 
wastewater is subject to the same limitations or standards as the 
onsite wastewater (or would be if treated where generated), the CWT 
limitations would not apply to the discharge associated with the off-
site wastewater flows. In that case, another guideline or standard 
applies. If, however, the off-site wastewater is not subject to the 
same national limitations or standards (or if none exist), that portion 
of the discharge associated with the off-site flow would be subject to 
CWT requirements. (Of course, the portion of the wastewater generated 
on-site remains subject to applicable limitations and standards for the 
facility. If the off-site and on-site wastewaters were commingled prior 
to discharge, the permit writer would use the ``'combined wastestream 
formula'' or ``building block approach'' to determine limitations for 
the commingled wastestream). Alternatively, EPA is considering an 
option under which the permit writers could allow manufacturing 
facilities that treat off-site wastes to meet all otherwise-

[[Page 2286]]

applicable categorical limitations and standards for the industries 
from which the waste was generated. This approach would also determine 
limitations or standards for any commingled on-site and off-site 
wastewater using the ``combined waste stream formula'' or ``building 
block approach''. Under the approach, however, the permit writer would 
apply the categorical limitations from the industries generating the 
wastewater, rather than the CWT limitations proposed today to the off-
site portion of the commingled wastestream. The use of the combined 
wastestream formula and building block approaches for CWT wastes is 
discussed further in Section XIV.F. EPA envisions the second 
alternative would be preferable for facilities which only receive 
continuous flows of process wastewaters with relatively consistent 
pollutant profiles from no more than five customers. The decision to 
base limitations in this manner would be at the permit writer's 
discretion only. EPA solicits comment on this alternative as well as 
the application of the CWT rule to manufacturing facilities in general.
    In addition, there are manufacturing facilities that may not 
currently be subject to any effluent limitations guidelines or 
pretreatment standards. Some of these may accept off-site wastewater 
that is commingled for treatment with on-site process wastewater. With 
respect to such facilities, EPA contemplates that an approach similar 
to that proposed above for categorical industries receiving off-site 
wastewater for treatment. Thus, the proposal would be implemented as 
follows. Under EPA regulations, the permit writer would develop best 
professional judgement BPJ limits (or standards) for the on-site 
generated wastewater flows. The portion of the discharge resulting from 
the treatment of off-site flows would be subject either to CWT 
limitations and standards or to the same BPJ requirements as on-site 
flows. CWT limitations would apply if the off-site wastes treated at 
the facility were different from those generated on-site. 
Alternatively, applying either a building block or combined waste 
stream formula approach, on-site wastewater would be subject to 
appropriate BPJ limits or standards for the on-site processes 
generating the wastewater and the off-site wastewater would be subject 
to appropriate limits for the off-site industry generating the 
wastewater. The Agency solicits comment on how it should treat such 
facilities.

C. Pipeline Transfers (Fixed Delivery Systems)

    As previously noted, the scope of EPA's 1995 proposal did not 
extend to facilities which received off-site wastes for treatment 
solely via an open or enclosed conduit (for example, pipeline, 
channels, ditches, trenches, etc.). At that time, EPA had concluded 
that facilities which receive all their wastes through a pipeline or 
trench (fixed delivery systems) from the original source of waste 
generation are receiving continuous flows of process wastewater with 
relatively consistent pollutant profiles. As such, EPA concluded that 
these wastes differ fundamentally from those received at CWT facilities 
it had studied as part of this rulemaking.
    The Agency received many comments on the proposal to limit the 
applicability of the proposed limits to wastewaters received other than 
by pipelines or fixed delivery systems. Many commented that this 
approach is arbitrary and that the mode of transportation should not be 
the determining factor as to whether or not a facility is included in 
the scope of the rule. Commenters asserted that the character of the 
waste remains unchanged regardless of whether it is trucked or piped to 
another facility for treatment. Many also questioned EPA's conclusion 
that piped waste is more consistent in strength and treatability than 
typical CWT wastewaters studied for this proposal.
    EPA has reevaluated the database for this rule. EPA received 
questionnaire responses from four CWT facilities which receive their 
waste streams solely via pipeline. EPA also examined the database that 
was developed for the organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers 
(OCPSF) effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards to gather 
additional data on OCPSF facilities which also have CWT operations. 
Based on the OCPSF database, 16 additional facilities are treating 
wastewater received solely via pipeline from off-site for treatment. A 
review of the CWT and OCPSF databases supplemented by telephone calls 
to selected facilities reveals that one facility no longer accepts 
wastes from off-site, one facility is now operating as a POTW, and 11 
facilities only accept off-site wastes that were generated by a 
facility within the same category as on-site generated waste. (The 
latter facilities, under the criteria explained above, would no longer 
be within the scope of the proposed rule because they are already 
subject to existing effluent guidelines and standards.) Therefore, EPA 
identified 7 facilities which receive off-site wastes solely via 
pipeline which may be subject to this rulemaking.
    Of these seven facilities, one is a dedicated treatment facility 
which is not located at a manufacturing site. The other six pipeline 
facilities are located at manufacturing facilities which are already 
covered by an existing effluent guideline or standard. All of the 
facilities are direct dischargers and all receive waste receipts from 
no more than five customers (many receive waste receipts from three or 
fewer customers).
    Since the 1995 proposal, EPA conducted site visits at two of these 
pipeline facilities. Information collected during these site visits 
confirmed EPA's original conclusion that wastes received by pipeline 
are more consistent in strength and treatability than ``typical'' CWT 
wastewaters. These wastewaters are traditional wastewaters from the 
applicable industrial category that generally remain constant from day 
to day in terms of the concentration and type of pollutant parameters. 
Unlike traditional CWT facilities, their customers and wastewater 
sources do not change and are limited by the physical and monetary 
constraints associated with pipelines.
    EPA has also reviewed the discharge permits for each of these 
pipeline facilities. EPA found that, in all cases, permit writers had 
carefully applied the ``building block approach'' in establishing the 
facility's discharge limitations. Therefore, in all cases, the treating 
facility was required to treat each of the piped wastewaters to comply 
with otherwise applicable effluent guidelines and standards.
    Consequently, based on the information it has obtained to date, EPA 
continues to believe that (except as discussed below) wastes that are 
piped to waste treatment facilities should be excluded from the scope 
of the CWT rule and covered by otherwise applicable effluent guidelines 
and standards. The Agency has concluded that effluent limitations and 
pretreatment standards for CWT facilities should not apply to pipeline 
treatment facilities. EPA believes that it is more appropriate for 
permit writers to develop limitations for treatment facilities that 
receive wastewater by pipeline on an individual basis by applying the 
``combined waste stream formula'' or ``building block'' approach. The 
one exception to this approach is for facilities which receive waste 
via conduit (that is, pipeline, trenches, ditches, etc.) from 
facilities that are acting merely as waste collection or consolidation 
centers that are not the original source of the waste. These 
wastewaters would be subject to the

[[Page 2287]]

CWT rule. EPA has not identified any pipeline facility that is 
receiving waste from waste consolidators, but has received public 
comment that these facilities exist.
    EPA notes that 40 CFR 122.44(m) of the Agency's NPDES permitting 
regulations require that an NPDES permit for a private treatment works 
must include conditions expressly applicable to any user, as a limited 
co-permittee, necessary to ensure compliance with applicable NPDES 
requirements. In the case of a pipeline treatment system, this may 
require that the permit writer include conditions in a permit issued to 
the pipeline treatment system and its users, as co-permittee, if 
necessary for the pipeline facility to comply with the applicable 
limitations. Alternatively, EPA may need to issue permits both to the 
private treatment works and to the users or require the user to file a 
permit application.

D. Product Stewardship

    Many members of the manufacturing community have adopted ``product 
stewardship'' programs as an additional service for their customers to 
promote recycling and reuse of products and to reduce the potential for 
adverse environmental impacts from chemical products. Many commenters 
on the proposal have defined ``product stewardship'' in this way: 
``taking back spent, used, or unused products, shipping and storage 
containers with product residues, off-specification products and waste 
materials from use of products.'' Generally, whenever possible, these 
manufacturing plants recover and reuse materials in chemical processes 
at their facility. Manufacturing companies that cannot reuse the spent, 
used, or unused materials returned to them treat these materials in 
their wastewater treatment plant. In industry's view, such materials 
are inherently compatible with the treatment system.
    EPA received no specific information on these product stewardship 
activities in the responses to the 308 Waste Treatment Industry 
Questionnaire. EPA obtained information on this program from comment 
responses to the 1995 CWT proposal and in discussions with industry 
since the 1995 proposal. As part of their comment to the 1995 proposal, 
the Chemical Manufacturer's Association provided results of a survey of 
their members on product stewardship activities. Based on these survey 
results, the vast majority of materials received under the product 
stewardship programs are materials received for product rework. A small 
amount is classified as residual recycling and an even smaller amount 
is classified as drum take backs. Of the materials received, the vast 
majority is reused in the manufacturing process. With few exceptions, 
all of the materials (which are not reused in the manufacturing 
process) that are treated in the on-site wastewater treatment systems 
appear to be from the same categorical group as the on-site 
manufactured materials.
    EPA has decided to apply the same approach to wastewater generated 
from materials that are taken back for recycle or reuse as to 
wastewater received from off-site by a manufacturing facility. EPA 
applauds the efforts of manufacturing facilities to reduce pollution 
and the environmental impacts of their products and does not want to 
discourage these practices. In most of the instances stated in the 
product stewardship definition, manufacturing facilities are 
essentially taking back product which has not been utilized or has not 
been chemically altered. In these cases, where the treatment of these 
wastes would be subject to same guidelines or pretreatment standards as 
the other wastewater generated at the facility, under the approach 
discussed above, they would not be subject to CWT requirements (Section 
IV.B).
    EPA remains concerned, however, that there are circumstances in 
which used materials or waste products may not be compatible with the 
otherwise existing treatment system. Therefore, EPA is not proposing to 
remove all product stewardship activities from the scope of this 
rulemaking. Those activities that involve used products or waste 
materials that are not subject to effluent guidelines or standards from 
the same category as the other on-site generated wastes are subject to 
today's proposal. Based on the information provided by manufacturing 
facilities, EPA believes that very few product stewardship activities 
would be subject to this rule. EPA's approach will not curtail product 
stewardship activities, in general, but will ensure that all wastes are 
treated effectively. EPA requests comment on this approach.

E. Solids, Soils, and Sludges

    EPA did not distinguish in its information gathering efforts 
between those waste treatment and recovery facilities treating aqueous 
waste and those treating non-aqueous wastes or a combination of both. 
Thus, EPA's 308 Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire and related CWT 
Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire (DMQ) asked for information on CWT 
operations without regard to the type of waste treated. EPA's sampling 
program also included facilities which accepted both aqueous and solid 
wastes for treatment. In fact, the facility which formed the technology 
basis for the metals subcategory limitations selected at the time of 
the original proposal treats both liquid and solid wastes. As such, a 
facility that accepts wastes from off-site for treatment and/or 
recovery that generates a wastewater is subject to the CWT rule 
regardless of whether the wastes are aqueous or non-aqueous. Therefore, 
wastewater generated in the treatment of solids received from off-site, 
of course, would be subject to the CWT rule.
    As a further point of clarification, the main concern in the 
treatment or recycling of off-site ``solid wastes'' is that pollutants 
contained in the solid waste may be transferred to a process or contact 
water resulting in a wastewater that may require treatment. Examples of 
such wastewaters include the following:
     entrained water directly removed through dewatering 
operations (for example, sludge dewatering);
     contact water added to wash or leach contaminants from the 
waste material;
     stormwater that comes in direct contact with waste 
material; and
     solvent contaminated wastewater removed from scrap metal 
recycling.
    The treatment or recovery of solids that remain in solid form when 
contacted with water and which do not leach any chemicals into the 
water are not subject to this rule. Examples of excluded solids 
recovery operations are the recycling of aluminum cans, glass and 
plastic bottles.

F. Sanitary Wastes

    The CWT proposal would regulate facilities which treat, or recover 
materials from, off-site industrial wastes and wastewaters. Sanitary 
wastes such as chemical toilet wastes and septage are not covered by 
the provisions of the proposed CWT rule. EPA would expect that permit 
writers would develop BPJ limitations or local limits to establish 
site-specific permit requirements for any commercial sanitary waste 
treatment facility.
    Similarly, sanitary wastes received from off-site and treated at an 
industrial facility or a CWT facility are not covered by provisions of 
the CWT rule. If these wastes are mixed with industrial wastes, EPA 
would expect that, as is the case now with ancillary sanitary waste 
flows mixed for treatment at categorical facilities, the permit writer 
would establish BPJ, site-specific permit requirements.

[[Page 2288]]

G. Transporters and/or Transportation Equipment Cleaners

    Facilities that treat wastewater that results from cleaning tanker 
trucks, rail tank cars, or barges may or may not be subject to the 
provisions of this rule. Thus, for example, the rule does not apply to 
discharges from wastewater treatment at facilities engaged exclusively 
in cleaning the interiors of transportation equipment. These facilities 
may be subject to the requirements to be established for the 
Transportation Equipment Cleaning (TEC) Point Source Category (these 
requirements were proposed at 63 FR 34685 June 25,1998). As proposed, 
the TEC regulation only applies to facilities that solely accept tanks 
which have been previously emptied or that contain a small amount of 
product, called a ``heel'', typically accounting for less than one 
percent of the volume of the tank. A facility which accepts a tank 
truck, rail tank car, or barge not considered to be empty for cleaning 
or treatment is not subject to the Transportation Equipment Cleaning 
(TEC) Point Source Category, and may be subject to the provisions 
established for this rule.
    There are some facilities which are engaged in traditional CWT 
activities and also engaged in traditional TEC activities. If the 
wastewaters from the two operations are commingled, under the approach 
adopted for the TEC proposal, the commingled TEC wastewater flow would 
be subject to CWT limits when promulgated. Therefore, a facility 
performing transportation equipment cleaning as well as other CWT 
services that commingles these wastes is a CWT facility. All of the 
wastewater discharges are subject to provisions of this rule. If, 
however, a facility is performing both operations and the waste streams 
are not commingled (that is, transportation equipment cleaning 
wastewater is treated in one system and CWT wastes are treated in a 
second, separate system), both the TEC rule and CWT rule apply to the 
respective wastewaters.
    As a further point of clarification, the CWT proposal would subject 
transportation equipment cleaning wastes received from off-site to its 
provisions. Transportation equipment cleaning wastes received from off-
site that are treated at CWT facilities along with other off-site 
wastes are subject to provisions of this rule.

H. Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs)

    At the time of the original proposal, EPA solicited comment on how 
to treat POTWs which receive wastes for treatment by any means of 
transportation other than sewers or pipelines. EPA was aware that many 
POTWs were receiving waste via tanker trucks, but did not have a good 
understanding of how widespread the practice was or what types of 
wastes were being transferred in this manner. Based on comments, EPA 
now believes that hauling of non-hazardous industrial and commercial 
wastes is a widespread practice, particularly among the larger POTWs. A 
special discharge survey conducted by the Association of Metropolitan 
Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) indicates that 42.5 percent of POTW 
respondents accept hauled industrial wastes. Commenters to the original 
CWT proposal also noted that many small POTWs located in rural areas 
regularly accept trucked wastes. While the acceptance of waste at POTWs 
via truck appears to be common practice, commenters also cautioned that 
EPA should be concerned that the hauled waste is being accepted with 
little or no documentation regarding the source, little or no 
monitoring of the shipments when they arrive, and no pretreatment 
before mixing with the normal POTW influent.
    The large volume of wastes generally trucked to POTWs includes 
septage and chemical toilet wastes. These were not evaluated for this 
regulation and are not subject to the proposed limits. In addition, 
POTWs also receive trucked industrial and commercial wastes. Examples 
of these include tank cleaning water, bilge water, restaurant grease 
trap wastes, groundwater remediation water, contaminated stormwater 
run-off, interceptor wastewaters, and non-hazardous leachate.
    The proposed CWT pretreatment regulations would not establish any 
requirements that apply directly to local POTWs that receive off-site 
wastes. In the case of categorical wastes (subject to pretreatment 
standards in 40 CFR parts 400 through 471), the generator of the wastes 
must comply with any applicable standards before introducing the waste 
to the POTW regardless of whether the wastewater is discharged directly 
to the sewer or otherwise hauled to the POTW. Similarly, for non-
categorical wastes, the generator would need to meet any applicable 
local limits regardless of the mode of transportation to the POTW. As 
such, therefore, the CWT rule as proposed today does not apply to 
POTWs. EPA, does, however, want to remind POTWs that they should 
document and monitor hauled waste streams to ensure that necessary 
pretreatment steps have been performed. EPA pretreatment regulations at 
40 CFR 403.8(f)(1)(ii) require that POTW pretreatment programs must 
require compliance with applicable pretreatment standards.
    If, however, a POTW chooses to establish a pretreatment business as 
an addition to their operation, they may, in given circumstances, be 
subject to provisions of this rule. EPA is aware of a POTW which plans 
to open a wastewater treatment system to operate in conjunction with 
their POTW operations. This CWT facility at a POTW will accept 
categorical wastewaters, treat them, and then discharge them to the 
POTW. As such, the CWT operation may be subject to provisions of this 
rule. It is not a POTW itself (even if the facility is located at the 
same site). In this case, the facility is operating as a CWT facility 
and all discharges are subject to provisions of this rule. EPA would 
caution POTWs and industrial users that it will carefully examine such 
operations to ensure they are legitimate CWT facilities and not simply 
waste consolidation centers seeking to avoid meeting categorical 
pretreatment standards. EPA further notes that if wastes are piped to 
such facilities, under the approach proposed today, such flows would 
still be subject to applicable categorical standards and not CWT 
limits.

I. Silver Recovery Operations From Used Photographic and X-Ray 
Materials

    Many commenters to the 1995 CWT proposal expressed concern over the 
inclusion in the metals subcategory of CWT operations that recover 
metals from used photographic materials and solutions and x-ray 
materials and solutions. Commenters were particularly concerned that 
they would be unable to meet the limitations established for silver in 
the metals subcategory. In general, commenters stated that the scope of 
the proposed rule should not include these operations. Reasons provided 
include:
     The metals subcategory limitations proposed for the CWT 
rule are not based on technologies typically used in silver recovery 
operations. Silver recovery facilities typically use electrolytic 
plating followed by metallic replacement with iron.
     The facility used to calculate the BAT silver limitation 
is engaged in a variety of recovery operations. This BAT treatment 
system does not reflect performance of facilities which solely treat 
silver-bearing wastes.

[[Page 2289]]

     Existing effluent guidelines should be sufficient. Many 
facility discharge permits are based on Part 421, effluent guidelines 
for non-ferrous metals manufacturing, Subpart L secondary silver 
subcategory. In addition, an effluent guideline also exists for the 
industry which is the primary source of the recovered materials--Part 
459 photographic point source subcategory.
     The Silver Coalition and the Association of Metropolitan 
Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) have prepared and issued recommendations on 
technology, equipment, and management practices for controlling 
discharges from facilities that process photographic materials.
     It is not economical or efficient for these waste streams 
to be recovered on-site due to their small volume. If this rule were 
enacted, many of the CWT facilities processing used photographic 
materials would discontinue this operation, and silver recovery 
operations would decrease greatly.
    Based on information provided by the industry, EPA estimates that 
there are 360,000 photographic and image processing facilities which 
generate silver bearing wastes. Many of these facilities generate very 
small volumes of silver bearing waste which would not be economical or 
efficient to recover on site. Thus, there exists a large potential for 
facilities to consolidate and treat silver bearing photographic waste 
from various sources.
    EPA believes that the off-site shipment of silver bearing 
photographic waste streams for the purpose of consolidation and 
recovery is beneficial, and does not wish to discourage this practice. 
EPA encourages the segregation of waste streams as this leads to more 
efficient recovery. EPA is aware that some of these consolidated waste 
streams are treated at typical CWT facilities and some are treated at 
facilities which treat photographic waste streams only. While EPA has 
promulgated effluent guidelines for non-ferrous metals manufacturing 
and the photographic point source categories (40 CFR part 421, Subpart 
L and 40 CFR part 459, respectively), the majority of these centralized 
silver recovery facilities are not currently subject to any effluent 
guideline.
    EPA agrees with proposal commenters that the BAT system selected at 
the time of the original proposal does not reflect performance of 
facilities which solely treat silver-bearing wastes. The precipitation 
processes to recover silver used as the basis for its metal limits 
(including silver) is different from that most widely used to recover 
silver at facilities that treat only silver bearing wastes--
electrolytic plating followed by metallic replacement. Although the 
facility which formed the technology basis for the 1995 proposed BAT 
limitations was engaged in recovering silver from photographic waste 
streams, EPA does not have information in its database on facilities 
which only perform CWT of photographic waste streams.
    Consequently, EPA is today proposing not to include electrolytic 
plating/metallic replacement silver recovery operations of used 
photographic and x-ray materials within the scope of this rule. Based 
on the fundamental difference in technology used to recover silver at 
facilities devoted exclusively to treatment of photographic and x-ray 
wastes, the Agency has decided to defer proposing regulations for these 
facilities. Facilities which only perform CWT silver recovery 
operations (electrolytic plating followed by metallic replacement) 
would not fall within the scope of today's proposal. Permit writers 
would use Best Professional Judgement or local limits to establish 
site-specific permit requirements. However, off-site wastes which are 
treated/recovered at these facilities through any other process and/or 
waste generated at these facilities as a result of any other 
centralized treatment/recovery process are subject to provisions of 
this rule.

J. High Temperature Metals Recovery

    During the development of the 1995 proposal, EPA did not include 
facilities which perform high temperature metals recovery (HTMR) within 
the scope of this rule. EPA is aware of three facilities in the U.S. 
which utilize the HTMR process. High temperature metals recovery 
facilities generally take solid forms of various metal containing 
materials and produce a remelt alloy which is then sold as feed 
materials in the production of metals. These facilities utilize heat-
based pyrometallurgical technologies, not the water-based 
precipitation/filtration technologies used throughout the CWT industry. 
Based on questionnaire responses and industry comments, the HTMR 
process does not generate wastewater.
    For these reasons, the high temperature metals recovery operations 
have been excluded from provisions of the CWT rule. Facilities which 
only perform high temperature metals recovery are not subject to this 
rule. However, off-site wastes which are treated/recovered at these 
facilities through any other process and/or wastes generated at these 
facilities as a result of any other CWT treatment/ recovery process are 
subject to the provisions of this rule.
    As noted, EPA's data show that HTMR operations generate no process 
wastewater. Accordingly, EPA is also considering whether this rule, 
when promulgated, should include a subcategory for HTMR operations with 
a zero discharge requirement. EPA is requesting comment on such an 
approach, and specifically seeks any data on facilities that may 
produce a process wastewater in their HTMR operations.

K. Landfill Wastewaters

    EPA proposed effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards for 
Landfills, 40 CFR Part 445, on February 6, 1998 (63 FR 6426-6463). 
There, EPA explained how it proposed to treat categorical facilities 
that mix and treat categorical wastewater with wastewater from on-site 
landfills. EPA proposed to subject the mixed wastewater to the 
applicable categorical limits and not the proposed landfill limits. In 
the CWT industry, there are some facilities which are engaged both in 
CWT activities and in operating an on-site landfill(s). EPA is 
proposing to treat the mixture of CWT wastewater and landfill 
wastewater in the same way considered for the proposed landfill 
guideline. Therefore, a facility performing landfill activities as well 
as other CWT services that commingles the wastewaters would be a CWT 
facility, and all of the wastewater discharges would be subject to the 
provisions of this rule when promulgated. If a facility is performing 
both operations and the waste streams are not commingled (that is, 
landfill wastewaters are treated in one treatment system and CWT 
wastewaters are treated in a second, separate, treatment system), the 
provisions of the Landfill rule and CWT rule would apply to their 
respective wastewaters.
    Additionally, under the approach proposed for the Landfills 
rulemaking, CWT facilities which are dedicated to landfill wastewaters 
only, whether they are located at a landfill site or not, would be 
subject to the effluent guidelines limitations and pretreatment 
standards for Landfills when promulgated. These dedicated landfill CWT 
facilities would not be subject to provisions of the CWT rulemaking. 
EPA is not aware of any other facilities that are dedicated to the 
treatment of off-site wastes from a single category for which EPA has 
proposed or promulgated effluent limitations that do not also perform 
on-site operations that generate these same categorical wastewaters. 
EPA requests comments on any such facilities.

[[Page 2290]]

    As a further point of clarification, landfill wastewaters are not 
specifically excluded from provisions of this rule. Landfill 
wastewaters that are treated at CWT facilities along with other off-
site waste streams are subject to provisions of this rule. Furthermore, 
a landfill that treats its own landfill wastewater and off-site 
landfill wastewater would be subject to the proposed Landfill limits 
when promulgated in the circumstances described in IV.B above.

L. Industrial Waste Combustors

    EPA proposed effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards for 
Industrial Waste Combustors, 40 CFR Part 444 on February 6, 1998 (63 FR 
6392-6423). There, EPA explained how it proposed to treat categorical 
facilities that mix and treat categorical wastewater with wastewater 
from on-site industrial waste combustors. EPA proposed to subject the 
mixed wastewater to the applicable categorical limits and not the 
proposed industrial waste combustor limits. In the CWT industry, there 
are some facilities which are engaged both in CWT activities and in 
operating an on-site industrial waste combustor(s). EPA is proposing to 
treat the mixture of CWT wastewater and industrial waste combustor 
wastewater in the same way considered for the proposed Industrial Waste 
Combustor guideline. Therefore, a facility performing industrial waste 
combustion activities as well as other CWT services that commingles the 
wastewaters would be a CWT facility, and all of the wastewater 
discharges would be subject to the provisions of this rule when 
promulgated. If a facility is performing both operations and the waste 
streams are not commingled (that is, industrial waste combustion 
wastewaters are treated in one treatment system and CWT wastewaters are 
treated in a second, separate, treatment system), the provisions of the 
Industrial Waste Combustor rule and CWT rule would apply to their 
respective wastewaters
    As a further point of clarification, industrial waste combustor 
wastewaters are not specifically excluded from provisions of this rule. 
Industrial waste combustor wastewaters that are treated at CWT 
facilities along with other off-site waste streams are subject to 
provisions of this rule. Furthermore, an industrial waste combustor 
that treats off-site industrial waste combustor wastewater would be 
subject to the proposed Industrial Waste Combustor limits when 
promulgated in the circumstances described in IV.B above.

M. Solvent Recycling/Fuel Blending

    The solvent recycling industry was studied by the EPA in the 1980s. 
EPA published the ``Preliminary Data Summary for the Solvent Recycling 
Industry'' (EPA 440/1-89/102) in September 1989 which describes this 
industry and the processes utilized. This document defines solvent 
recovery as ``the recycling of spent solvents that are not the 
byproduct or waste product of a manufacturing process or cleaning 
operation located on the same site.'' Spent solvents are generally 
recycled in two main operations. Traditional solvent recovery involves 
pretreatment of the waste stream (in some cases) and separation of the 
solvent mixtures by specially constructed distillation columns. 
Wastewater discharges resulting from this process are subject to 
effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the organic chemicals 
industry (40 CFR part 414). As such, wastewaters resulting from 
traditional solvent recovery operations as defined above are not 
subject to this effluent guideline.
    Fuel blending is the second main operation which falls under the 
definition of solvent recovery. Fuel blending is the process of mixing 
wastes for the purpose of regenerating a fuel for reuse. At the time of 
the 1995 proposal, fuel blending operations were excluded from the CWT 
rule since EPA believed the fuel blending process was ``dry'' (that is, 
no wastewaters were produced). Based on comments to the original 
proposal and the Notice of Data Availability, EPA has concluded that 
this is valid and that true fuel blenders do not generate any process 
wastewaters and are, therefore, zero dischargers. EPA is concerned, 
however, that the term ``fuel blending'' may be loosely applied to any 
process where recovered hydrocarbons are combined as a fuel product. 
Such operations occur at nearly all used oil and fuel recovery 
facilities. Therefore, fuel blending operations as defined above would 
be excluded from the CWT rule providing that the operations do not 
generate a wastewater. In the event that wastewater is generated at a 
fuel blending facility, the facility is most likely performing some 
pretreatment operations (usually to remove water). These pretreatment 
wastewaters would be subject to this rule.

N. Re-refining

    When EPA initially proposed guidelines and standards for CWT 
facilities, the regulations would have limited discharges from used oil 
reprocessors/reclaimers, but did not specifically include or exclude 
discharges from used oil re-refiners. During review of information 
received on the proposal and assessment of the information collected, 
the Agency, at one point, considered limiting the scope of this 
regulation to reprocessors/reclaimers only because it was not clear 
whether re-refiners actually generated wastewater. However, further 
data gathering efforts have revealed that re-refiners may generate 
wastewater and that the principal sources of re-refining wastewaters 
are essentially the same as for reprocessors/reclaimers. Consequently, 
the re-refining wastewater is included within the scope of this 
proposal.
    The used oil reclamation and re-refining industry was studied by 
EPA in the 1980s. EPA published the ``Preliminary Data Summary for the 
Used Oil Reclamation and Re-Refining Industry'' (EPA 440/1-89/014) in 
September 1989 which describes this industry and the processes 
utilized. This document generally characterizes the industry in terms 
of the types of equipment used to process the used oil. Minor 
processors (reclaimers) generally separate water and solids from the 
used oil using simple settling technology, primarily in-line filtering, 
and gravity settling with or without heat addition. Major processors 
(reclaimers) generally use various combinations of more sophisticated 
technology including screen filtration, heated settling, 
centrifugation, and light fraction distillation primarily to remove 
water. Re-refiners generally use the most sophisticated systems which 
include, in addition to the previous technologies, a vacuum 
distillation step to separate the oil into different components.
    Today's proposal applies to the process wastewater discharges from 
used oil re-refining operations. The principal sources of wastewater 
include oil-water gravity separation (often accompanied by chemical/
thermal emulsion breaking) and dehydration unit operations (including 
light distillation and the first stage of vacuum distillation). EPA 
has, to date, identified two re-refining facilities. Data for these 
facilities have not yet been included in the economic analysis for the 
proposed rule, but will be included in the analysis for the final rule.

O. Used Oil Filter Recycling

    EPA did not obtain information on used oil filter recycling through 
the Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire. However, in response to the 
September 1996 Notice of Data Availability, EPA received comments from 
facilities which recycle used oil

[[Page 2291]]

filters. In addition, EPA also visited several used oil reprocessors 
that recycle used oil filters as part of their operations.
    Used oil filter recycling processes range from simple crushing and 
draining of entrained oil to more involved processes where filters are 
shredded and the metal and filter material are separated. In all cases, 
the oil is recycled, the crushed filters and separated metal are sent 
to smelters, and the separated filter material is recovered as solid 
fuel. Also, in all cases observed, the operations generate no process 
wastewater. Therefore, based on this characterization, used oil filter 
recycling operations would not be subject to the provisions of the CWT 
rule as proposed today. EPA is also considering whether this rule, when 
promulgated, should include a subcategory for used oil filter recycling 
with a zero discharge requirement for such operation. EPA is requesting 
comment on such an approach, and the number of facilities engaged in 
this activity. EPA specifically seeks data on any such facilities that 
may produce a process wastewater in their operations.

P. Marine Generated Wastes

    EPA received many comments on the original proposal relating to 
marine generated wastes. Since these wastes are often generated while a 
ship is at sea and subsequently off-loaded at port for treatment, the 
treatment site could arguably be classified as a CWT facility due to 
its acceptance of ``off'' site wastes. Commenters, however, claimed 
that marine wastes should not be subject to the CWT rule for the 
following reasons:
     Unlike most CWT waste streams, bilge and/or ballast water 
contains dilute concentrations of pollutants and is generally not 
toxic; and
     Much of the bilge water is generated while the ship is 
docked. If only the portion of bilge water contained in the ship upon 
docking is subject to regulation, it would be expensive and inefficient 
to monitor only that small portion for compliance with the CWT rule.
    EPA reexamined its database concerning these wastes as well as 
additional data on the characteristics of these types of wastes 
provided through comments to the 1995 proposal and collected by EPA 
during development of the recently proposed Uniform National Discharge 
Standards (UNDS) (63 FR 45298). Based on data provided by industry as 
well as data collected during the development of UNDS, EPA has 
determined these waste streams may be similar in some cases to the 
toxic wastewaters proposed here for regulation. The data on bilge and 
ballast water characteristics show that bilge and ballast water can 
vary greatly in terms of the number of pollutants present and their 
concentration from one ship to another. In most instances, the 
pollutants and concentrations are similar to those found in wastes 
typical of those proposed for regulation in the oils subcategory. EPA 
found that while some shipyards and docking facilities have specialized 
treatment centers for bilge and/or ballast wastes, some of these wastes 
are being treated at off-site CWT facilities. EPA has concluded that 
marine-generated, ``off-site'' wastes should not be included in the 
scope of today's proposal except where this waste is not treated and 
discharged at the ship service facility receiving the waste.
    For purposes of this rule, EPA is defining marine waste as waste 
generated as part of the normal maintenance and operation of a ship, 
boat, or barge operating on inland, coastal or open waters. Such wastes 
may include ballast water, bilge water, and other wastes generated as 
part of routine ship operations. EPA has determined that a wastewater 
off-loaded from a ship shall be considered as being generated on-site 
at the point where it is off-loaded provided that the waste is 
generated as part of the routine maintenance and operation of the ship 
on which it originated while at sea. The waste will not be considered 
an off-site generated waste (and thus subject to CWT requirements) as 
long as it is treated and discharged at the ship servicing facility 
where it is off-loaded. Therefore, these facilities would not be 
considered CWT facilities. If, however, marine generated wastes are 
off-loaded and subsequently sent to a CWT facility at a separate 
location, these facilities and their waste streams would be subject to 
provisions of this rule.

Q. Stabilization

    In the original CWT proposal, waste solidification/stabilization 
operations were specifically not subject to the CWT rule. The reason 
stated for EPA's conclusion was that these operations are ``dry'' and 
do not generally produce a wastewater. EPA reexamined its database and 
concluded that this assessment remains valid. As such, stabilization/
solidification processes are not subject to the CWT rule as proposed 
today. If, however, the stabilization/solidification facility produces 
a wastewater from treatment and/or recovery of off-site wastes through 
any other operation, those wastewaters would be subject to the CWT 
rule. EPA is also considering whether this rule, when promulgated, 
should include a subcategory for stabilization operations with a zero 
discharge requirement. EPA is requesting comment on such an approach, 
and specifically seeks any data on facilities that may produce a 
process wastewater in their stabilization operations.

R. Grease Trap/Interceptor Wastes

    EPA received comments on coverage of grease, sand, and oil 
interceptor wastes by the CWT rule during the comment period for the 
original proposal and 1996 Notice of Data Availability. Some of these 
wastes are from non-industrial sources and some are from industrial 
sources. Some are treated at central locations designed to exclusively 
treat grease trap/interceptor wastes and some of these wastes are 
treated at traditional CWT facilities with traditional CWT wastes.
    Throughout the development of this rule, EPA has maintained that 
this rule is designed to cover the treatment and/or recovery of off-
site industrial wastes. As such, as proposed today, grease/trap 
interceptor wastes do not fall within the scope of the proposal. Grease 
trap/interceptor wastes are defined as animal or vegetable fats/oils 
from grease traps or interceptors generated by facilities engaged in 
food service activities. Such facilities include restaurants, 
cafeterias, and caterers. Excluded grease trap/interceptor wastes 
should not contain any hazardous chemicals or materials that would 
prevent the fats/oils from being recovered and recycled. Wastewater 
discharges from the centralized treatment of wastes produced from oil 
interceptors, which are designed to collect petroleum-based oils, sand, 
etc. from industrial type processes, would be subject to this rule.

S. Small Businesses

    During consideration of this proposal, among other alternatives, 
EPA looked at whether it should limit the scope of this rule to 
facilities above a certain size or flow level because of potential 
impacts to small businesses. Given an assessment of potentially 
significant effects on small businesses, EPA convened in November 1997 
a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel (also referred to as SBAR 
Panel, SBREFA panel, or panel) for this rule. After collecting advice 
and recommendations from Small Entity Representatives (SERs), the Panel 
discussed at length the possible impacts of the rule on small 
businesses and various regulatory alternatives that might mitigate 
these impacts. For a detailed summary of the panel's

[[Page 2292]]

findings and discussion, see ``Final Report of the SBREFA Small 
Business Advocacy Review Panel on EPA's Planned Proposed Rule for 
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Centralized Waste 
Treatment Industry,'' January 23, 1998 (available in the public 
docket). Among the regulatory alternatives discussed by the panel were 
limiting the scope of the rule to various small business or small 
facilities, including limiting the scope to not include all indirect 
dischargers with flows under 3.5 million gallons per year (MGY), to not 
include all indirect dischargers treating non-hazardous water only with 
flows under either 3.5 or 7.5 MGY, and to not include all indirect 
dischargers owned by companies with less than $6 million in annual 
revenue, which is the Small Business Administration cut off for a small 
business in this industry. A detailed analysis of the effects of these 
possible scope limitations is included in the EA and summarized in 
Section XI.L. The panel focused on indirect discharging facilities 
because most small companies are indirect dischargers. Based on EPA's 
current analyses, limiting the scope of the rule to not include all 
indirect dischargers with flows under 3.5 MGY would address over half 
of the small businesses potentially covered by the rule, reduce 
compliance costs among indirect dischargers by about 22% while reducing 
estimated pollutant removals by about 11%, and minimize projected 
facility closures and job losses among all of the options considered. 
Alternatively, limiting the scope of the rule to not include all 
indirect discharging facilities owned by small businesses would 
eliminate virtually all small business impacts (only 2 direct 
discharging facilities owned by small businesses) and reduce pollutant 
removals by about 30%. This option would result in somewhat more 
facility closures and job losses than limiting the scope to not include 
all indirect dischargers with flows under 3.5 MGY, but the relief 
provided would be more directly targeted to small businesses.
    Despite considerable effort, the SBREFA panel was not able to reach 
consensus on a specific recommendation for providing regulatory relief 
to small businesses that would not jeopardize the pollutant removals 
and corresponding environmental benefits anticipated to result from the 
rule. EPA's primary concern with limiting the scope of the rule is that 
the ``lost'' pollutant reductions associated with these scope 
limitations are not insignificant, that the analysis represents a 
snapshot of a rapidly changing industry, and that any segment might 
quickly expand as a result of scope limitations, leading to much 
greater discharges within a few years. The panel noted that one way of 
addressing this concern would be to put a mass-based limit on receipts 
as part of the eligibility requirements for the scope limitation. This 
could ensure that significant volumes of highly contaminated wastes 
would not be handled by the facilities not included in the scope of the 
rule. However, it would also constrain the flexibility of small 
businesses benefiting from these scope limitations, and might require 
them to give up a significant share of their existing business. Mass-
based limits on receipts, if set at a low level, might require some 
small businesses to ``give up'' a significant share of their existing 
business. On the other hand, many small businesses might save money if 
they can limit their mass discharges and avoid the cost of wastewater 
treatment. EPA is also reluctant to provide any type of scope 
limitation based on low-flow or the size of the business because of its 
concern that many existing plants may not be providing effective 
treatment because they are commingling dissimilar waste streams prior 
to treatment. This concern is discussed further in Section V.B.
    Because of these concerns and others discussed more fully in 
Section XI.L, EPA is not proposing to limit the scope of today's 
proposal based on either the size of a facility or the volume of 
wastewater flows. However, EPA requests comment on this issue. EPA also 
requests comment on ways in which it could structure limiting the scope 
of the rule to not include small businesses or low-flow facilities that 
would address the concerns discussed above.

T. Hazardous vs. Non-hazardous Wastes

    Another option discussed by the SBREFA panel was to develop 
alternative regulatory requirements for oils subcategory facilities 
based on the types of waste receipts treated. This could mean 
limitations and standards for oils subcategory facilities that treat 
RCRA subtitle C hazardous wastes (either exclusively or in combinations 
with non-hazardous wastes) that are different from those that would 
apply to oils subcategory facilities that treat only non-hazardous 
wastes. Another alternative would be to develop different limitations 
and standards for oils facilities with and without RCRA subtitle C 
permits. This could also mean not regulating discharges from the 
treatment of non-hazardous waste receipts or ``non-RCRA permitted'' 
facilities. The Panel discussion of this option responded to an SER 
comment that non-hazardous flows contain relatively low pollutant 
loadings as compared to hazardous flows. The Panel was concerned that 
the same guidelines and standards may not be appropriate to flows with 
very different characteristics. Other SERs disagreed and argued that 
hazardous flows are already heavily regulated while non-hazardous flows 
are not (although neither are currently subject to categorical effluent 
guidelines or pretreatment standards). In their view, it is, thus, 
important that the proposed rule apply equally to both types of flows. 
These SERs further argued that establishing different requirements for, 
or not including facilities that treat only non-hazardous waste could 
create a competitive disadvantage for those facilities that treat both 
hazardous and non-hazardous waste.
    EPA's database on oils subcategory facilities contains information 
that was collected at facilities which treat a mixture of hazardous and 
non-hazardous wastes and facilities which treat non-hazardous wastes 
only. The majority of the data collected prior to the SBREFA Panel was 
collected at facilities which have permits to accept hazardous waste 
and treat a portion of RCRA subtitle C hazardous waste with non-
hazardous waste. Some data reflect facilities that do not have a RCRA 
permit to treat hazardous waste. Although these data suggest that flows 
from non-RCRA permitted facilities may have significantly lower 
pollutant loadings, they are inadequate to support the conclusion that 
EPA should differentiate between oily facilities on the basis of 
whether hazardous or non-hazardous wastes are treated at the facility. 
Consequently, EPA has not proposed different regulatory requirements 
for facilities based on distinctions between hazardous and non-
hazardous waste or, alternatively, provided different limitations 
depending on whether the facility has a RCRA permit.
    However, following the SBREFA panel, EPA collected raw wastewater 
samples at ten additional facilities that treat only non-hazardous 
materials in order to obtain additional information on the pollutant 
profiles of the wastes that are treated at these facilities. These 
samples have now been analyzed and the results are included in Appendix 
B to the technical development document. EPA has not yet had the 
opportunity to review the data in detail or to compare these results to 
the earlier data it collected. As a result, the Agency at this

[[Page 2293]]

time does not know whether the data would support a determination that 
oily waste facilities treating exclusively non-hazardous waste treat a 
significantly different waste stream from RCRA subtitle C facilities. 
Consequently, EPA at this time has not proposed different regulatory 
requirements for oily waste facilities based on whether they treat 
hazardous or non-hazardous waste or whether or not they have a RCRA 
subtitle C permit.
    EPA plans to review this data in detail and will present its 
assessment before commencing the public hearing on pretreatment 
standards scheduled for February 18, 1999. The assessment will also be 
available in the public docket for this rule on that date. Any member 
of the public wishing to submit comment on EPA's assessment should 
submit comments on that information within 30 days of February 18, 
1999. Note that EPA will accept comment on this material only through 
March 22, 1999 following the close of the 60 day comment period for the 
proposed rule.

V. Industry Profile

    EPA is today proposing limitations and standards for three 
subcategories of CWT facilities: facilities treating either metal, oil, 
or organic wastes and wastewater. This subcategorization scheme is 
discussed in Section VII. The following provides a general description 
of the CWT industry that would be subject to this proposal if 
promulgated.

A. Description of the 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: (a) The manner in which manufacturing facilities have 
selected to comply with CWA and RCRA requirements; (b) the manner in 
which the applicability sections of promulgated CWA effluent guidelines 
were developed; and (c) the RCRA 1992 used oil management requirements.
    A manufacturing facility's options for managing wastes include on-
site treatment or sending them off-site. Because a large number of 
operations (both large and small) have chosen to send their wastes off-
site, specialized facilities have developed whose sole commercial 
operation is the handling of wastewater treatment residuals and 
industrial process by-products.
    The manner in which the applicability sections of many promulgated 
effluent guidelines were developed also encouraged the creation of 
these central treatment centers. Facilities which send their waste off-
site to CWT facilities are generally considered ``zero or alternative 
dischargers'' in the effluent guidelines development program, and are 
not directly subject to the categorical standards. Additionally, RCRA 
regulations, such as the 1992 used oil management requirements (40 CFR 
part 279), significantly influenced the size and service provided by 
this industry.
    Based upon responses to EPA's data gathering efforts (see 
discussion below), the Agency now estimates that there are 
approximately 205 CWT facilities in 38 States. The major concentration 
of CWT facilities is in EPA Regions 4, 5, and 6 due to the proximity of 
the industries generating the wastes undergoing treatment. At the time 
of the original proposal, EPA estimated there were 85 CWT facilities in 
the United States. EPA, however, greatly underestimated the size of the 
proposed oily waste and recovery subcategory. Through additional data 
gathering activities (see discussion below), EPA obtained information 
on additional oils facilities. Except for facilities that were included 
or excluded because of scope changes/clarifications, all of the 
facilities which have been added since the original proposal treat and/
or recover oily waste and/or used oil. EPA is aware that facilities in 
the metals and organics subcategories have joined and or left the CWT 
market also. This is expected in a service industry. Even so, EPA 
believes its initial estimate of facilities in the other subcategories 
is reasonable and no adjustments, other than those resulting from the 
redefined scope of the industry, have been made. EPA notes that its 
current estimate may not include the entire universe of CWT facilities, 
and again solicits information on the number, name, and location of 
facilities within this industry.
    CWT facilities do not fall into a single description and are as 
varied as the wastes they accept. Some treat wastes from a few 
generating facilities while others treat wastes from hundreds of 
generators. Some treat only certain types of waste while others accept 
many wastes. Some treat non-hazardous wastes exclusively while others 
treat hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. Some primarily treat 
concentrated wastes while others primarily treat more dilute wastes. 
For some, their primary business is the treatment of other company's 
wastes while, for others, CWT is ancillary to their main business.
    CWT facilities treat hazardous and/or non-hazardous wastes. At the 
time of the original proposal, a few of the facilities in the industry 
database solely accepted wastes classified as non-hazardous under RCRA. 
The remaining facilities accepted either hazardous wastes only or a 
combination of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. The vast majority of 
the newly identified oils facilities only accept non-hazardous 
materials. As such, EPA believes the market for CWT of non-hazardous 
materials has increased during the 1990s.
    CWT facilities service a variety of customers. A CWT facility 
generally receives a variety of wastes daily from dozens of customers. 
Some customers routinely generate a particular waste stream, and are 
either unable to provide effective on-site treatment of that waste 
stream or find it cheaper to send the waste stream off-site for 
treatment. Some customers utilize CWT facilities because they generate 
particular waste streams only sporadically (for example tank removal, 
tank cleaning and remediation wastes) and are unable to economically 
provide effective on-site treatment of these wastes. Some, including 
many which are small businesses, utilize CWT facilities as their 
primary source of wastewater treatment.
    Before a CWT facility accepts a waste for treatment, the waste 
generally undergoes 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, at some facilities, bench-scale treatability tests 
are performed to determine what treatment is necessary to treat the 
waste stream effectively. After all analyses 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. Generally, 
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, and does not fall within an 
allowable

[[Page 2294]]

range, the treatment facility will decline the shipment for treatment.
    Many 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 may be a 
significant component of the cost of operating CWT facilities.

B. Off-Site Treatment Incentives and Comparable Treatment

    As noted before, the adoption of the increased pollution control 
measures required by the CWA and RCRA regulations were a significant 
factor in the formation and development of the CWT industry. Major 
contributors to the growth of this industry include the EPA CWA 
effluent limitations guidelines program as well as the manner in which 
manufacturing facilities have elected to comply with CWA and RCRA 
requirements.
    The CWA requires the establishment of limitations and standards for 
categories of point sources that discharge into surface waters or 
introduce pollutants into publicly owned treatment works. At present, 
facilities that do not discharge wastewater (or introduce pollutants to 
POTWs) may not be subject to the requirements of 40 CFR Subchapter N 
Parts 400 to 471. Such facilities include manufacturing or service 
facilities that generate no process wastewater, facilities that recycle 
all contaminated waters, and facilities that use some kind of 
alternative disposal technology or practice (for example, deep well 
injection, incineration, evaporation, surface impoundment, land 
application, and transfer to a CWT facility).
    Thus, for example, in implementing CWA and RCRA requirements in the 
electroplating industry, many facilities made process modifications to 
conserve and recycle process wastewater, to extend the lives of plating 
baths, and to minimize the generation of wastewater treatment sludges. 
As the volumes of wastewater were reduced, it became economically 
attractive to transfer electroplating metal-bearing wastewater to off-
site CWT facilities for treatment or metals recovery rather than to 
invest in on-site treatment systems. In the case of the OCPSF industry, 
many facilities transferred selected process residuals and small 
volumes of process wastewater to off-site CWT facilities. When 
estimating the engineering costs for the OCPSF industry to comply with 
the OCPSF regulation, the Agency assumed, based on economies of scale, 
in the case of facilities with wastewater flows less than 500 gallons 
per day, that such plants would use off-site rather than on-site 
wastewater treatment.
    In the development of existing effluent guidelines EPA considered 
incremental costs for facilities that would likely choose hauling 
wastes to CWT facilities as a less expensive alternative to compliance 
with the effluent guideline by installing and operating control and 
treatment technologies on-site. These estimates generally used an 
average cost of treatment provided by CWT facilities at that time. EPA 
excluded from these estimates facilities that were hauling wastes to 
CWT facilities in advance of effluent guidelines for their industry. 
The potential economic impact of the incremental controls being 
required through today's proposal on customers was evaluated and found 
to increase the price from less than half a percent to approximately 25 
percent.
    The Agency believes that any wastes transferred to an off-site CWT 
facility should be treated effectively, in a manner consistent with the 
technology-based provisions of the CWA, and that categorical standards 
are necessary to ensure that this occurs. In the absence of appropriate 
regulations to ensure at least comparable or adequate treatment, the 
CWT facility may inadvertently offer an economic incentive for 
increasing the pollutant load to the environment. One of the Agency's 
primary concerns is the potential for a discharger to reduce its 
wastewater pollutant concentrations through dilution rather than 
through appropriate treatment. While the Agency has already promulgated 
regulations at Sec. 403.6(d) prohibiting dilution in lieu of treatment, 
it is concerned that some CWT facilities may be inadvertently engaging 
in dilution by combining in a single treatment system dissimilar waste 
streams for which different types of treatment would be more 
appropriate. Today's proposal is designed to ensure that wastes 
transferred to CWT facilities will be treated effectively.
    This is illustrated by the information the Agency obtained during 
the data gathering activities for the 1995 proposal. EPA visited 27 CWT 
facilities in an effort to identify well-designed, well-operated 
candidate treatment systems for sampling. Two of the principal criteria 
for selecting plants for sampling were whether the plant applied waste 
management practices that increased the effectiveness of the treatment 
system and whether the treatment system was effective in removing 
pollutants. One of the primary reasons why some plants did not satisfy 
these criteria was co-dilution of one type of waste with another. For 
example, many facilities treated metal-bearing and oily wastes in the 
same treatment system and many facilities mixed non-CWT wastewater with 
CWT wastewater. Mixing metal-bearing with non-metal-bearing oily 
wastewater and mixing CWT with non-CWT wastewater provides a dilution 
effect which generally reduces the efficiency of the wastewater 
treatment system. Of the 27 plants visited, many were not sampled 
because of the problems of assessing CWT treatment efficiencies due to 
combining one type of wastewater with another.
    Today's proposal would ensure, to the extent possible, that metal-
bearing wastes are treated with metals control technology, that oily 
wastes are treated with oils control technology, and that organic 
wastes are treated with organics control technology.
    In developing today's proposal, EPA identified a wide variation in 
the size of CWT facilities and the level of treatment provided by these 
facilities. Often, pollutant removals were significantly lower than 
would have been required had the wastewaters been treated at the site 
where generated. In particular, EPA's survey indicated that some 
facilities were employing only the most basic pollution control 
equipment and, as a result, achieved low pollutant removals relative to 
those which could be achieved through the use of other available 
pollutant control technologies. Further, as explained below, EPA found 
that most facilities had not installed appropriate technology and/or 
were not operating the installed technology effectively.
    As discussed previously, during consideration of this proposal, EPA 
looked at whether it should limit the scope of national regulation to 
facilities above a certain size or flow level because of information 
before the Agency suggesting that, in the case of many smaller 
facilities, the costs of additional controls would represent a 
significant increase in their costs of operation. The Small Business 
Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel, convened by EPA for this rulemaking, 
discussed this approach extensively. For the reasons explained above, 
however, EPA is not proposing to limit the scope of today's proposal 
based on either the size of a facility or the volume of wastewater 
flows. The effect of such an approach, given the structure of the 
industry and treatment levels currently observed at some facilities, 
could be to encourage the movement of wastewater to facilities that are 
not providing effective treatment. EPA is, however,

[[Page 2295]]

requesting comment on this approach, which is discussed in Section 
IV.S. In order to ensure adequate controls for wastewater discharges 
from CWT facilities that accept waste and wastewater that would 
otherwise be controlled by other guidelines, EPA is proposing that all 
members of the CWT industry comply with economically achievable, 
national CWT standards.

VI. Summary of EPA Activities and Data Gathering Efforts

A. Preliminary Data Summary for the Hazardous Waste Treatment Industry

    EPA's initial effort to develop effluent limitations guidelines and 
pretreatment standards for the waste treatment industry began in 1986. 
The Agency initiated a study which looked at a range of facilities, 
including CWT facilities, landfills and industrial waste combustors, 
that received hazardous waste from off-site for treatment, recovery, or 
disposal. The purpose of the study was to develop information to 
characterize the hazardous waste treatment industry, its operations, 
and pollutant discharges to the nation's waters. EPA published the 
results of its examination of the industry in a report entitled the 
``Preliminary Data Summary for the Hazardous Waste Treatment Industry'' 
in 1989 (EPA 440/1-89/100). In addition, EPA conducted two similar, but 
separate studies, of the solvent recycling industry and the used oil 
reclamation and re-refining industry during the same time period. In 
1989, EPA also published the results of these studies in two reports 
entitled the ``Preliminary Data Summary for the Solvent Recycling 
Industry'' (EPA 440/1-89/102) and the ``Preliminary Data Summary for 
Used Oil Reclamation and Re-refining Industry'' (EPA 440/1-89/014).
    After a thorough analysis of the data presented in the Preliminary 
Data Summary, EPA decided it should develop effluent guidelines 
regulations for the CWT industry. EPA also decided to develop effluent 
guidelines regulations for landfills and industrial waste combustors, 
proposing these on February 6, 1998 (63 FR 6426 and 63 FR 6392, 
respectively). In addition to CWT facilities, EPA also studied fuel 
blending operations and waste solidification/stabilization facilities. 
As detailed and defined in the applicability section, EPA has decided 
not to propose nationally applicable effluent limitations guidelines 
and standards for fuel blending and stabilization operations.

B. Survey Questionnaires (1991 Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire 
and Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire)

    There are three major sources of information and data used in 
developing today's effluent limitations guidelines and standards 
proposal. Two of these are industry responses to detailed technical and 
economic questionnaires and responses to subsequent follow up 
monitoring questionnaires distributed by EPA (the third is discussed in 
the subsequent section). In 1991, EPA sent the 1991 Waste Treatment 
Industry Questionnaire to 455 facilities that the Agency had identified 
as possible CWT facilities. Because there is no specific CWT Industry 
Standard Industrial Code (SIC) code, identification of facilities was 
difficult. EPA looked to directories of treatment facilities, other 
Agency information sources, and even telephone directories to identify 
the 455 facilities which received the questionnaires. EPA received 
responses from 413 facilities indicating that 89 treated or recovered 
material from off-site industrial waste in 1989. The remaining 324 
facilities did not treat, or recover, materials from industrial waste 
from off-site. Four of the 89 facilities received waste via a pipeline 
(fixed delivery system) from the original source of wastewater 
generation.
    The technical section of the questionnaire specifically requested 
information on: (1) the type and quantities 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 
CWT wastewater with wastewater from other industrial operations at the 
facility); and (6) the extent of wastewater recycling and/or reuse at 
the facility. EPA obtained further information through follow-up 
telephone calls and written requests for clarification of questionnaire 
responses.
    As a follow-up to the initial questionnaire, EPA requested detailed 
wastewater monitoring information from twenty in-scope facilities 
selected from the questionnaire mailing list. These facilities were 
selected based upon their responses. EPA reviewed each facility's 
monitoring summary provided in the questionnaire, discharge permit 
requirements, off-site waste receipts, and treatment technologies and 
practices. Based on responses, EPA determined that these twenty 
facilities could provide useful information on technology performance 
and pollutant removal.
    EPA asked that the twenty selected facilities send effluent 
wastewater monitoring data in the form of individual data points rather 
than monthly aggregates, generally for the 1990 calendar year. When 
appropriate, EPA used this detailed monitoring data to calculate the 
variability factors and long-term averages used in determining the 
industry effluent limits (See section IX of today's notice). EPA also 
requested analytical data for intermediate waste treatment points from 
some facilities. In this manner, EPA hoped to obtain information about 
pollutant removal across individual treatment units in addition to the 
entire treatment train. Finally, EPA asked facilities to submit 
information on pollutant concentrations and waste receipt data for a 
six week period. EPA collected the waste receipt data to provide 
information about the types of wastes treated and the influent waste 
characteristics due to the absence of influent wastewater monitoring 
data.

C. Wastewater Sampling and Site Visits

    Between 1989 and 1994, EPA visited 27 CWT facilities. The purpose 
of these visits was to collect various information about the operation 
of CWT facilities and, in most cases, to evaluate each facility as a 
potential week-long sampling candidate. The selection of these 
facilities was largely based on the types of off-site waste received at 
the facility and the types of wastewater treatment operations on-site. 
During the site visits, EPA collected information on the facility and 
its operations. This included information on the wastes accepted for 
treatment and the facility's waste acceptance criteria, the raw 
wastewater generated and its sources, the wastewater treatment on-site, 
and the location of potential sampling points. Following the original 
CWT proposal, EPA conducted site visits at eleven additional 
facilities. EPA selected these facilities based on information obtained 
through comment responses and contacts with the industry, AMSA, and EPA 
Regional staff.
    Based on an analysis of information collected during the site 
visits, EPA selected 14 facilities to sample in order to characterize 
the performance of their treatment systems. EPA sampled ten of the 
facilities prior to the original proposal and four facilities after the 
1995 proposal. EPA sampled twice at two of the facilities. During each 
sampling episode, EPA sampled facility influent and effluent streams. 
EPA also collected samples at intermediate points

[[Page 2296]]

throughout the entire waste/wastewater treatment system to assess the 
performance of individual treatment units. Generally, EPA conducted the 
sampling episodes over a five day period. EPA obtained 24-hour 
composite samples for continuous systems and grab samples for batch 
systems. Depending on the wastes/wastewaters treated at the site and 
the technology employed, EPA analyzed for up to 460 analytes.
    Data collected from the influent samples contributed to 
characterization of the industry, development of the list of pollutants 
of concern, and development of raw wastewater characteristics. EPA used 
the data collected from the influent, intermediate, and effluent points 
to analyze the efficacy of treatment at the facilities, and to develop 
current discharge concentrations, loadings, and the treatment 
technology options for the CWT industry. EPA used data collected from 
the effluent points to calculate the long-term averages (LTAs) and 
limitations for each of the proposed regulatory options.
    Additionally, in March and April 1998, EPA conducted site visits at 
eleven facilities which treat and/or recover non-hazardous oils wastes, 
oily wastewater, or used oil material from off-site. While the 
information collected at these facilities was similar to information 
collected during previous site visits, these facilities were selected 
based solely on waste receipts. That is, they were selected 
specifically to investigate the question of whether oily hazardous 
waste receipts are different from oily non-hazardous waste receipts and 
whether oily wastes at facilities without RCRA hazardous waste permits 
are significantly different from oily waste treated by facilities with 
RCRA permits. The facilities represent a diverse mix of facility size, 
treatment processes, and geographical locations. Also, unlike previous 
site visits, EPA collected samples of their waste receipts and effluent 
discharged at 10 of these facilities. These samples were one-time grabs 
and were analyzed for metals, classicals, and semi-volatile organic 
compounds. The analytical results are included in an appendix to the 
technical development document, but EPA has not incorporated the 
results into the analyses presented today. As discussed in Section 
IV.S, EPA plans to use this analytical data for further analyses and 
will present its assessment before commencement of the pretreatment 
public hearing on February 18, 1999.
1. Metal-bearing Waste Treatment and Recovery Sampling
    Of the sampling episodes completed from 1989 to 1994, EPA conducted 
six at facilities classified in the metals subcategory. EPA re-sampled 
at two of these facilities in 1996 following the original proposal. 
Both of these facilities had altered their treatment systems somewhat 
from the treatment schemes in place at the time of the original 
sampling episodes. All of the facilities employed some form of chemical 
precipitation as part of their treatment of the metal-bearing waste 
streams. Only one of the facilities sampled discharged to a surface 
water. The rest are indirect dischargers. The Agency evaluated the 
following treatment technologies: primary precipitation, secondary 
precipitation, and tertiary precipitation, selective metals 
precipitation, gravity separation, multimedia filtration, 
clarification, liquid and sludge filtration, and treatment technologies 
for cyanide destruction.
2. Oily Waste Treatment and Recovery Sampling
    Of the sampling episodes completed between 1989 and 1994, EPA 
conducted four at facilities which treat oily wastes. During 1995-1996, 
the Agency sampled an additional two oily waste facilities. All 
performed an initial gravity separation step with or without emulsion 
breaking to remove oil from wastewater. At this point, some facilities 
commingled the oily wastewaters with other non-oily wastewaters for 
additional treatment. At facilities which commingled their waste 
streams, data was collected after the emulsion breaking step and prior 
to commingling to characterize waste receipts and not for establishing 
limitations and standards. None of the sampled oils facilities were 
direct discharging facilities. EPA evaluated the following treatment 
technologies for this subcategory: gravity separation, emulsion 
breaking, ultrafiltration, dissolved air flotation, biological 
treatment, reverse osmosis, carbon adsorption, and air stripping. For 
the sampling episodes prior to 1995, EPA analyzed samples for oil and 
grease using Method 413.1 (total recoverable oil and grease) which uses 
freon. Since this method is being phased out, for the sampling episodes 
conducted during 1995 and 1996, EPA analyzed the samples for oil and 
grease as measured by the newly proposed Method 1664 for Hexane 
Extractable Materials (HEM) and Silica Gel Treated Hexane Extractable 
Materials (SGT-HEM). EPA believes that oil and grease measurements from 
Method 413.1 and HEM measurements from Method 1664 are comparable and 
has used the data interchangeably.
3. Organic Waste Treatment and Recovery Sampling
    EPA had difficulty identifying facilities that could be used to 
characterize waste streams and assess treatment technology performance 
for the organics subcategory. A large portion of the facilities whose 
organic waste treatment operations EPA evaluated had other industrial 
operations on-site. For these facilities, CWT waste streams represented 
a minor component of the overall flow treated at the facility.
    EPA did identify and sample three facilities treating a significant 
volume of off-site generated organic waste relative to non-CWT flows. 
EPA evaluated the following treatment technologies employed at these 
facilities: air stripping, biological treatment in a sequencing batch 
reactor, multi-media filtration, carbon adsorption and carbon dioxide 
extraction. None of the organic facilities sampled were direct 
discharging facilities. EPA has not used data from one of the 
facilities in calculating effluent levels achievable with its in-place 
technologies because the facility was experiencing operational 
difficulties with the treatment system at the time of sampling. In 
addition, after reviewing this facility's waste receipts during the 
sampling episode, EPA determined that the facility accepted both oil 
subcategory and organic subcategory waste streams and commingled them 
for treatment. EPA has also not used data from a second facility in 
calculating effluent levels achievable with its in-place technologies 
for the same reason.

D. Analytical Methods

    Section 304(h) of the Clean Water Act directs EPA to promulgate 
guidelines establishing test procedures for the analysis of pollutants. 
These methods allow the analyst to determine the presence and 
concentration of pollutants in wastewater, and are used for compliance 
monitoring and for filing applications for the NPDES program under 40 
CFR 122.21, 122.41, 122.44 and 123.25, and for the implementation of 
the pretreatment standards under 40 CFR 403.10 and 403.12. To date, EPA 
has promulgated methods for all conventional and toxic pollutants and 
for some nonconventional pollutants. EPA has identified five pollutants 
pursuant to section 304(a)(4) of the CWA defined as ``conventional 
pollutants'' (See 40 CFR 401.16). Table I-B at 40 CFR part 136 lists 
the

[[Page 2297]]

analytical methods approved for these pollutants. EPA has listed, 
pursuant to section 307(a) of the Act, 65 metals and organic pollutants 
and classes of pollutants as ``toxic pollutants'' at 40 CFR 401.15. 
From the list of 65 classes of toxic pollutants, EPA identified a list 
of 126 ``Priority Pollutants.'' This list of Priority Pollutants is 
shown, for example, at 40 CFR Part 423, Appendix A. The list includes 
non-pesticide organic pollutants, metal pollutants, cyanide, asbestos, 
and pesticide pollutants.
    Currently approved methods for metals and cyanide are included in 
the table of approved inorganic test procedures at 40 CFR 136.3, Table 
I-B. Table I-C at 40 CFR 136.3 lists approved methods for measurement 
of non-pesticide organic pollutants, and Table I-D lists approved 
methods for the toxic pesticide pollutants and for other pesticide 
pollutants. Dischargers must use the test methods promulgated at 40 CFR 
136.3 or incorporated by reference in the tables, when available, to 
monitor pollutant discharges from the CWT industry, unless specified 
otherwise in Part 437 or by the permitting authority.
    Table I-C does not list 11 CWT semi-volatile organic pollutants and 
two CWT volatile organic pollutants (2-butanone and 2-propanone). 
However, the analyte list for EPA Method 1624 contains both volatile 
organic pollutants and the analyte list for EPA Method 1625 contains 
four of the semivolatile organic pollutants. EPA promulgated both of 
these methods for use in Clean Water Act measurement programs at 40 CFR 
part 136, Appendix A. As a part of this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to 
allow the use of EPA Method 1624 for the determination of the CWT 
volatile organic pollutants and modified versions of EPA Methods 625 
and 1625 for the determination of all CWT semivolatile organic 
pollutants. The proposed modifications to EPA Methods 625 and 1625 have 
been included in the Docket for this rulemaking. The modified versions 
of Methods 625 and 1625 will allow the analysis of all CWT semivolatile 
organic pollutants by each method. If EPA adopts these proposed 
modifications, the following pollutants will be added to their 
respective analyte lists.

    Additions to EPA Method 1625 and EPA Method 625

 
                          Pollutant                              CASRN
 
 acetophenone................................................    98-86-2
aniline......................................................    62-53-3
benzoic acid.................................................    65-85-0
2,3-dichloroaniline..........................................   608-27-5
o-cresol.....................................................    95-48-7
p-cresol.....................................................   160-44-5
pyridine.....................................................   110-86-1
 

    Additions to EPA Method 625:

 
                          Pollutant                              CASRN
 
alpha-terpineol..............................................    98-55-5
carbazole....................................................    86-74-8
n-decane.....................................................   124-18-5
n-octadecane.................................................   593-45-3
 

    These pollutants were found in CWT industry wastewaters in EPA's 
data gathering. The modifications to Methods 625 and 1625 consist of 
text, performance data, and preliminary quality control (QC) acceptance 
criteria for the additional analytes, if available. This information 
will allow a laboratory to practice the methods with the additional 
analytes as an integral part. The QC acceptance criteria for the 
additional analytes to be added to Method 1625 have been validated in 
single-laboratory studies. EPA plans further validation of these method 
modifications by use in subsequent data gathering for the final rule, 
and plans to promulgate these method modifications for monitoring at 40 
CFR part 437 (see 40 CFR 401.13) or at 40 CFR part 136 in the final 
rule for this rulemaking.
    On March 28, 1997, EPA proposed a means to streamline the method 
development and approval process (62 FR 14975) and on October 6, 1997, 
EPA published a notice of intent to implement a performance-based 
measurement system (PBMS) in all of its programs to the extent feasible 
(62 FR 52098). The Agency is currently determining the specific steps 
necessary to implement PBMS in all of its regulatory programs, and has 
approved a plan for implementation of PBMS in the water programs. Under 
PBMS, regulated entities will be able to modify methods without prior 
approval and will be able to use new methods without prior EPA 
approval, provided they notify the regulatory authority to which the 
data will be reported. EPA expects a final rule implementing PBMS in 
the water programs by the beginning of calendar year 1999. When the 
final rule takes effect, regulated entities in the CWT industry will be 
able to select methods for monitoring other than those approved at 40 
CFR parts 136 and 437, provided that certain validation requirements 
are met. Many of the details were provided at proposal (62 FR 14975) 
and will be finalized in the final PBMS rule.

E. Public Comments to the 1995 Proposal and the 1996 Notice of Data 
Availability

    In addition to data obtained through the Waste Treatment Industry 
Questionnaire, DMQ, site visits and sampling episodes, commenters on 
the 1995 proposal and the 1996 Notice of Data Availability also 
provided data to EPA. In fact, much of EPA's current description and 
estimates of the size of the oils subcategory is based on comments to 
the 1996 Notice of Data Availability.
    As described earlier, following the 1995 proposal, EPA revised its 
estimate of the number of facilities in the oils subcategory and its 
description of the oils subcategory. Using new information provided by 
the industry during the 1995 proposal comment period in conjunction 
with questionnaire responses and sampling data used to develop the 
proposal, EPA has recharacterized this subcategory of the industry. 
This recharacterization reflected new data on the wastes treated by the 
subcategory, the technology in-place, and the pollutants discharged. As 
part of this recharacterization, EPA developed individual profiles for 
each of the newly identified oils facilities by modeling current 
wastewater treatment performance and treated-effluent discharge flow 
rates. In addition, assuming the same treatment technology options 
identified at proposal, EPA recalculated the projected costs of the 
proposed options under consideration, expected pollutant reductions 
associated with the options, and the projected economic impacts.
    EPA presented its recharacterization of the oils subcategory in the 
September 1996 Notice of Data Availability (61 FR 48806). At that time, 
EPA estimated there were an additional 240 facilities in the oils 
subcategory and, as noted above, EPA developed a facility profile for 
each of these facilities. EPA presented that information in the 1996 
Notice and requested that facilities comment on the validity of the 
modeled profiles. In order to facilitate that effort, copies of the 
Notice and the individual facility profile were mailed to each of the 
newly identified facilities. The facility information sheets summarized 
the estimates that EPA developed for operations at a facility. The 
facility information sheets provided EPA's estimates on the facility's 
following characteristics: treated effluent flow, RCRA permit status, 
quantity of oily waste being treated, quantity of oil recovered, 
characteristics of the final treated effluent, oily waste technologies 
in place, total cost of providing oily

[[Page 2298]]

waste treatment and recovery, total revenues from oily waste treatment 
and recovery, total revenues from sale of recovered oil, and total 
facility employment.
    Of the 240 oils facilities for which NOA profiles were developed, 
EPA assessment showed that 20 facilities were closed. Of the remaining 
220 facilities, EPA received comments and revised profiles from 100. 
Therefore, 120 facilities did not provide comments to the Notice or 
revised facility profiles. Of those facilities supplying information, 
69 indicated their operations fall within the scope of the oils 
subcategory. EPA polled nine of the non-commenting facilities and 
determined that almost half of these are within the scope of the 
industry. Based on this information, EPA estimates that approximately 
half of the non-commenting facilities, or sixty, are within the scope 
of the oils subcategory. As to these sixty facilities that did not 
comment, EPA does not necessarily have facility-specific information 
for them.
    EPA has again revised its characterization of the subcategory based 
on information provided prior to the 1995 proposal, during the proposal 
comment period, and during the Notice comment period. This includes 
company-specific information provided by commenters to correct oily 
waste facility profiles initially developed by EPA. EPA has used the 
revised facility profiles and the earlier information to perform the 
technical and economic analyses for the oils subcategory. The final 
results of the analyses are adjusted upward to provide estimates of the 
total population of oils facilities.

F. Database Sources

    In developing the CWT effluent guidelines, EPA also evaluated the 
following data sources:
     Fate of Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment 
Works (50 POTW Study) database.
     EPA's National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) 
treatability database.
These data sources and their application to the development of the CWT 
effluent guidelines are discussed below.
    EPA used the data included in the report entitled ``Fate of 
Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works'' (EPA 440/1-82/
303, September 1982), commonly referred to as the ``50-POTW Study'', in 
determining those pollutants that would pass through a POTW. This study 
presents data on the performance of 50 well-operated POTWs that employ 
secondary treatment to remove toxic pollutants. EPA has edited this 
database in order to minimize the possibility that low POTW removals 
might simply reflect low influent concentrations instead of being a 
true measure of treatment effectiveness. The criteria used in revising 
the data in the 50-POTW study were the following: (1) detected 
pollutants must have at least 3 pairs (influent/effluent) of data 
points to be included, (2) average pollutant influent levels less than 
10 times the pollutant minimum analytical detection limit were 
eliminated, and (3) if none of the average pollutant influent 
concentrations exceeded 10 times the minimum analytical detection 
limit, then the average influent values less than 20 g/l were 
eliminated. EPA then calculated each POTW percent removal for each 
pollutant based on its average influent and its average effluent 
values. The POTW percent removal used for each pollutant in the pass-
through test is the median value of all the POTW percent removals for 
that pollutant. This is discussed in further detail in the technical 
development document.
    EPA's National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) 
developed a treatability database (formerly called the Risk Reduction 
Engineering Laboratory (RREL) database). This computerized database 
provides information, by pollutant, on removals obtained by various 
treatment technologies. The database provides the user with the 
specific data source, and the industry from which the wastewater was 
generated. EPA relied on the NRMRL database in its pass-through 
analysis to supplement the treatment information provided in the 50-
POTW study when there was insufficient information on specific 
pollutants. For each of the pollutants of concern (POCs) not found in 
the 50-POTW database, EPA took data from portions of the NRMRL 
database. EPA edited this data so that only treatment technologies 
representative of typical POTW secondary treatment operations 
(activated sludge, activated sludge with filtration, aerated lagoons) 
were used. The files were further edited to include information 
pertaining to domestic or industrial wastewater,2 unless 
other wastewater data were available. Pilot-scale and full-scale data 
were used, while bench-scale data were eliminated. Data from a peer-
reviewed journal or government report were used and lesser quality 
references were edited out. From the remaining pollutant removal data, 
the average percent removal for each pollutant was calculated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The NRMRL database breaks wastewaters down into the 
following categories: clean water, domestic water, groundwater, 
hazardous leachate, industrial wastewater, municipal leachate, 
commercial storage and disposal facility liquids, RCRA listed 
wastewater, synthetic wastewater, superfund wastewater, spill water, 
tap water, and surface water.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Summary of Public Participation

    EPA has strived to encourage the participation of all interested 
parties throughout the development of the CWT guidelines and standards. 
EPA has met with various industry representatives. These include the 
Environmental Technology Council (formerly the Hazardous Waste 
Treatment Council), the National Solid Waste Management Association 
(NSWMA), the National Oil Recyclers Association (NORA), and the 
Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA). EPA has also participated in 
industry meetings as well as meetings with individual companies that 
may be affected by these regulations. Additionally, EPA has met with 
environmental groups including members of the Natural Resources Defense 
Council. Finally, EPA has made a concerted effort to consult with EPA 
Regional staff, pretreatment coordinators, and state and local entities 
that will be responsible for implementing this regulation.
    EPA sponsored two public meetings, one prior to the original 
proposal on March 8, 1994 and one prior to this recent proposal on July 
27, 1997. The purpose of the public meetings was to share information 
about the content and status of the proposed regulations. The public 
meetings also gave interested parties an opportunity to provide 
information, data, and ideas on key issues. Following the 1995 
proposal, EPA also held a workshop and public hearing to discuss topics 
of interest to stakeholders and to receive oral comments.

H. Small Business Advocacy Review Panel

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), imposes certain duties on 
agencies that propose rules that may have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. These include requirements 
to assess the impact on small entities and seek their views. For 
example, unless EPA certifies that the proposed rule will not have such 
an impact, the statute requires an initial regulatory flexibility 
analysis (RFA). Section XI.L summarizes that analysis. The statute also 
provides that, where EPA has prepared an initial RFA, EPA must convene 
a Small Business Advocacy

[[Page 2299]]

Review Panel for the proposed rule to seek the advice and 
recommendations of small entities concerning the proposal. The review 
panel for today's proposal was composed of employees from EPA, the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of 
Management and Budget, and the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration (SBA) (5 U.S.C. Sec. 609(b)).
    During development of today's proposal, EPA undertook a preliminary 
assessment to determine the economic effect of the options being 
considered for proposal on small CWT companies. (The statute defines 
small entities, for purposes of RFA analyses, as small businesses, 
small not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental 
jurisdictions. EPA is not aware of any CWT facilities owned by not-for-
profit organizations or small governmental jurisdictions). Based on 
this initial evaluation, EPA concluded that, if EPA adopted limitations 
and standards based on some of the options being considered for 
proposal, the impact on small CWT companies might be significant. This 
would be particularly true with respect to CWT facilities that treated 
oily waste. Virtually all the small businesses potentially affected by 
the proposal would be found in this subcategory. While the absolute 
number of small businesses engaged in CWT operations was not large--EPA 
currently estimates that 63 small businesses own discharging CWT 
facilities--the potential costs for 71 percent of these companies would 
exceed one percent of their revenue.
    Given that several of the proposed options would have a significant 
economic effect on a high percentage of these small businesses, EPA 
decided to prepare the analysis that the statute requires for proposals 
imposing significant impacts on a substantial number of small entities. 
The assessment is discussed below in Section XI.L and in ``Economic 
Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for 
the CWT Industry.'' The assessment addresses all of the elements that 
are required for an initial RFA under section 603(b) of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act. In addition, pursuant to section 609(b), in May 1997, 
EPA decided to convene a panel for this proposed rule to collect the 
advice and recommendations of representatives of small CWT businesses 
that would be affected by the proposal.
    EPA convened the panel on November 6, 1997. The panel members met 
among themselves and also with representatives of small CWT businesses. 
The panel then prepared a report that summarized its activities. The 
report is available in the docket for this proposal (``Final Report of 
the SBREFA Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on EPA's Planned 
Proposed Rule for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the 
Centralized Waste Treatment Industry--January 23, 1998''). The report 
includes recommended alternatives and findings concerning the following 
issues:
     the type and number of small entities that would be 
subject to the proposal;
     record keeping, reporting and other compliance 
requirements that the proposal would impose on small entities subject 
to the proposal, if promulgated;
     identification of relevant Federal rules that may overlap 
or conflict with the proposed rule; and
     description of significant regulatory alternatives to the 
proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives of the CWA and 
minimize any significant economic impact on small entities.
    The panel reviewed a number of alternatives for minimizing impact 
on small businesses that are CWT facilities. Among the options 
discussed were the following:
    (a.) Relief from monitoring requirements. EPA's NPDES and 
pretreatment program regulations require monitoring by both direct and 
indirect dischargers to demonstrate compliance with discharge 
limitations and pretreatment standards. Local permitting authorities, 
under these regulations, retain considerable authority in determining 
the frequency of monitoring. Because a significant portion of the costs 
of complying with CWT limitations and standards is related to 
monitoring costs, the panel examined approaches to reduce these costs. 
The panel considered two options. The first is the use of an indicator 
parameter as a surrogate for regulated organic pollutants. Instead of 
being required to monitor for a series of organic pollutants, the 
discharger would only need to measure the one indicator parameter. The 
second option is for EPA to develop guidance for distribution to 
permitting authorities that would recommend a reduced monitoring regime 
for small businesses. This second option could also be combined with 
the first. The Agency has examined these options further as discussed 
below at IX.D.
    (b.) Other regulatory relief for oily waste treaters. As previously 
noted, the bulk of small CWT businesses are indirectly discharging oily 
waste treatment companies. The panel focused its attention on relief 
measures for these companies, but could develop no consensus on 
recommended relief. Among the measures considered are the following:
     The panel considered whether small businesses (those with 
less than $6 million in annual revenue) should not be included in the 
scope of the proposal or, alternatively, whether a flow cut off should 
be used so as to limit the facilities within the scope of the rule. In 
Section IV.S, EPA provides its current analyses of the effects of not 
including small businesses and of flow cut-offs of 3.5 million gallons 
per year (MGY) and 7 MGY on costs, facility closures, and pollutant 
loading removals. Neither the panel members nor the small business 
representatives could agree on whether such scope limitations would be 
appropriate. A more detailed discussion and request for comment on this 
issue is included in Section XI.L.
     The panel also heard a recommendation that EPA should 
propose pretreatment standards for oily waste treaters based on a less 
costly treatment option (emulsion breaking and secondary gravity 
separation) than dissolved air flotation. This treatment option is 
discussed with the other technology options considered for the oils 
subcategory as the basis for today's proposal, in Section IX.B.1.b.ii.
     Another relief option discussed is development of a 
streamlined procedure for obtaining a variance from categorical 
pretreatment standards. The CWA authorizes EPA to grant a variance from 
categorical pretreatment standards for facilities that, under specific 
circumstances, establish that their facility is ``fundamentally 
different'' with respect to the factors considered in establishing the 
categorical standard. The panel urged EPA to consider developing a 
procedure for small businesses to submit group applications for 
obtaining such variances to the extent the CWA would authorize adoption 
of such an approach. EPA discusses this relief option in Section XIV.C, 
Variances and Modifications.
    (c.) New source performance standards for metal-bearing waste 
treaters. Concern was also expressed during the panel review about the 
treatment technology being considered as the basis for EPA's new source 
performance standards and pretreatment standards for new sources for 
the metals subcategory. EPA's assessment of the cost of the technology 
then being considered showed that it was three times as expensive as 
the technology forming the basis for limitations and standards for 
existing sources and that the incremental pollutant removals of the 
more stringent technology were

[[Page 2300]]

small. In the view of some panel members, this might pose a potential 
entry barrier for small business. This concern is discussed further, 
along with a request for comment, in Section IX.B.4 and XI.H which deal 
with option selection for these standards.
    Finally, the panel discussed several methodological issues related 
to EPA's characterization of baseline pollutant loadings and estimation 
of loadings removals associated with various treatment options. These 
issues are discussed in more detail in Sections VIII and XI.M and in 
Chapter 12 of the technical development document.
    Section XV.B discusses the SBREFA panel in more detail and provides 
information on what EPA has done to address the panel's 
recommendations. EPA notes that the panel was another effective public 
outreach tool, and that the small entity representatives provided 
valuable insight to the possible effects of the proposal to the CWT 
industry--specifically, the small entities.
    EPA's consideration of these relief options are discussed in the 
appropriate sections of this document.

I. Examination of the Effect of Total Dissolved Solids on Metals 
Precipitation

    During the comment period for the 1995 proposal, EPA received 
comments which asserted that high levels of total dissolved solids 
(TDS) in CWT wastewaters may compromise a CWT facility's ability to 
meet the proposed metal subcategory limitations. The data indicated 
that for some metal-contaminated wastewaters, as TDS levels increased, 
the solubility of the metal in wastewater also increased. As such, the 
commenters claimed that metal-contaminated wastewaters with high TDS 
could not be treated to achieve the proposed limitations.
    At the time of the original proposal, EPA had no data on TDS levels 
in CWT wastewaters. No facility provided TDS data in their response to 
the Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire or the Detailed Monitoring 
Questionnaire. Additionally, during the sampling episodes prior to the 
1995 proposal, EPA did not collect TDS data. As such, EPA lacked the 
data to estimate TDS levels in wastewaters at the CWT facility which 
formed the technology basis for the 1995 proposed metals subcategory 
limitations.
    In order to address the comment, EPA (1) collected additional 
information on TDS levels in metals subcategory wastewaters; (2) 
conducted additional sampling; (3) consulted literature sources; and 
(4) conducted bench scale studies.
    First, EPA needed to determine the range of TDS levels in CWT 
metals subcategory wastewaters. As such, EPA contacted the metals 
subcategory Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire respondents to 
determine the level of TDS in their wastewaters. Most CWT facilities do 
not collect information on the level of TDS in their wastewaters. Those 
facilities that provided information indicated that TDS levels in CWT 
metals subcategory wastewaters range from 10,000 ppm to 100,000 ppm (1-
10%).
    Second, EPA resampled the facility which formed the technology 
basis for the 1995 proposed metals subcategory limitations and the 
facility that provides the basis for metals subcategory limitations in 
this proposal, in part, to determine TDS levels in their wastewaters. 
EPA found TDS levels of 17,000 to 81,000 mg/L.
    Third, EPA consulted various literature sources to obtain 
information about the effect of TDS levels on chemical precipitation. 
EPA found no data or information which related directly to TDS effects 
on chemical precipitation.
    Fourth, EPA conducted a laboratory study designed to determine the 
effect of TDS levels on chemical precipitation treatment performance. 
In this study, EPA conducted a series of bench-scale experiments on 
five metals: arsenic, chromium, copper, nickel and titanium. These 
metals were selected because (1) they are commonly found in CWT metals 
subcategory wastewaters; (2) their optimal precipitation is carried out 
in a range of pH levels; and/or (3) the data provided in the comments 
indicated that TDS may have a negative effect on the precipitation of 
these metals. The preliminary statistical analyses of the data from 
these studies show no consistent relationship among the five metals, pH 
levels, TDS concentrations, and chemical precipitation effectiveness 
using hydroxide or a combination of hydroxide and sulfide. The study 
and the statistical analyses are included in the record. Thus, the 
study could not either confirm or refute the concern with high TDS 
levels interfering with metals treatment. EPA solicits comments on this 
study and EPA's statistical analyses of the results.
    EPA has not incorporated an adjustment for TDS levels into the 
development of limitations on metals discharges for the following 
reason. EPA's data show that effluent levels associated with an option 
proposed today for BPT, BAT, and PSES for the metals subcategory are 
achievable even at high TDS levels. The facility which forms the 
technology basis for Metals Option 4 (see Section IX.B.1.b.i) had high 
influent levels of TDS in their wastewaters during EPA's sampling 
episode. On an average basis, their TDS levels were the highest EPA 
observed in the industry. Consequently, EPA believes the proposed BPT, 
BAT, and PSES limitations and standards can be achieved by all metals 
subcategory facilities--even those with high levels of TDS. EPA 
solicits comment and any data commenters may have bearing on this 
issue.

VII. Subcategorization

A. Methodology and Factors Considered for Basis of Subcategorization

    For its earlier 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 (see 60 FR 5464, 
5474). In reaching its preliminary decision that it should 
subcategorize for purposes of developing limitations and standards, EPA 
discussed its consideration of various factors.
    The CWA requires EPA, in developing effluent limitations guidelines 
and pretreatment standards that represent the best available technology 
economically achievable for a particular industry category, to consider 
a number of different factors. Among others, these include the age of 
the equipment and facilities in the category, manufacturing processes 
employed, types of treatment technology to reduce effluent discharges, 
and the cost of effluent reductions (Section 304(b)(2)(B) of the CWA, 
33 U.S.C. Sec. 1314(b)(2)(B)). The statute also authorizes EPA to take 
into account other factors that the Agency deems appropriate and 
requires that the limitations it promulgates are economically 
achievable, which generally involves consideration of both compliance 
costs and the overall financial condition of the industry.
    One way in which the Agency has taken some of these factors into 
account is by breaking down categories of industries into separate 
classes of similar characteristics. This recognizes the major 
differences among companies within an industry that may reflect, for 
example, different manufacturing processes, economies of scale, or 
other factors. One result of subdividing an industry by subcategories 
is to safeguard against overzealous regulatory standards, increase the 
confidence that the regulations are practicable, and diminish the need 
to address variations

[[Page 2301]]

between facilities through a variance process (Weyerhaeuser Co. v. 
Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1053 (D.C. Cir. 1978)).
    The CWT industry, as previously explained, is not typical of many 
of the other industries regulated under the CWA because it does not 
produce a product. Therefore, EPA considered certain factors that 
specifically apply to CWT operations in its evaluation of how to 
establish appropriate limitations and standards and whether further 
subcategorization was warranted. Additionally, EPA did not consider 
certain other factors typically appropriate when subcategorizing 
manufacturing facilities as relevant when evaluating this industry. The 
factors EPA considered here in subcategorizing the CWT industry 
include:

 Facility age
 Facility size
 Facility location
 Non-water quality impacts
 Freatment technologies and costs
 RCRA classification
 Types of wastes received
 Nature of wastewater generated

    EPA concluded that certain of these factors did not support further 
subcategorization of this industry. The Agency concluded that the age 
of a facility is not a basis for subcategorization as many older 
facilities have unilaterally improved or modified their treatment 
process over time. EPA is also not proposing to use facility size as a 
basis for subcategorization, although it is requesting comment in 
Section IV.S on whether facility size, as measured by flow, would be an 
appropriate basis for not including some facilities in the scope of the 
rule. EPA identified three parameters as relative measures of facility 
size: number of employees, amount of waste receipts accepted, and 
wastewater flow. EPA found that CWT facilities of varying sizes 
generate similar wastewaters and use similar treatment technologies, 
although the economic impacts of compliance costs may be greater for 
small facilities (as defined by parent company revenues). Furthermore, 
wastes can be treated to the same level regardless of the facility 
size. EPA is also not proposing to use facility location as a basis for 
subcategorization. Based on the data collected, no consistent 
differences in wastewater treatment technologies or performance exist 
between different geographical locations. EPA recognizes, however, that 
geographic location may have an effect on the market for CWT services, 
the cost charged for these services, and the value of recovered product 
which may affect the economic impacts of the rule. These issues are 
addressed in the Economic Assessment Document.
    While 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 EPA could 
not identify any common characteristics particular to a given segment 
of the industry. Treatment costs were not used as a basis for 
subcategorization because costs will vary, and are dependent on the 
following waste stream variables: flow rates, wastewater quality, and 
pollutant loadings. Finally, EPA is not proposing to use RCRA 
classification as a basis for subcategorization although EPA is 
requesting comment on whether this would be an appropriate basis for 
not including some facilities in the scope of the rule. (See further 
discussion in Sections IV.T and VIII.B.)
    EPA identified only one factor with primary significance for 
subcategorizing the CWT 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. For today's proposal, EPA proposes to retain its earlier 
subcategorization approach.

B. Proposed Subcategories

    Based on the type of wastes accepted for treatment or recovery, EPA 
has determined that there are three subcategories appropriate for the 
CWT industry.

     Subcategory A: Facilities which treat, recover, or 
treat and recover metal from metal-bearing waste, wastewater, or 
used material received from off-site,
     Subcategory B: Facilities which treat, recover, or 
treat and recover oil from oily waste, wastewater, or used material 
received from off-site, and
     Subcategory C: Facilities which treat, recover, or 
treat and recover organics from other organic waste, wastewater, or 
used material received from off-site.

C. General Description of Facilities in Each Subcategory

1. Metal-Bearing Waste Treatment and Recovery Operations
    The facilities that would be subject to limits for this subcategory 
treat metal-bearing wastes received from off-site and/or recover metals 
from off-site metal-bearing wastes. Currently, EPA has identified 59 
facilities in this subcategory. Fifty-two of these facilities are 
treatment facilities exclusively, while another six are recovery 
operations that recover metals from the wastes for sale in commerce or 
for return to industrial processes. One facility provides waste 
treatment services in addition to conducting a metals recovery 
operation. The vast majority of these facilities have RCRA permits to 
accept hazardous wastes. Among the types of wastes accepted for 
treatment are spent electroplating baths and sludges, spent anodizing 
solutions, metal finishing rinse water and sludges, chromate wastes, 
cyanide containing wastes, and waste acids and bases with or without 
metals.
    The typical treatment process used for metal-bearing waste is 
chemical precipitation with lime or caustic followed by filtration. The 
sludge generated is then landfilled in a RCRA Subtitle C or D landfill 
depending upon its content. Most facilities that recover metals do not 
generate a sludge that requires disposal. Instead, the sludges are sold 
for their metal content. In addition to treating metal bearing waste 
streams, many facilities in this subcategory also treat cyanide waste 
streams, many of which are highly-concentrated and complex. Since the 
presence of cyanide may interfere with the chemical precipitation 
process, these facilities generally pretreat to remove cyanide and then 
commingle the pretreated cyanide wastewaters with the other metal 
containing wastewaters. EPA estimates that nineteen of the metals 
facilities also treat cyanide waste streams. (See discussion in 1995 
proposal at 60 FR 5474.)
2. Used/Waste Oil Treatment and Recovery Operations
    The facilities proposed for regulation in this subcategory are 
those that treat oily waste, wastewater, or used material received from 
off-site and/or recover oil from off-site oily materials. EPA estimates 
that, at present, there are 164 facilities in this subcategory. Among 
the types of waste accepted for treatment are lubricants, coolants, 
oil-water emulsions, used petroleum products, used oils, oil spill 
clean-up, bilge water, tank clean-out, off-spec fuels, interceptor 
wastes, and underground storage tank remediation waste. Many facilities 
in this subcategory only provide treatment for oily wastewaters while 
others pretreat the oily wastes for contaminants such as water and then 
blend the resulting oil residual to form a product--usually fuel. Most 
facilities perform both types of operations. EPA

[[Page 2302]]

estimates that 53 of these facilities only treat oily wastewaters and 
36 facilities only recover oil for reuse. The remaining 75 facilities 
both treat oily waste and recover oil to reuse.
    At the time of the original proposal, EPA believed that 85 percent 
of oils facilities were primarily accepting concentrated, difficult-to-
treat, stable, oil-water emulsions containing more than 10 percent oil. 
However, during post-proposal data collection, EPA learned that many of 
the wastes treated for oil content at these facilities were fairly 
dilute and consisted of less than 10 percent oils. EPA now believes 
that, while some facilities are accepting the more concentrated wastes, 
that the majority of facilities in this subcategory are treating less 
concentrated wastes.
    Further, at the time of the original proposal, only three of the 
facilities included in the database for this subcategory were 
identified as solely accepting wastes classified as non-hazardous under 
RCRA. The remaining facilities accepted either hazardous wastes alone 
or a combination of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. In contrast, 
based on more recent information, EPA believes that the vast majority 
of facilities in this subcategory only accept wastes that would be 
classified by RCRA as non-hazardous.
    The most widely used treatment technology in this subcategory is 
gravity separation and/or emulsion breaking. One-third of this industry 
only uses gravity separation and/or emulsion breaking to treat oily 
waste streams. Another third of the industry utilizes chemical 
precipitation, and most of the rest use Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF).
3. Organic Waste Treatment
    The facilities proposed for regulation in this subcategory are 
those that treat organic waste received from off-site and/or recover 
organics from off-site wastes. EPA estimates that there are 25 
facilities in this subcategory. The majority of these facilities have 
RCRA permits to accept hazardous wastes. Among the types of wastes 
accepted at these facilities are landfill leachate, groundwater clean-
up from non-petroleum sources, solvent-bearing waste, off-specification 
organic products, still bottoms, used glycols, and wastewater from 
chemical product operations, paint washes, or adhesives and epoxies. As 
explained previously, wastewater discharges from solvent recovery 
operations are not included within the scope of this subcategory.
    All of the organics facilities which discharge to a surface water 
use equalization and some form of biological treatment to handle the 
wastewater. The vast majority of organics facilities which discharge to 
a POTW primarily use equalization. One third of all the organics 
facilities also use activated carbon adsorption. Most of the facilities 
in the organics subcategory have other industrial operations as well, 
and the CWT wastes are mixed with these wastewaters prior to treatment. 
The relatively constant make-up of 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.

D. Mixed Waste Subcategory Consideration

    EPA has received numerous comments from industry suggesting that 
the subcategorization scheme developed for this rule is impractical for 
CWT facilities which accept wastes in more than one subcategory. These 
commenters are primarily concerned about incoming waste receipts which 
may represent mixtures of wastes that would be classified in more than 
one subcategory. These commenters argue that, while CWT facilities can 
encourage their customers to segregate their wastes, they cannot 
require segregation of incoming waste receipts according to waste type. 
These commenters have suggested that, for ease of implementation, mixed 
waste subcategory limitations should be developed for all facilities 
treating wastes in more than one subcategory. These commenters are 
primarily concerned that permit writers may impose additional and 
substantial record keeping requirements in order to classify wastes in 
one of the three subcategories. Commenters have suggested that 
limitations for the mixed waste subcategory could combine pollutant 
limitations from all three subcategories, selecting the most stringent 
value where they overlap.
    While facilities have suggested developing a mixed waste 
subcategory with limitations derived by combining pollutant limitations 
from all three subcategories (selecting the most stringent value where 
they overlap), EPA does not believe facilities have adequately 
considered the costs associated with such an option. In order to assure 
effective treatment of co-diluted waste streams, EPA would need to 
require more stringent limitations than currently being proposed for 
any current subcategory because of the co-dilution that occurs when 
wastes of different types are mixed together. Based on this assumption, 
EPA assumed that facilities design and operate their treatment systems 
to remove the mass of pollutants. EPA assumed that systems would not be 
operated to meet pollutant concentration limits because concentrations 
may be achieved merely through co-dilution (e.g., by mixing different 
waste types) rather than treatment. Consequently, in order to cost for 
mass pollutant removals, EPA compared the compliance cost for 
facilities in multiple subcategories with the mixed waste subcategory 
limitations as described above to compliance costs for facilities 
meeting the limitations for the three subcategories separately. Costs 
were greater for the mixed waste subcategory because EPA had to cost 
for larger flows, the need for more chemical addition in treatment, and 
other requirements. EPA chose nine representative facilities that treat 
wastes in more than one subcategory to conduct the comparison. EPA 
found that, in all cases, the costs of complying with the mixed waste 
subcategory limitations were two to three times higher than the costs 
associated with complying with each of the subcategory limitations 
separately. Since the market for these services is generally very 
competitive, and since many of these facilities are small businesses, 
EPA believes that few facilities would chose to meet those stringent 
limitations that would be necessary for the mixed waste subcategory.
    The primary reason industry suggested the development of a mixed 
waste subcategory was their concern that their waste receipts may be 
classified in more than one subcategory. As detailed in Section XIV.E, 
EPA believes that the information currently available to CWT facilities 
is sufficient to classify wastes into one of the three subcategories. 
Using the procedure recommended in Section XIV.E for determining the 
subcategory, EPA has been able to assign each waste receipt identified 
by the industry during rule development to one of the three proposed 
subcategories. Therefore, EPA believes that the classification of any 
particular waste into a single subcategory will not be a problem. EPA 
requests comment on this issue, including examples of waste streams 
that commenters believe would be difficult to classify.
    The second reason industry suggested the development of a mixed 
waste subcategory was to simplify implementation for mixed subcategory 
facilities. EPA agrees with commenters that developing appropriate 
limitations for mixed waste facilities presents many challenges, but 
the Agency is also concerned that mixed wastes receive adequate 
treatment. In many cases, facilities which accept wastes in

[[Page 2303]]

multiple subcategories do not have treatment in place to provide 
effective treatment of all waste receipts. While these facilities meet 
their permit limitations, compliance may be due to co-dilution of 
dissimilar wastes rather than treatment. As an example, a facility may 
have a treatment system comprised of equalization and biological 
treatment and accepts wastes from the organics subcategory and the 
metals subcategory (high concentrations of metal pollutants). Only the 
organic subcategory waste receipts would be treated effectively. The 
``mixed waste subcategory'' limitations described above would not 
prevent ineffective treatment and could actually encourage it. 
Therefore, based on economic considerations as well as concerns that 
EPA has about ensuring compliance with effective treatment, rather than 
dilution, EPA is not today proposing a mixed waste subcategory. EPA 
solicits comments on ways to develop a ``mixed waste subcategory'' 
which ensures treatment rather than dilution.

VIII. Wastewater Characterization

    This section describes the sources of wastewater at CWT facilities, 
characterization of these wastewaters, and discharge flows. 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. For facilities that 
completed the Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire, all information 
is based on 1989 operations. For all facilities included in scope after 
the original proposal, all data represent 1995 operations.

A. Wastewater Sources

    Approximately 1.9 billion gallons of wastewater are generated 
annually at CWT facilities. It is difficult to determine the quantity 
of wastes attributable to different sources because facilities 
generally mix the wastewater prior to treatment. EPA has, as a general 
matter, however, identified the sources described below as contributing 
to wastewater discharges at CWT operations that would be subject to the 
proposed effluent limitations and standards.
1. Waste Receipts
    Most off-site waste received by CWT facilities is aqueous. These 
aqueous off-site waste receipts comprise the largest portion of the 
wastewater treated at CWT facilities. Typical waste receipts for each 
subcategory are detailed in section VII.C.
2. Solubilization Water
    A portion of the off-site waste receipts is in a solid form. Water 
may be added to the waste to render it treatable.
3. Used Oil Emulsion-Breaking Wastewater
    The wastewater generated as a result of the emulsion breaking or 
gravity separation process(es) from the processing of used oil 
constitutes a major portion of the wastewater treated at oils 
facilities. EPA estimates that, at a typical oils facility, half of the 
wastewater treated is a result of oil/water separation processes.
4. 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.
5. Equipment Washes
    Water is used to clean waste treatment equipment during unit shut 
downs or in between batches of waste.
6. 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.
7. Laboratory-Derived Wastewater
    Water is used in on-site laboratories which characterize incoming 
waste streams and monitor on-site treatment performance.
8. Wastewater from On-site Industrial Waste Combustors or On-site 
Landfills
    Wastewater is generated at some CWT facilities as a result of on-
site landfilling or incineration activities.
9. Contaminated Stormwater
    This is stormwater which comes in direct contact with the waste or 
waste handling and treatment areas. If this contaminated CWT stormwater 
is introduced to the treatment system, its discharge is subject to the 
limitations proposed here today. The Agency is proposing not to 
regulate under the CWT guideline non-contact stormwater or contaminated 
stormwater not introduced to the treatment system. Such flows may, in 
certain circumstances, require permitting under EPA's existing 
permitting program at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14) and 40 CFR 403.6. CWT 
facilities that introduce non-contaminated stormwater into their 
treatment system will need to identify this as a source of non-CWT 
wastewater in their treatment system in their permit applications. This 
is necessary in order that the permit writer may take account of these 
flows in developing permit limitations that reflect actual treatment.

B. Wastewater Characterization

    As discussed in Section V.A, wastewater receipts treated at CWT 
facilities can have significantly different pollutants and pollutant 
loads depending on the customer and the process generating the waste 
receipt. In fact, at many CWT facilities, the pollutants and pollutant 
loads can vary daily and from batch to batch. As such, it is difficult 
to characterize typical CWT wastewaters. In fact, one of the 
distinguishing characteristics of CWT wastewaters (as compared to 
traditional categorical wastewaters) is that there is always the 
exception to the rule. As an example, EPA analyzed samples of 
wastewater receipts from a single facility that were obtained during 
three different, non-consecutive weeks. EPA found that the weekly waste 
receipts varied from the most concentrated (in terms of metal 
pollutants) to one of the least concentrated (in terms of metal 
pollutants).

[[Page 2304]]

    EPA determined pollutants of concern for the CWT industry by 
assessing EPA sampling data only. Industry has provided very little 
quantitative data on the concentrations of pollutants entering their 
wastewater treatment systems. For the metals and organics subcategory, 
the data used to determine the pollutants of concern were collected at 
influent points to the wastewater treatment systems. For the oils 
subcategory, the data were collected following emulsion breaking and/or 
gravity separation. The pollutant concentrations at these points are 
lower than the original waste receipt concentrations as a result of the 
commingling of a variety of waste streams, and for the oils 
subcategory, as a result of pretreatment. In most cases, EPA could not 
collect samples from individual waste shipments because of physical 
constraints and excessive analytical costs.
    EPA's influent sampling data were collected over a limited time 
span (generally two to five days). The samples represent a snapshot of 
the receipts accepted for treatment during the time the samples were 
collected. Since waste receipts can vary significantly from day to day, 
EPA cannot know if the data are representative of waste receipts during 
any other time period. If EPA had sampled at more facilities or over 
longer periods of time, EPA would expect to observe a wider range of 
flow, pollutants, and pollutant concentrations in CWT industry raw 
wastewater. This has complicated the selection of pollutants of concern 
and regulated pollutants, and the estimation of current performance and 
removals associated with this rulemaking. Historically, in developing 
effluent limitations guidelines and standards, unlike CWT waste 
receipts, influent waste streams are generally consistent in strength 
and nature.
    To establish the pollutants of concern, EPA reviewed the analytical 
data from influent wastewater samples to determine the number of times 
a pollutant was detected at treatable levels. Treatable levels were set 
at ten times the minimum analytical detection limit to ensure that 
pollutants detected at only trace amounts would not be selected. For 
most organic pollutants, the minimum analytical detection limit is 10 
ug/L. Therefore, for most organic parameters, EPA had defined treatable 
levels as 100 ug/L. For metal pollutants, the minimum analytical 
detection limits range from 0.2 ug/L to 1000 ug/L. The initial 
pollutant of concern listing for each subcategory was then derived by 
establishing which parameters were detected at treatable levels in at 
least 10 percent of the daily influent wastewater samples. Ten percent 
is a different criteria than was used to identify pollutants of concern 
in the 1995 proposal. EPA used different criteria for this proposal 
since it has a larger data set for this proposal than the 1995 
proposal. EPA notes that, while it generally establishes criteria to 
establish pollutants of concern on an industry-by-industry basis, the 
criteria used in this proposal are similar to those used for proposal 
of other service industries. EPA additionally notes that the criteria 
to establish pollutants of concern used to date for the service 
industries have varied from the criteria used to establish pollutants 
of concern for some of the traditional categorical industries because 
service industries (particularly CWT) have much greater variability in 
the pollutants and pollutant concentrations seen in their wastewaters 
than some of the traditional categorical industries previously studied 
by EPA. Finally, if EPA had elected to establish pollutants of concern 
using a criteria higher than 10 percent, the estimated baseline 
loadings and pollutant removals would have been reduced, but EPA might 
have overlooked potential pollutants of concern because of the 
variability in the industry.
    During the SBREFA panel, some industry representatives suggested 
that both the pollutants and the concentration of pollutants in non-
hazardous CWT wastes were distinctly different from those in hazardous 
CWT wastes. EPA's database contains information that was collected at 
facilities which treat hazardous waste only, non-hazardous waste only, 
and a mixture of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. The majority of 
the data was collected at facilities which are permitted to accept 
hazardous wastes. As stated earlier, although these data suggest that 
flows from non-RCRA permitted facilities may have significantly lower 
pollutant loadings, they are inadequate to support the conclusion that 
EPA should differentiate between oily facilities on the basis of 
whether hazardous or non-hazardous wastes are treated at the facility. 
However, as described in Section VI.C., EPA recently collected 
wastewater samples at an additional ten non-hazardous oily waste 
facilities. EPA has not included this data in these analyses, but has 
included this data in the Appendix of the technical development 
document. EPA will revisit its conclusions based on the analytical 
results of the recent sampling as well as any additional data provided 
during the comment period prior to promulgation. As such, EPA solicits 
comments and data on the pollutants and concentration of pollutants in 
non-hazardous CWT waste receipts and in hazardous CWT waste receipts. 
(See also Section IV.T).
1. Raw Wastewater at CWT Metals Subcategory Facilities
    Wastewater treated at CWT facilities in the metals subcategory 
contains a range of conventional, toxic, and non-conventional 
pollutants. EPA identified 78 pollutants of concern for the metals 
subcategory, including three conventional pollutants, 43 metals, and 17 
organic pollutants. As expected, wastewaters contained significant 
concentrations of common non-conventional metals such as aluminum, 
iron, and tin. Also, as expected, given the processes generating these 
wastewaters, waste receipts generally contained toxic heavy metals. 
Toxic metals found in the highest concentrations were cadmium, 
chromium, cobalt, copper, nickel, and zinc. While organic pollutants 
were present in the wastewater at a few sampled facilities in this 
subcategory, they were not typically found in the treated wastewater 
effluent in this subcategory. Many metals facilities have placed 
acceptance restrictions on the concentration of organic pollutants 
allowed in the off-site waste streams accepted for treatment.
2. Raw Wastewater at CWT Oils Subcategory Facilities
    To characterize raw wastewater for the oils subcategory, EPA 
evaluated samples obtained following the initial gravity separation/
emulsion breaking step. Wastewater treated at CWT facilities in the 
oils subcategory also contains a range of conventional, toxic, and non-
conventional pollutants. EPA identified 120 pollutants of concern in 
the oils subcategory including three conventional pollutants, 32 
metals, and 72 organics. Oil and grease levels in this subcategory 
varied greatly from one facility to the next and ranged from 26 mg/L to 
61,000 mg/L after the first stage of treatment (emulsion breaking and/
or gravity separation). Wastewaters contained significant 
concentrations of both non-conventional and toxic metals such as 
aluminum, boron, cobalt, iron, manganese, and zinc. A wide range of 
organic pollutants were also found in the untreated wastewaters from 
this subcategory. Organic pollutants found in the highest 
concentrations were straight chain hydrocarbons such as n-decane and n-
tetradecane and aromatics such as naphthalene and bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate. EPA also detected

[[Page 2305]]

polyaromatic hydrocarbons, such as benzo(a)pyrene in the wastewaters of 
oils facilities. EPA reviewed the readily available literature 
pertaining to benzo(a)pyrene and its presence in waste receipts that 
may be accepted at facilities which treat non-hazardous oily wastes 
such as used motor oils, diesel fuels, fuel oils, lubricating oils, and 
gasolines. Based on this review, EPA has concluded that the presence of 
benzo(a)pyrene as a pollutant in its sampling data is not an anomaly. 
The result is consistent with what is observed in the available 
literature.
3. Raw Wastewater at CWT Organics Subcategory Facilities
    Wastewater treated at CWT facilities in the organics subcategory 
contains a range of conventional, toxic and non-conventional 
pollutants. EPA identified 97 pollutants of concern for this 
subcategory including three conventional pollutants, 25 metals, and 60 
organics. As expected, wastewaters contained significant concentrations 
of organic parameters, many of which are highly volatile. The metals 
present in the highest concentrations were common ones such as aluminum 
and iron.
    As described in VI.C.3, the data available to the EPA for 
characterizing raw wastewaters for the organics subcategory are 
limited. In fact, the preceding discussion on the characterization of 
organic subcategory wastewaters is based on sampling data from a single 
organic subcategory facility. All other wastewater characterization 
data collected for the organics subcategory represented wastewater from 
multiple subcategories (e.g., mixed oils and organic subcategory 
wastewaters). EPA is especially eager for commenters on the proposal to 
provide data for organic subcategory wastewaters which are not mixed 
with other subcategory wastewaters to use in refining the Agency's 
characterization of this subcategory.

C. Wastewater Flow and Discharge

    Based on the information collected during the development of this 
rule, approximately 1.9 billion gallons of in-scope wastewater are 
discharged annually from CWT operations. CWT facilities do not generate 
a ``process wastewater'' in the traditional sense of this term because 
there is no manufacturing or commercial ``process'' which is generating 
water.3 Consequently, the regulated wastewater for this 
industry will include any wastes received for treatment (``waste 
receipt'') as well as water which comes into contact with the wastes or 
waste processing area. As mentioned previously, the primary sources of 
``CWT wastewater'' discharges from these facilities include: waste 
receipts, used oil processing wastewater, solubilization wastewater, 
tanker truck/drums/roll-off box washes, equipment washes, air pollution 
control scrubber blow-down, laboratory-derived wastewater, on-site 
landfill and industrial waste combustor wastewaters, and contaminated 
stormwater.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CWT facilities have several options for the discharge of their 
wastewater. EPA estimates that there are 14 facilities discharging 
wastewater directly into a receiving stream or body of water, 
accounting for 0.5 billion gallons per year. In addition, there are 147 
facilities discharging wastewater indirectly through a POTW, accounting 
for 1.4 billion gallons per year.
    Also, there are a number of CWT facilities which do not dispose of 
wastewater directly to surface waters or indirectly to POTWs. The 
Agency estimates that there are 44 of these alternative discharge 
facilities. At these facilities, (1) wastewater is disposed of by 
alternate means such as on-site or off-site deep well injection or 
incineration (9 facilities); (2) wastewater is sent off-site for 
treatment, generally to another CWT (23 facilities); (3) wastewater is 
evaporated (5 facilities); and (4) zero discharge option is unknown (7 
facilities).
    Table VIII.C-1 provides estimates of wastewater flow and discharge 
at a subcategory level basis.

                          Table VIII.C-1.--Wastewater Flow and Discharge by Subcategory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Total
                                                  Number of     indirect    Number of      Total      Total flow
                  Subcategory                      indirect     flow (M       direct    direct flow   (M gallons
                                                 discharging   gallons  /  discharging   (M gallons     /year)
                                                  facilities     year)      facilities     /year)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Treatment and Recovery..................           41          449            9          496          944
Oils Treatment and Recovery....................          123          861            5           24          885
Organics Treatment.............................           14           60            4           16           76
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IX. Development of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards

A. Description of Available Technologies

    The treatment technologies presently employed by the industry 
represent the range of wastewater treatment systems observed at 
categorical industrial operations. All CWT facilities operate some 
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.
    Among the physical-chemical treatment technologies in use include:
     Equalization Tanks. Equalization dampens variation in 
hydraulic and pollutant loadings, thereby reducing shock loads and 
increasing treatment facility performance.
     Neutralization. Neutralization dampens pH variation prior 
to treatment or discharge.
     Coagulation/Flocculation. Coagulation/flocculation is used 
to assist clarification of biological treatment effluent.
     Gravity Separation. Gravity-assisted separation allows 
suspended matter, heavier than water, to become quiescent and settle; 
and suspended matter, lighter than water, to float.
     Emulsion Breaking. The addition of de-emulsifiers (heat, 
acid, metal coagulants, polymers, and clays) break down emulsions to 
produce a mixture of water and free oil and/or an oily floc.
     Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF). DAF separates solid or 
liquid particles from

[[Page 2306]]

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.
     Chemical Precipitation. The addition of chemicals to 
wastewater to convert soluble metal salts to insoluble metal oxides 
which are then removed by sedimentation and/or filtration.
     Chemical Oxidation/Reduction. By chemical addition, the 
structure of pollutants are changed so as to disinfect, increase 
biodegradation and adsorption, or convert pollutants to terminal end 
products.
     Air/Steam Stripping. Air/Steam stripping involves the 
removal of pollutants from wastewater by the transfer of volatile 
compounds from the liquid phase to a gas stream.
     Multimedia/Sand Filtration. Multimedia/sand filtration 
involves a fixed (gravity or pressure) or moving bed of porous media 
that traps and removes suspended solids from water passing though the 
media.
     Ultrafiltration. Extremely fine grade filters are used to 
remove organic pollutants from wastewater according to the organic 
molecule size.
     Reverse Osmosis. Reverse osmosis relies on differences in 
dissolved solids concentrations and selective semipermeable membranes 
to primarily remove dissolved inorganic pollutants.
     Fabric Filters. Fabric filters screen suspended matter by 
means of a cloth or paper barrier.
     Plate and Frame Pressure Filtration. Fabric filters under 
pressure are used to separate solids from liquid streams.
     Carbon Adsorption. In this process, wastewater is passed 
over a medium of activated carbon which adsorbs certain pollutants.
     Ion Exchange. The use of certain resins in contact with 
wastewater removes contaminants of similar charge.
    Biological treatment technologies in use include:
     Aerobic Systems. Aerobic systems utilize an acclimated 
community of aerobic microorganisms to degrade, coagulate, and remove 
organic and other contaminants. They are typically ponds, lagoons or 
tanks without recycle of biomass.
     Activated Sludge. Activated sludge is a continuous flow, 
aerobic biological treatment process which employs suspended-growth 
aerobic microorganisms to biodegrade organic contaminants with recycle 
of biomass.
     Sequential Batch Reactors. A sequential batch reactor 
contains acclimated microorganisms to degrade organic material. The 
batch process permits equalization, aeration, and clarification in a 
single tank.
     Powdered Activated Carbon Biological Treatment. The 
addition of granular activated carbon to biological treatment systems 
enhances the removal of certain organic pollutants.
    The typical treatment sequence for a facility depends upon the type 
of waste accepted for treatment. Most facilities treating metal-bearing 
wastes use precipitation/sedimentation/filtration to remove metals. 
Those that treat oily wastes rely on emulsion breaking/gravity 
separation and/or dissolved air flotation largely to remove oil and 
grease, organics, and metals. Aerobic batch processes and conventional 
activated sludge systems were the most widely-used treatment technology 
for the organic-bearing wastes.

B. Technology Options Considered and Treatment Systems Selected for 
Basis of Regulation

    This section explains how EPA selected the effluent limitations and 
standards proposed today for the metals, oils, and organics 
subcategories. 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. While EPA establishes 
effluent limitations and pretreatment standards based on a treatment 
technology, EPA does not require a discharger to use that technology in 
treating CWT wastewater. Rather, the technologies which may be used to 
treat wastewater are entirely left to the discretion of the individual 
CWT operator, as long as the numerical discharge limits are achieved.
    In order to establish the proposed limits, EPA reviewed data from 
treatment systems in operation at a number of treatment facilities to 
calculate concentration limits that are achievable based on a well-
operated system using the proposed technologies. Below is a summary of 
the technology basis for the proposed effluent limitations in each 
subcategory.
1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)
    a. Introduction. EPA today proposes BPT effluent limitations for 
the three discharge subcategories for the Centralized Waste Treatment 
Point Source Category. 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 
discussed, CWA 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. See A Legislative History of the Federal 
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, U.S. Senate Committee 
of Public Works, Serial No. 93-1, January 1973, p. 1468.
    In addition, CWA Section 304(b)(1)(B) requires a cost-
reasonableness assessment for BPT limitations. In determining the BPT 
limits, EPA must consider the total cost of treatment technologies in 
relation to the effluent reduction benefits achieved. This inquiry does 
not limit EPA's broad discretion to adopt BPT limitations that are 
achievable with available technology unless the required additional 
reductions are ``wholly out of proportion to the costs of achieving 
such marginal level of reduction.'' See Legislative History, op. cit. 
p. 170. Moreover, the inquiry does not require the Agency to quantify 
benefits in monetary terms. See, for example, American Iron and Steel 
Institute v. EPA, 526 F. 2d 1027 (3rd Cir., 1975).
    In balancing costs against the benefits of effluent reduction, EPA 
considers the volume and nature of expected discharges after 
application of BPT, the general environmental effects of pollutants, 
and the cost and economic impacts of the required level of pollution 
control. In developing guidelines, the Act does not require or permit 
consideration of water quality problems attributable to particular 
point sources, or water quality improvements in particular bodies of 
water. Therefore, EPA has not considered these factors in developing 
the limitations being proposed today. See Weyerhaeuser Company v. 
Costle, 590 F. 2d 1011 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
    In assessing BPT for this industry, EPA considered age, size, 
process, other engineering factors, and non-water

[[Page 2307]]

quality impacts pertinent to the facilities treating waste in each 
subcategory. For all subcategories, 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 for establishing the limitations are costs of treatment, the 
level of effluent reductions obtainable, and non-water quality effects.
    EPA determined that, while some CWT facilities are providing 
adequate treatment of all waste streams, wastewater treatment at some 
CWT facilities is poor. EPA is concerned that facilities which mix 
different types of highly concentrated CWT wastes with non-CWT waste 
streams or with stormwater may not be providing BPT treatment. In 
addition, while some CWT facilities pretreat subcategory waste streams 
for effective removal prior to commingling, some facilities mix wastes 
from different subcategories without pretreatment. This practice 
reduces the effectiveness of treatment and may lead to inadequate 
treatment for some waste streams. As a result, the mass of pollutants 
being discharged at some CWT facilities is higher than that which can 
be achieved, given the demonstrated removal capacity of certain of the 
treatment systems that the Agency reviewed. EPA has observed that many 
CWT facilities recognize that commingling often leads to less effective 
treatment, and have encouraged their customers to segregate wastes as 
much as possible. Waste minimization techniques at most manufacturing 
facilities have also led to increased waste stream segregation.
    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 very same treatment technology--10 to 20 times greater 
than those observed for other point source categories. EPA believes 
these higher TSS effluent concentrations are due to improper or 
ineffective treatment of these wastes rather than TSS influent 
concentration differences between CWT wastewaters and other industrial 
category wastewaters.
    In the case of oil discharges, many facilities are achieving poor 
removal of oil and grease relative to the performance required for 
other point source categories. In addition, many sample infrequently 
for metal and organic constituents in their discharge since these 
parameters are not included in their discharge permits. Further, some 
facilities treating organic wastes, while successfully removing organic 
pollutants through biological treatment, fail to remove metals 
associated with these organic wastes.
    EPA's options to evaluate treatment systems in place at direct 
discharging CWT facilities were extremely limited since most of the 
facilities in this industry are indirect dischargers. This is 
particularly true of the metals and oils facilities. Many CWT indirect 
dischargers are not required to control discharges of conventional 
pollutants because the receiving POTWs are designed to achieve removal 
of conventional pollutants. Therefore, in general, indirect dischargers 
currently do not monitor or optimize the performance of their treatment 
systems for control of conventional pollutants. Because BPT applies to 
direct dischargers, the data used to establish limitations and 
standards are normally collected from such facilities. For this rule, 
EPA relied on information and data from widely available treatment 
technologies in use at CWT facilities discharging indirectly. For non-
conventional pollutants, EPA concluded that some technology in place at 
indirect discharging CWT facilities is appropriate to use as the basis 
for regulation of direct dischargers. For conventional pollutants, 
however, EPA largely relied on information and data collected for other 
point source categories.
    (i) Subcategory A--Metals Subcategory. The Agency is today 
proposing BPT limitations for the metals subcategory for 19 pollutants. 
In developing these limitations, EPA reexamined the treatment options 
it had looked at for the 1995 proposal at the same time it was 
assessing one new treatment option. As a result of this reexamination, 
EPA continues to believe that single-stage, chemical precipitation of 
mixed, disparate metal-bearing waste streams is not an acceptable 
technological basis for BPT limitations. As explained in the earlier 
proposal (60 FR 5478), adequate metals removals are not obtained 
through single-stage chemical precipitation of mixed-metals waste 
streams. In the case of complex cyanide, metal-bearing streams, EPA is 
still proposing to require cyanide removal prior to metals treatment as 
discussed in the 1995 proposal (60 FR 5477).
    For today's proposal, EPA considered three regulatory options (two 
previously assessed as well as one new treatment option), all relying 
on chemical precipitation, to reduce the discharge of pollutants from 
CWT facilities. The three currently available treatment systems for 
which the EPA assessed performance for the metals subcategory BPT are 
as follows:
     Option 2 4  Selective Metals Precipitation, 
Liquid-Solid separation, Secondary Precipitation, and Liquid-Solid 
Separation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The numbering of options reflects the numbering for the 1995 
proposal. Options 2 and 3 were first considered for that proposal. 
Option 4 is a new technology EPA evaluated for this proposal. EPA is 
no longer evaluating Option 1 as the treatment basis for proposed 
limitations and standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Option 34  Selective Metals Precipitation, 
Liquid-Solid Separation, Secondary Precipitation, Liquid-Solid 
Separation, Tertiary Precipitation, and Clarification.
     Option 44  Batch precipitation, Liquid-Solid 
Separation, Secondary Precipitation, Clarification, and Sand 
Filtration.
    For a more detailed discussion of the basis for the limitations and 
the basis for the technologies selected, see the technical development 
document as well as the discussion in the 1995 proposal at 60 FR 5477.
    The first treatment option (Option 2) that EPA evaluated as a basis 
for today's proposed BPT limitations for CWT facilities is based on 
``selective metals precipitation.'' ``Selective metals precipitation'' 
is a specialized metals removal technology that tailors precipitation 
conditions to the metal to be removed. The extent to which a metal is 
precipitated from a solution will vary with a number of factors, 
including pH, temperature, and treatment chemicals. Selective metals 
precipitation adjusts these conditions sequentially in order to provide 
maximum precipitation of metals. Selective metals precipitation 
requires segregation of incoming waste streams and careful 
characterization of the metals content of the waste stream. Next, there 
are multiple precipitations in batches at different pH levels in order 
to achieve maximum removal of specific metals. Selective metals 
precipitation results in formation of a metal-rich filter cake. This 
treatment option requires numerous treatment tanks and personnel to 
handle incoming waste streams, greater quantities of treatment 
chemicals, and increased monitoring of the batch treatment processes. 
One of the benefits of this technology, however, is that it results in 
a metal-rich filter

[[Page 2308]]

cake that facilities employing this treatment have the option of 
selling as feed material for metal reclamation. For metals streams 
which contain concentrated cyanide complexes, achievement of the BPT 
limitations under this option would require alkaline chlorination in a 
two step process prior to metals treatment. These BPT cyanide 
limitations are discussed in greater detail below.
    The second treatment option EPA evaluated (Option 3) is the same as 
Option 2 with an additional, third precipitation step added for 
increased pollutant removals. Again, for metals streams which contain 
concentrated cyanide complexes, like Option 2, for Option 3, BPT 
limitations are also based on alkaline chlorination in a two step 
process before metal precipitation.
    The new technology EPA evaluated as the basis of BPT for this 
regulation (Option 4) is a two stage precipitation process. The first 
stage of this technology is similar to the Option 1 chemical 
precipitation technology considered (and rejected) for the earlier 
proposal. It is based on chemical precipitation followed by some form 
of solids separation and sludge dewatering. In Option 4, however, a 
second precipitation step is also performed followed by clarification 
and sand filtration. Generally, BPT limitations based on Option 4 would 
require some facilities to use increased quantities of treatment 
chemicals, perform additional monitoring of batch processes, perform an 
additional precipitation step, and add a clarification and sand 
filtration step. Once again, for metals streams which contain 
concentrated cyanide complexes, like Options 2 and 3, alkaline 
chlorination in a two step process prior to metals treatment is also 
part of the Option 4 treatment process that forms the basis for BPT 
limitations.
    At the time of the original proposal, the Agency considered 
treatment Options 1, 2 and 3 only, and proposed to adopt BPT 
limitations based on Option 3. In today's proposal, the Agency is 
proposing to adopt BPT effluent limitations based on Option 4 for the 
metals subcategory.
    EPA's decision to base BPT limitations on Option 4 treatment 
reflects primarily an evaluation of two factors: the degree of effluent 
reductions attainable through this technology and the total cost of the 
proposed treatment in relation to the effluent reductions benefits. The 
Agency is proposing to adopt BPT limitations based on the removal 
performance of the Option 4 treatment system for the following reasons. 
First, the Option 4 technology is one that is readily applicable to all 
facilities that are treating metal-bearing waste streams. It is 
currently used at 25 percent of the facilities in this subcategory. 
Second, the adoption of this level of control would represent a 
significant reduction in pollutants discharged into the environment by 
facilities in this subcategory. Option 4 would remove approximately 
13.8 million pounds annually of conventional pollutants now discharged 
to the Nation's waters. Third, the Agency assessed the total cost of 
water pollution controls likely to be incurred for Option 4 in relation 
to the effluent reduction benefits and determined these costs were 
economically reasonable--less than $0.19 per pound.
    The Agency has decided not to propose BPT limitations based on 
Option 3, selective metals precipitation, for a number of reasons. 
First, while both Option 3 and Option 4 provide significant pollutant 
removals, are economically achievable, and expected to result in non-
water quality benefits through increased recycling of metals, Option 3 
is nearly four times as costly as Option 4. Furthermore, there is 
little, if any, expected increase in total removals associated with the 
Option 3 technology. (Total removals associated with Option 3 are 
virtually identical to those achieved by Option 4--less than 1.25 
percent greater.) Second, EPA has some concern about whether selective 
metals precipitation could be applied throughout the industry because, 
currently, only one facility is employing this technology. Moreover, as 
noted above, the effectiveness of selective metals precipitation 
depends, in part, on the separation and holding of waste streams in 
numerous treatment tanks. EPA is aware that there may be physical 
constraints on the ability of certain facilities to install the 
additional, required treatment tanks. These and other factors support 
EPA's determination not to propose limitations based on the Option 3 
technology. Because Option 2 treatment also includes selective metals 
precipitation, the Agency is similarly rejecting it as a basis for BPT.
    The Agency used chemical precipitation treatment technology 
performance data from the Metal Finishing regulation (40 CFR Part 433) 
to establish direct discharge limitations for TSS because the facility 
from which the Option 4 limitations were derived is an indirect 
discharger and the treatment system is not designed to optimize removal 
of conventional parameters. EPA has concluded that the transfer of this 
data is appropriate given the absence of adequate treatment technology 
for this pollutant at the only otherwise well-operated BPT CWT 
facility. Based on a review of the data, EPA believes that similar 
wastes (in terms of TSS concentrations) are being treated at both metal 
finishing and centralized waste treatment facilities, and that the use 
of the metal finishing data to derive TSS limits for this subcategory 
is warranted. Since the technology basis for the transferred 
limitations includes clarification rather than sand filtration, the 
Agency also included a clarification step prior to sand filtration 
(which the Option 4 facility does not have) in the technology basis for 
Option 4 for facilities subject to BPT. Therefore, because the 
technology basis for CWT is based on primary chemical precipitation, 
primary clarification, secondary chemical precipitation, secondary 
clarification, and sand filtration and the technology basis for Metal 
Finishing is based on primary precipitation and clarification only, EPA 
concluded that CWT facilities will perform similarly (or better) when 
treating TSS in wastes in this subcategory. EPA requests comment on its 
approach to developing TSS limitations for this subcategory.
    EPA believes it is important to note that BPT limitations 
established by Option 4 are based on data from a single, well-operated 
system. Generally, for purposes of defining BPT effluent limitations, 
EPA looks at the performance of the best treatment technology and 
calculates limitations from some level of average performance measured 
at facilities which employ this ``best'' treatment technology. In 
reviewing technologies currently in use in this subcategory, however, 
EPA found that facilities generally utilize a single stage chemical 
precipitation step--a technology which generally does not achieve 
adequate metals removals for the waste streams observed at these 
operations. EPA did identify a handful of facilities which utilize 
additional metals wastewater treatment, generally secondary chemical 
precipitation. Of these facilities, EPA believes that only one accepts 
a full spectrum of waste, often with extremely high metals 
concentrations and provides, therefore, a suitable basis to determine 
the performance that a well-designed and operated system can achieve 
for a wide range of raw waste concentrations. Consequently, EPA is 
proposing to adopt BPT limitations based on performance data from this 
facility.
    Cyanide Subset. The presence of high cyanide concentrations, as 
discussed above, detrimentally affects the performance of metal 
precipitation

[[Page 2309]]

processes due to the formation of metal-cyanide complexes. Effective 
treatment of such wastes typically involves a cyanide destruction step 
prior to any metal precipitation steps. Consequently, in the case of 
metal streams which contain concentrated cyanide complexes, EPA based 
BPT limitations on an additional treatment step to destroy cyanide 
before metals precipitation. EPA considered three regulatory options 
for the destruction of cyanide:
     Cyanide Option 1  Alkaline Chlorination.
     Cyanide Option 2  Alkaline Chlorination in a two step 
process.
     Cyanide Option 3  Confidential Cyanide Destruction.
    The Option 1 technology, alkaline chlorination, is widely used for 
cyanide destruction in this industry as well as others. For this 
subset, therefore, it represents current performance. EPA also 
evaluated Option 2 BPT limitations based on the use of alkaline 
chlorination in a two-step process. In the first step, cyanide is 
oxidized to cyanate in a pH range of 9 to 11. The second step oxidizes 
cyanate to carbon dioxide and nitrogen at a controlled pH of 8.5. In 
addition, EPA considered a third technology which is extremely 
effective in reducing cyanide. Application of this technology resulted 
in cyanide reductions of 99.8 percent for both amenable and total 
cyanide. The Option 3 technology is claimed as confidential.
    At the time of the original proposal, the Agency proposed 
limitations based on what is Cyanide Option 2 for the cyanide subset of 
the metals subcategory. This technology remains the basis for the BPT 
limitations for metals streams with concentrated cyanide complexes 
proposed today. Although Option 3 provides greater removals than Option 
2, the Agency has decided to reject Option 3 as a basis for BPT 
limitations because the technology is not publicly available. The 
cyanide destruction system used at the one facility employing Option 3 
is a proprietary process that does not employ off-the-shelf technology. 
There are, in addition, several reasons supporting the selection of 
limitations based on Option 2. First, the facility achieving Option 2 
removals accepts a full spectrum of cyanide waste. Consequently, the 
treatment used by the Option 2 facility can be readily applied to all 
facilities in the subset of this subcategory. Second, adoption of this 
level of control would represent a significant reduction in pollutants 
discharged into the environment by facilities in this subset. Finally, 
the Agency assessed the total cost for Option 2 in relation to the 
effluent reduction benefits and determined these costs were 
economically reasonable.
    The proposal would require monitoring for compliance with the 
cyanide limitations for cyanide-bearing wastes when the wastewater 
exits the cyanide destruction process rather than after mixing with 
other process wastewater. Alternatively, the facility may monitor for 
compliance after mixing if the cyanide limitations are adjusted using 
the ``building block approach'' (see Section XIV.F), assuming the 
adjusted cyanide limitations do not fall below the minimum analytical 
detection limit.
    (ii). Subcategory B--Oils Subcategory. The Agency is today 
proposing BPT limitations for the oils subcategory for 22 pollutants. 
EPA examined four regulatory options in establishing BPT effluent 
reduction levels for this subcategory of the CWT Industry. EPA is no 
longer considering any of the four options it proposed in 1995 (60 FR 
5478).
    The four technology options considered today for the oils 
subcategory BPT limitations are based on emulsion breaking/gravity 
separation and:
     Option 8 \5\  Dissolved Air Flotation
     Option 8v \5\  Air Stripping with Emissions Control and 
Dissolved Air Flotation
     Option 95  Secondary Gravity Separation and Dissolved Air 
Flotation
     Option 9v 5  Air Stripping with Emissions 
Control, Secondary Gravity Separation, and Dissolved Air Flotation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As noted above, EPA is no longer considering Oils Option 1-4 
proposed in 1995. During development of today's proposal, EPA also 
preliminarily considered seven other options numbered 5-9v. EPA has 
chosen to focus its attention on Option 8 through 9v.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For a more detailed discussion of the basis for the limitations and 
the basis for the technologies selected, see the technical development 
document.
    As previously noted, at the time of the original proposal, the 
Agency also evaluated four other options. The first treatment option 
considered was based on emulsion breaking/gravity separation only. 
Next, EPA considered BPT limitations based on emulsion breaking/gravity 
separation and ultrafiltration. The third treatment operation evaluated 
included emulsion breaking/gravity separation, ultrafiltration, carbon 
adsorption, and reverse osmosis. Finally, EPA looked at basing 
limitations on adding an additional carbon adsorption step to the third 
treatment system. While emulsion breaking/gravity separation alone is 
widely used in this subcategory, the Agency dropped it from further 
consideration at the time of the original proposal because EPA believed 
that emulsion breaking/gravity separation alone did not adequately 
control the pollutants of concern relative to other widely available 
technologies, and, therefore, did not represent a BPT technology. The 
Agency dropped the final option from consideration at the time of the 
original proposal because EPA's analysis showed that some pollutant 
concentrations actually increased following the additional carbon 
adsorption.
    At the time of the 1995 proposal, the Agency co-proposed BPT 
limitations based on emulsion breaking/gravity separation and 
ultrafiltration as well as emulsion breaking/gravity separation and 
ultrafiltration with added carbon adsorption and reverse osmosis to 
remove metals compounds found at significant levels in this 
subcategory. Because the costs associated with the latter option were 
four times higher than emulsion breaking/gravity separation and 
ultrafiltration, EPA was concerned about its impacts on facilities in 
this subcategory. EPA co-proposed BPT based on both options, because 
the oil and grease limits based on emulsion breaking/gravity separation 
and ultrafiltration were less stringent than BPT effluent limitations 
guidelines promulgated for other industries. EPA was concerned that the 
effect of promulgating such limitations would be to encourage 
ineffective off-site treatment of oily waste streams. As mentioned 
previously, after the 1995 proposal, EPA collected additional 
information on facilities in the oils subcategory and revisited its 
conclusion about the size and nature of the oils subcategory. Further, 
as detailed earlier, EPA published a Notice of Data Availability in 
1996 describing the new information and EPA's revised assessment of the 
oils subcategory. Based on analyses presented in the 1996 Notice, EPA 
determined it should no longer consider emulsion breaking/gravity 
separation and ultrafiltration with added treatment steps as the basis 
for BPT limitations because the projected total costs relative to 
effluent reduction benefits were not economically reasonable.
    Based on comments to the 1995 proposal and the 1996 Notice of Data 
Availability, EPA was strongly encouraged to look at alternate 
technology options to emulsion breaking/gravity separation and 
ultrafiltration. This concern was driven in large measure by the fact 
that many of the facilities in the oils subcategory are classified as 
``small businesses'' and

[[Page 2310]]

the economic cost of installing and operating the ultrafiltration 
technology was quite high. Additionally, many commenters stated that 
ultrafiltration is a sophisticated technology which would be difficult 
to operate and maintain with the majority of these waste streams. 
Commenters also noted that the Agency had failed to consider non-water 
quality impacts adequately, particularly those associated with the 
disposal of the concentrated filtrate from these operations. As a 
result, based on comments to the original proposal, the 1996 Notice of 
Data Availability, and additional site visits, EPA identified several 
other treatment options that were efficient, produced tighter oil and 
grease limits, and were less expensive. As such, EPA is no longer 
considering emulsion breaking/gravity separation and ultrafiltration as 
an appropriate technology for limitations for the oils subcategory.
    Small entity representatives and SBREFA panel members requested 
that EPA examine emulsion breaking/gravity separation and secondary 
gravity separation as a potential treatment technology basis for the 
oils subcategory. Secondary gravity separation employs additional 
separation steps following the initial emulsion breaking/gravity 
separation step. During development of today's proposal, EPA examined 
emulsion breaking/gravity separation and secondary gravity separation 
as a possible BPT technology. EPA has data from a single facility which 
utilizes this technology (as a pretreatment step prior to dissolved air 
flotation and biological treatment). As previously noted, the oils 
subcategory wastewaters often contain significant concentrations of 
metals pollutants. The data show that this technology alone did not 
adequately control the metal pollutants of concern relative to other 
widely available technologies. That is, removals of metals were much 
lower than those obtained from single-stage chemical precipitation and 
DAF units. Therefore, the Agency is not proposing that emulsion 
breaking/gravity separation and secondary gravity separation without 
further treatment as BPT treatment for this subcategory. EPA requests 
comment on this issue and paired influent/effluent data from well-
operated facilities employing this technology.
    The first option evaluated for today's proposed BPT limitations for 
the oils subcategory, Option 8, is based on the use of emulsion 
breaking/gravity separation and dissolved air flotation (DAF). DAF 
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. Often, chemicals are added to 
increase the removal of metal constituents. Generally, BPT limitations 
based on this option would require some facilities to install and 
operate a DAF system or, for some facilities with currently installed 
DAF systems, to improve monitoring and operation. For oils streams with 
significant concentrations of metals, this option would also require 
some facilities to use increased quantities of treatment chemicals to 
enhance metals removals. The second technology evaluated for BPT 
limitations, Option 9, is emulsion breaking/gravity separation and 
secondary gravity separation in combination with dissolved air 
flotation. Secondary gravity separation involves using a series of 
tanks to separate the oil and water and then skimming the oily 
component off. The resulting water moves to the next step. The gravity 
separation steps are then followed by dissolved air flotation (DAF). As 
mentioned previously, EPA believes all oils facilities currently 
utilize some form of gravity separation, although most perform primary 
gravity separation only. Generally, BPT limitations based on this 
option would require some facilities to perform additional gravity 
separation steps, perform better monitoring and operation of their DAF 
system, or install and operate a DAF system. For oils streams with 
relatively high concentrations of metals, this option would also 
require some facilities to use increased quantities of treatment 
chemicals to enhance the removal of metals.
    EPA also considered both options in combination with air stripping 
(with emissions control) to control the emission of volatile pollutants 
into the air.
    The Agency is today proposing BPT limitations for the oils 
subcategory based on Option 9, emulsion breaking/gravity separation, 
secondary gravity separation and dissolved air flotation for two 
reasons. First, the adoption of this level of control would represent a 
significant reduction in pollutants discharged into the environment by 
facilities in this subcategory. Second, the Agency assessed the total 
costs of water pollution controls likely to be incurred for this option 
in relation to the effluent reduction benefits and determined these 
costs were reasonable at $0.69/lb ($1997).
    EPA proposes to reject Option 8 because BPT pollutant removals 
based on Option 8, for a number of parameters (particularly oil and 
grease), are much less stringent than current BPT effluent limitations 
guidelines promulgated for other industries. EPA believes that the vast 
majority of DAF systems in use in this subcategory are not performing 
optimally. As mentioned earlier, all of the DAF systems studied by EPA 
were used at facilities that discharge to POTWs. As such, optimal 
control of oil and grease is not required. Many do not even monitor the 
oil and grease levels in the material entering, and in some cases, 
leaving the DAF.
    For direct dischargers, EPA's cost analysis was not able to 
distinguish between Option 8 and Option 9. All of the direct 
discharging facilities in this subcategory for which EPA estimated 
costs currently employ rather extensive treatment (relative to the rest 
of the facilities in the oils subcategory), but the treatment 
technologies for the majority of the facilities are different from the 
technology basis for Option 8 or Option 9. While EPA believes these 
treatment technologies would allow these facilities to comply with 
either option for many pollutants, none of these in-place treatment 
technologies would achieve significant removals of metals pollutants. 
Therefore, for both options, EPA included costs of installing and 
operating dissolved air flotation. EPA believes its estimates (for both 
options) are, in fact, overestimates. EPA does, however, believe that 
meeting the more stringent Option 9 will result in additional removals 
while the cost differences will be negligible. EPA solicits comments on 
its conclusion as well as quantitative information on the cost 
differences for such facilities.
    EPA has studied the performance of DAF systems in other largely 
indirect discharging industries and has found the same lack of optimal 
performance. EPA believes that all facilities, including indirect 
dischargers, should monitor the levels of oil and grease entering and 
leaving the DAF system. Even though oil and grease levels are not of 
great concern for indirect dischargers, removal of many organic 
compounds is directly related to removal of oil and grease. As such, 
the overall efficacy of the DAF system in removing the vast majority of 
specific toxic parameters can be improved by improving removals of oil 
and grease.
    As explained above, the facilities sampled were not required to 
optimize their oil and grease or TSS removals because they discharge to 
POTWs that treat these pollutants. Current POTW/local permit 
limitations for oil and grease in this subcategory range from 100 mg/L 
to 2,000 mg/L and for TSS from 250 mg/L to 10,000 mg/L. Many have no 
oil and grease or TSS limits at all. EPA believes that only one of the

[[Page 2311]]

systems in this subcategory for which EPA has data was designed to 
remove oil and grease and TSS effectively. EPA believes the oil and 
grease and TSS removals are uniformly inadequate at the other 
facilities included in the proposed BPT limitations calculations for 
other parameters. Consequently, EPA based the proposed oil and grease 
and TSS limitations on data from a single facility. EPA solicits 
additional data on oil and grease and TSS discharges from oils 
facilities which are designed and operated to effectively remove these 
parameters.
    Additionally, EPA is aware of a direct discharging oils facility 
which has an oil and grease daily maximum permit limit of 13 mg/L and a 
TSS daily maximum permit limit of 55 mg/L. EPA plans to request 
discharge data from this facility when it commences commercial 
operation and intends to revisit the oil and grease and TSS limitations 
as proposed today based on its review of new data received, including 
data from the newly discharging facility. EPA has also reviewed data 
from the Industrial Laundries and the TECI rulemaking for dissolved air 
flotation systems. Given the similarities in the treated waste, EPA is 
considering whether use of this data is appropriate in determining CWT 
limitations for oil and grease for this subcategory. EPA requests 
comments on this issue as well as data on the efficacy of dissolved air 
flotation systems in treating CWT wastewaters.
    EPA projects additional pollutant removals associated with the 
technology basis for the proposed limitations, has costed facilities 
for the additional technology (a series of gravity separation steps) 
associated with this option, and has determined that it is economically 
achievable. However, EPA believes that many CWT facilities may be able 
to achieve these limitations using emulsion breaking/gravity separation 
and DAF only. As described above, EPA believes that many DAF systems in 
this industry are not performing optimally. Careful observation of the 
influent and effluent of these systems would allow facilities to better 
understand and control the resulting effluent.
    The Agency is not proposing BPT limitations based on air stripping 
with overhead recovery or destruction. While air stripping with 
overhead recovery or destruction would seem to provide some additional 
protection from volatile and semi-volatile pollutants to all 
environmental media, no substantial additional removal of volatile and 
semi-volatile parameters from the water would be achieved through these 
options since the proposed wastewater discharge limits would be the 
same with or without the additional technology basis of air stripping 
with overhead recovery. The use of air stripping coupled with emissions 
capture reduces or eliminates the air emissions that otherwise would 
occur by the volatilization of the volatile organic pollutants in 
gravity separation and dissolved air flotation systems. However, 
compliance with any proposed limitation would not require installation 
of such equipment.
    EPA highly recommends that plants incorporate air stripping with 
overhead recovery or destruction into their wastewater treatment 
systems for more complete environmental protection. EPA also notes that 
CWT facilities determined to be major sources of hazardous air 
pollutants are currently subject to maximum achievable control 
technology (MACT) as promulgated for off-site waste and recovery 
operations on July 1, 1996 (61 FR 34140).
    (iii). Subcategory C--Organics Subcategory. The Agency is today 
proposing BPT limitations for the organics subcategory for 17 
pollutants. For this proposal, EPA identified two new regulatory 
options for consideration in establishing BPT effluent reduction levels 
for this subcategory of the CWT industry.
    At the time of the original proposal, EPA also identified two 
regulatory options for consideration in establishing BPT effluent 
reduction levels for this subcategory (60 FR 5479). EPA is no longer 
considering these options as a basis for BPT limitations. The first 
treatment system EPA examined as a basis for BPT limitations included 
the following treatment steps: 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, and finally a multimedia filtration unit. The second option 
was the same as the first, but included a final carbon adsorption step.
    At the time of the original proposal, the Agency selected BPT 
limitations based on the first treatment system even though, 
theoretically, the second system under consideration should have 
provided greater removal of pollutants. EPA selected the first system 
as the technology basis since EPA's sampling data showed that, 
following the carbon adsorption treatment step, specific pollutants of 
concern actually increased. Therefore, for today's proposal, EPA is no 
longer considering the second system which includes the final carbon 
adsorption unit as the basis for BPT limitations. Additionally, EPA has 
concluded that it should no longer consider the first system 
(equalization, air stripping, biological treatment, and multimedia 
filtration) as the basis for BPT limitations. The multimedia filtration 
step is primarily included in the treatment train to protect the carbon 
adsorption unit installed downstream from high TSS levels. Since EPA 
rejected the option which includes the carbon adsorption unit, EPA 
similarly rejects the option which includes the multimedia filtration 
step.
    The two technology options considered for the organics subcategory 
BPT are as follows:
     Option 3--Equalization, Air-Stripping with emissions 
control, and Biological Treatment.
     Option 4--Equalization and Biological Treatment.
For a more detailed discussion of the basis for the limitations and the 
basis for the technologies selected see the technical development 
document.
    The first option, Option 3, evaluated for today's proposed BPT 
limitations for the organics subcategory is based on the following 
treatment system: equalization, two air-strippers in series equipped 
with a carbon adsorption unit for control of air emissions, and 
biological treatment in the form of a sequential batch reactor. BPT 
Option 4 effluent limitations are based on the same treatment system as 
Option 3 without the use of air strippers (and associated carbon 
adsorption units).
    The Agency is today proposing to adopt BPT effluent limitations 
based on the Option 4 technology for the organics subcategory. As 
mentioned earlier, the Agency decision is based primarily on the 
pollutant reductions, the cost and impacts to the industry, and non-
water quality impacts. Unlike the other BPT limitations proposed today, 
the adoption of limitations based on Option 4 would not represent a 
significant reduction in pollutants discharged into the environment by 
facilities in this subcategory. EPA believes that all direct 
discharging facilities in this subcategory currently employ 
equalization and biological treatment systems. EPA has assumed that all 
facilities which currently utilize equalization and biological 
treatment will be able to meet the BPT limitations without additional 
capital or operating costs. While EPA recognizes that some facilities 
may incur increased operating costs associated with the proposed 
limits, EPA believes these increases are negligible and has not 
quantified them. EPA solicits comments on its assumptions for these 
facilities as well as specific data which would aid in quantifying 
these increases. Additionally, many of these facilities

[[Page 2312]]

are not currently required to monitor for organic parameters or are 
only required to monitor a couple of times a year. The estimated costs 
associated with complying with BPT limitations for this subcategory are 
associated with additional monitoring only. The Agency believes the 
additional monitoring is warranted, and will promote more effective and 
consistent treatment at these facilities. The Agency recognizes that in 
some cases this monitoring may lead to changes in operating procedures 
that could involve additional costs to the facilities, but does not 
expect these additional costs will be significant.
    The Agency proposes to reject Option 3. BPT effluent limitations 
associated with Option 3 treatment would be essentially the same as 
those established by Option 4. The main difference between Option 4 and 
Option 3 is that Option 3, which includes air stripping with emissions 
control, would be effective in reducing the levels of volatile and 
semi-volatile organic pollutants in all environmental media, not just 
the water. The use of air stripping with emissions control would reduce 
or eliminate the air emissions that otherwise would occur by the 
volatilization of the volatile organic pollutants in the biological 
system.
    However, while EPA is concerned about volatile pollutants, 
particularly for this subcategory, compliance with proposed limitations 
would not necessarily require installation of equipment to capture air 
emissions. EPA notes that CWT facilities determined to be major sources 
of hazardous air pollutants are subject to maximum achievable control 
technology (MACT) as promulgated for off-site waste and recovery 
operations on July 1, 1996 (61 FR 34140) as 40 CFR Part 63.
    Once again, the selected BPT option is based on the performance of 
a single indirect discharging facility. While EPA identified four 
direct discharging organics subcategory facilities which utilize 
biological treatment, EPA could not use data from these facilities to 
establish limitations because they commingle organics subcategory 
wastewaters with other CWT subcategory wastewaters or other categorical 
wastewaters. Many facilities that are treating wastes that will be 
subject to effluent limitations for the Organic 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 on which Option 4 is based was 
one of the few facilities identified which treated organic waste 
receipts separately from other on-site industrial wastewater.
    The Agency used biological treatment performance data from the 
Thermosetting Resin Subcategory of the OCPSF regulation to establish 
direct discharge limitations for BOD5 and TSS because the 
facility from which Option 4 limitations were derived is an indirect 
discharger and the treatment system is not operated to effectively 
remove 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 in this subcategory that the Agency was able to evaluate. 
Moreover, EPA concluded that the biological treatment systems at CWT 
facilities will perform similarly to those at OCPSF facilities. EPA 
based this conclusion on its review of the NPDES permits for the four 
direct discharging facilities in this subcategory. Two of these 
facilities are located at manufacturing facilities which commingle 
their wastewater for treatment and are already subject to OCPSF. The 
other two facilities have conventional pollutant limits which are lower 
than those proposed today. EPA has concluded that all of these 
facilities should be able to comply with the transferred limitations 
without incurring additional costs. Likewise, EPA has not estimated any 
additional pollutant removals associated with this data transfer. EPA 
requests comment on its approach for developing conventional pollutant 
limitations for this subcategory.
2. Best Conventional Technology (BCT)
    In today's rule, for the conventional pollutants covered under BPT 
for all subcategories, EPA is not proposing effluent limitations 
guidelines and standards different from those proposed for BPT. In 
deciding whether to propose 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 under the standards established by the CWA--the ``BCT 
Cost Test.'' For all three subcategories, EPA identified no 
technologies that can achieve greater removals of conventional 
pollutants than those that are the basis for BPT that are also cost-
reasonable under the BCT Cost Test. Accordingly, EPA is proposing BCT 
effluent limitations equal to the proposed BPT effluent limitations 
guidelines and standards. For additional information on the ``BCT Cost 
Test,'' refer to XI.E.
3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
    EPA today is proposing BAT effluent limitations for all 
subcategories of the CWT Industry based on the same technologies 
selected as the basis for BPT for each subcategory. Therefore, the 
proposed BAT limitations are the same as the proposed BPT limitations. 
The BAT effluent limitations proposed today would control identified 
priority and non-conventional pollutants discharged from facilities. As 
described in the BPT discussion, in general, the adoption of this level 
of control would represent a significant reduction in pollutants 
discharged into the environment by facilities in this subcategory. 
Additionally, EPA has evaluated the economic impacts associated with 
adoption of these limitations and found them to be economically 
achievable. This analysis is discussed in detail in Section XI.F.
    With the exception of the metals subcategory, EPA has not 
identified any more stringent treatment technology option different 
from those evaluated for BPT that might represent best available 
technology economically achievable for this industry. For the metals 
subcategory of today's proposed rule, EPA did consider as BAT 
technology two treatment technologies that it had evaluated for the 
1995 proposal, Option 2 and Option 3, based on the use of selective 
metals precipitation. However, the costs to the industry for Option 2 
and Option 3 are more than four times greater than the cost of the BPT 
option, Option 4, with little additional toxics removal.6 
Given the comparable toxic removals, EPA has concluded it should not 
adopt a more costly option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ EPA's data show that Option 3 would remove approximately 2% 
more additional toxic pound-equivalents than Option 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the oils and organics subcategories, EPA has evaluated 
treatment technologies for BAT limitations, which theoretically should 
provide greater removal of pollutants of concern. For example, EPA 
identified an add-on treatment technology to technologies considered 
for BPT--carbon adsorption--that should have further increased removals 
of pollutants of concern. However, EPA's data show

[[Page 2313]]

increases rather than decreases in concentrations of specific 
pollutants of concern. Consequently, EPA is not proposing BAT 
limitations based on this technology.
    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 as 
explained below. Alternatively, as detailed in Section XIV.F, EPA is 
proposing that the facilities may monitor for compliance after mixing 
if the limitations are adjusted using the ``building block approach'', 
assuming the adjusted limitations do not fall below the minimum 
analytical detection limit. Many facilities operate other processes 
that generate wastewater. The common treatment of this wastewater with 
CWT wastewater may result in dilution due to the difference in 
concentration of waste streams. Also, when a facility mixes CWT 
wastewater with non-contaminated stormwater before discharge, 
compliance may be due to dilution rather than treatment. Also, as with 
BPT, monitoring for compliance for the Total Cyanide limitations at 
facilities in the metals subcategory which treat concentrated cyanide-
bearing metal waste is after cyanide pretreatment and prior to metals 
treatment, unless the building block approach can be used to calculate 
end-of-pipe limitations that are not below the detection limit. This 
ensures that cyanide will not interfere with metals treatment. 
Therefore, EPA's estimate of compliance monitoring costs associated 
with the proposed BAT limitations is based on the assumption that 
facilities will monitor at a point after treatment, but prior to 
commingling.
    While EPA has based its monitoring cost estimates on separate 
monitoring for each subcategory (and Total Cyanide), as with BPT 
limitations, if the facility can demonstrate to the permitting 
authority the capability of achieving the effluent limitations for each 
subpart (and Total cyanide), the facility may monitor for compliance 
after mixing. See Section IX.D for further information regarding 
monitoring to demonstrate compliance with the regulation.
4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
    As previously noted, under Section 306 of the Act, EPA must propose 
and promulgate Federal standards for performance for new sources for 
categories of sources. Section 306(e) provides that, after the 
effective date of the standards of performance, the owner or operator 
of a new source may not operate the source in violation of any 
applicable standard of performance. The statute defines ``standard of 
performance'' as a standard for the control of the discharge of 
pollutants which reflect the greatest degree of effluent reduction 
achievable through application of the best available demonstrated 
control technologies, processes, operating methods or other 
alternatives, including, where practicable, a standard permitting no 
discharge of pollutants. See Section 306(a)(1) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 
1316(a)(1). 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. See general discussion of legislative history in American 
Iron and Steel Institute v. EPA, 526 F.2d 1027, 1057-59 (3rd Cir. 
1975). In establishing these standards, Congress directed EPA to 
consider the cost of achieving the effluent reduction and any non-water 
quality environmental impacts and energy requirements. As the 
legislative history of the CWA makes clear, consideration of cost in 
establishing new source standards is given less weight than in 
establishing BAT limitations because pollution control alternatives are 
available to new sources that would not be available to existing 
sources. See Legis. Hist. (Sen. Muskie statement of House-Senate 
Conference Report on 1972 Act).
    For the oils and the organics subcategory, 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 oils and organics subcategories similar to the oils 
and organics subcategories for existing facilities, and proposing NSPS 
limitations that are identical to those proposed for BPT/BCT/BAT.
    For the metals subcategory, however, EPA is proposing NSPS effluent 
limitations based on the technology proposed in 1995--selective metals 
precipitation, liquid-solid separation, secondary precipitation, 
liquid-solid separation, and tertiary precipitation and clarification. 
This technology (Option 3) provides the most stringent controls 
attainable through the application of demonstrated technology. On the 
other hand, Option 4 provides slightly lower removals than Option 3 at 
significantly lower costs. EPA's determination to propose limitations 
based on Option 3 is closely tied to its preliminary conclusion that 
facilities will generally choose to recover and reuse metals, whereas 
facilities employing technologies to comply with Option 4 limitations 
will generally dispose of metal-bearing sludges in landfills. EPA 
believes that the selection of either Option 3 or Option 4 for NSPS 
satisfies the requirements that Congress established in the Clean Water 
Act for new sources. However, provided new sources employ recovery and 
reuse, Option 3 also promotes the objectives of the Pollution 
Prevention Act.
    EPA believes that this technology is fully applicable to all metal 
waste streams in the CWT industry, including those with high 
concentrations of total dissolved solids (TDS). Commenters to the 
original proposal had questioned whether the level of TDS in wastewater 
would increase the solubility of the metals, and negatively affect the 
ability of the Option 3 treatment technology to perform optimally. As 
detailed in VI.I, EPA has concluded that the evidence do not either 
support or refute a direct relationship between TDS and the solubility 
of metals in water. Finally, EPA has concluded that there is no barrier 
to entry for new sources to install, operate, and maintain treatment 
systems that will achieve discharge levels associated with these Option 
3 technologies. See XI.H for a more detailed discussion of EPA's 
barrier to entry analysis.
    While EPA has concluded that the Option 3 technology does not pose 
a barrier to entry for new sources (using EPA's standard methodology 
for evaluating economic impacts for new sources), EPA recognizes that 
aside from the projected non-water quality benefits, EPA only estimates 
an additional 3.6 percent removal of pollutants and an additional 2.3 
percent removals of toxics associated with the Option 3 technology as 
compared to the Option 4 technology. Additionally, EPA estimates that 
the start-up costs associated with the Option 3 technology range from 
about 46% to 50% greater than those associated with the Option 4 
technology. (These estimates do not account for costs associated with 
RCRA permits, which may be a substantial portion of the start-up costs 
depending on the flow for which the facility is designed.) Finally, EPA 
acknowledges that the operating and maintenance

[[Page 2314]]

costs associated with Option 3 range from about 23% to 160% greater 
than those associated with Option 4. These estimates do not include 
monitoring costs which would be the same for either option, and which 
can be substantial. These estimates also do not include the reduction 
in landfilling costs associated with Option 3 or the revenue generated 
from the sale of recovered metals. For more information on the cost of 
pollutant removals for existing sources, see Table XI.M-1. EPA solicits 
comments and data on the market for recovered metals, and revenue 
generated from the sale of recovered metals. Finally, EPA solicits 
comments on the extent to which new sources may choose to recover and 
reuse metals through the Option 3 technology basis or simply comply 
with the limitations and continue to dispose of their metal sludges in 
a landfill.
    EPA's determination to propose limitations based on Option 3 is 
closely tied to its preliminary conclusion that facilities will choose 
to recover and reuse metals. In the event that EPA concludes that new 
sources would not generally recover and reuse metals despite the 
improved ability to do so, EPA will promulgate NSPS based on the 
proposed BAT technology basis, Metals Option 4.
    The Agency used performance data from the CWT metals subcategory 
BAT limitations data set to establish NSPS limitations for oil and 
grease because the facility from which the NSPS limitations were 
derived did not have oil and grease in its influent at treatable levels 
during EPA's sampling episodes. EPA has concluded that transfer of this 
data is appropriate given that the technology basis for NSPS includes 
selective metals precipitation and an additional precipitation step. As 
such, EPA has every reason to believe that facilities employing the 
NSPS technology could achieve the limitations, given the fact that the 
oil and grease limitation is based on performance at a facility 
employing less treatment steps.
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
    Indirect dischargers in the CWT industry, like direct dischargers, 
accept wastes for treatment that contain many priority and non-
conventional pollutants. Like direct dischargers, indirect dischargers 
may be expected to discharge many of these pollutants to POTWs at 
significant mass and concentration levels. EPA estimates that CWT 
indirect dischargers annually discharge approximately 10.2 million 
pounds of metal and organic pollutants to POTWs.
    CWA 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 achieving BAT removals. 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.
    For this effluent guideline as well as past effluent guidelines, in 
conducting the pass-through analysis, EPA used a study of 50 well-
operated POTWs (``Fate of Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned 
Treatment Works,'' September 1982, EPA 440/1-82/303) to estimate the 
percent removals of CWT pollutants in POTWs. Additionally, due to the 
large number of pollutants applicable for this industry, EPA also used 
data from the National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) 
database to augment the POTW database for the pollutants which the 50 
POTW Study did not cover. The editing criteria are described in Section 
VI.F and in Chapter Seven of the technical development document.
    In addition to the pass-through analysis described above, EPA has 
historically considered pass-through analysis for volatile pollutants 
by applying a volatile override test which is based on the Henry's law 
constant. Pollutants which are deemed to be volatile by this test are 
deemed to pass through because a substantial part of the overall 
percent removal estimated at the POTW represents emission of the 
pollutant into the air rather than treatment. For this proposal, 
however, EPA has not applied this test. EPA chose not to apply this 
test because the overall percent removal for many of these volatile 
pollutants estimated for the proposed technologies also represents 
emission of the pollutant into the air rather than treatment. As 
described under the discussion of BPT and BAT, EPA considered 
technology options which would have controlled these volatile 
pollutants in all media, but is proposing not to set limitations based 
on these technologies. While EPA is concerned about emissions of 
pollutants in all environmental media, EPA has concluded that 
limitations based on such technologies (e.g., air stripping with 
overhead recovery) would not be significantly different from the 
limitations being proposed today. Thus, EPA has concluded that the use 
of authorities other than the CWA to address air emissions from CWT 
wastewater is preferable. As such, EPA did not apply the volatile 
override test in conducting its pass-through analyses for this 
industry.
    b. PSES options considered. For the metals and organics 
subcategories, the Agency today is proposing to establish pretreatment 
standards for existing sources (PSES) based on the same technologies as 
proposed for BPT and BAT.7 These standards would apply to 
existing facilities in the metals or organics subcategories of the CWT 
industry that discharge wastewater to publicly-owned treatment works 
(POTWs) and would prevent pass-through of pollutants and help control 
sludge contamination. Based on EPA's

[[Page 2315]]

pass-through analysis, all of the BAT pollutants controlled by the 
metals subcategory and six of the BAT pollutants controlled by the 
organics subcategory would pass through and are proposed for PSES. The 
pollutants in the organics subcategory that were determined not to 
pass-through are antimony, copper, zinc, acetophenone, phenol, 
pyridine, 2-butanone, 2-propanone, and 2,4,6-trichlorophenol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For the metals subcategory, the technology basis for PSES 
does not include the second clarification step since this step was 
only included to meet the transferred TSS limitations which apply to 
direct dischargers only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained earlier, in establishing PSES, the Agency generally 
sets the technology basis for PSES equivalent to BAT and then conducts 
a pass-through analysis. The Agency also considers the economic 
achievability of alternative technology options. In developing PSES for 
the oils subcategory, EPA carefully considered several types of 
economic impacts: to the CWT oils facilities, to the CWT oils firms, 
and to specific segments of the CWT industry such as small businesses. 
Early results from these analyses supported basing PSES on Option 8 
rather than Option 9 (the basis for the BAT limitations) since the 
additional technology associated with Option 9, while removing some 
additional pollutants, was associated with higher costs and greater 
adverse economic impact. Therefore, EPA preliminarily concluded that 
Option 9 was not economically achievable for indirect dischargers.
    As previously explained, EPA held a number of discussions with the 
small business community engaged in oils treatment operations. EPA also 
convened a SBREFA review panel for this proposal. The panel and the 
small entity representatives provided many pertinent discussions and 
insights on possible impacts of this regulation to small businesses. 
Many commented that even Option 8 was too expensive. However, as 
detailed in Section V.B, EPA believes that all CWT wastes should be 
treated effectively. EPA has concluded based on its economic analysis, 
that Option 8 is economically achievable--even in light of the 
projected level of impacts to small businesses.
    More recent results of the economic analysis for this proposal 
(which include final cost estimates, etc.) indicate that projected 
impacts for Option 9, while greater than Option 8, were not as high as 
originally projected in our preliminary analyses. However, EPA 
estimates that removals for Option 9 for indirect dischargers are only 
about one percent higher than removals for Option 8. As such, the 
difference in the removals between the two options may be negligible.
    In contrast, in estimating the economic impacts associated with 
Option 9, EPA costed facilities for the additional treatment technology 
associated with the Option 9 technology basis. While not as high as 
originally projected, these impacts are still significant. In 
particular, EPA estimates additional process closures and impacts to 
small businesses associated with the Option 9 technology basis.
    Therefore, EPA today is proposing to establish PSES standards for 
the oils subcategory based on the oils Option 8 technology--emulsion 
breaking/gravity separation and dissolved air flotation. Fourteen of 
the BAT pollutants controlled by the oils subcategory would pass 
through and are proposed for regulation. The six pollutants in the oils 
subcategory that were determined not to pass through are arsenic, butyl 
benzyl phthlate, cadmium, chromium, lead, and mercury. Additionally, 
EPA requests comments on whether any treatment technology basis more 
expensive than the Option 8 technology basis (dissolved air flotation) 
produces significantly greater pollutant removals and is economically 
achievable for indirect dischargers in this subcategory.
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)
    Section 307 of the Act requires EPA to promulgate pretreatment 
standards for new sources (PSNS) at the same time it promulgates new 
source performance standards (NSPS). Such pretreatment standards must 
prevent the discharge of any pollutant into a POTW that may interfere 
with, pass through, or may otherwise be incompatible with the POTW 
(Section 307(c) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1317(c)). EPA promulgates 
categorical pretreatment standards for existing sources based on BAT 
technology for existing sources. EPA promulgates pretreatment standards 
for new sources based on best available demonstrated technology for new 
sources (National Ass'n of Metal Finishers v. EPA, 719 F.2d 624 (3rd 
Circ. 1983)). The legislative history explains that Congress required 
simultaneous establishment of new source standards and pretreatment 
standards for new sources for two reasons. First, Congress wanted to 
ensure that any new source industrial user achieve the highest degree 
of internal effluent controls necessary to insure that such user's 
contribution to the POTW would not cause a violation of the POTW's 
permit. Second, Congress wished to eliminate from the new user's 
discharge any pollutant that would pass through, interfere, or was 
otherwise incompatible with POTW operations.
    As set forth in Section IX.B.5(a) of this preamble, EPA determined 
that a broad range of pollutants discharged by CWT industry facilities 
pass through POTWs. EPA considered the same technologies discussed 
previously for BAT, NSPS, and PSES 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. Since the pass-through analysis remains unchanged, the 
Agency is proposing to establish PSNS for the same priority and non-
conventional pollutants as are being proposed for PSES. In addition, 
given the potential for co-dilution, EPA is again proposing that 
monitoring to demonstrate compliance with these standards be required 
immediately following treatment of the regulated streams. However, as 
with PSES, EPA is alternatively proposing to allow facilities to 
monitor for compliance after mixing if the standards are adjusted using 
the combined waste stream formula (see Section XIV.F), assuming the 
standards do not fall below the minimum analytical detection limits. 
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.

C. Non-Regulated Pollutants of Concern

    Section VIII.B discusses the pollutants of concern for each of the 
subcategories. EPA has not chosen to regulate all of these pollutants. 
Chapter 7 of the technical development document lists the pollutants of 
concern that EPA proposes not to regulate and the bases for these 
decisions.

D. Monitoring To Demonstrate Compliance With the Regulation

    The effluent limitations and pretreatment standards EPA is 
proposing today are intended to apply 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. 
However, in certain circumstances on a site specific basis, these 
effluent limitations or pretreatment standards may apply, through the 
use of the combined waste stream formula or the building block approach 
(see Section XIV.F), to discharges from the treatment of subcategory 
wastes that are mixed prior to or after treatment with other wastewater 
streams prior to discharge. EPA is not proposing to establish a single 
set of limits (and pretreatment standards) for the pollutants proposed

[[Page 2316]]

to be regulated in this category at the point of discharge for mixed 
waste streams, given the difficulty of ensuring comparable treatment to 
what would be achieved by the separate subcategory limitations (or 
standards).
    Currently, 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. If the addition of 
these other wastes was not taken into account in developing site-
specific permit limitations, 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-contact 
stormwater in combination with its CWT discharge and if it was not 
accounted for in the development of the facility's permit limitations, 
a similar problem of dilution, rather than treatment of wastes, may 
result.
    Similarly, for facilities which treat concentrated cyanide-bearing 
metal wastes, the development of limitations and pretreatment standards 
for Total Cyanide was 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. However, in certain circumstances, these Total 
Cyanide limitations (or standards) may apply, through the use of the 
combined waste stream formula or the building block approach, to 
discharges of Total Cyanide mixed with other wastewaters.
    Consequently, EPA has preliminarily determined that many plants may 
need to conduct compliance monitoring immediately following treatment 
of subcategory waste streams (for example, metal-bearing, oily, or 
organic-bearing, as appropriate). EPA does not believe that the use of 
the combined waste stream formula or the building block approach will 
be possible for all plants in this industry either, because the 
proportion of wastes being treated from different subcategories will 
change frequently, or because co-dilution of different subcategory 
waste types with another would require mixed-waste limits or standards 
below the minimum analytical detection limit for some regulated 
pollutants. In such situations, permits will require separate 
monitoring of each subcategory wastestream following treatment and 
prior to mixing. Consequently, all compliance monitoring cost estimates 
presented today are based on separate monitoring of each subcategory. A 
detailed discussion of compliance monitoring for facilities which 
accept waste in more than one subcategory can be found in Section XIV.F 
of today's notice and in Chapter 14 of the technical development 
document.
    In estimating compliance costs and developing limitations, EPA 
assumed daily monitoring for conventional pollutants by direct 
dischargers, and monitoring for toxic and non-conventional pollutants 
by both indirect and direct dischargers as follows: for the metals 
subcategory, daily monitoring for metals, and for the oils and organics 
subcategories, weekly monitoring for both metals and organics. EPA 
believes these frequencies are appropriate given the variability of 
receipts generally seen on a day-to-day and week-to-week basis at CWT 
facilities. EPA notes that the recommended monitoring frequencies, as 
proposed today, are greatly reduced from the recommended monitoring 
frequencies in the original proposal. Even so, EPA recognizes that, in 
many cases, monitoring costs still represent a significant share of the 
compliance costs of this proposed rule, particularly for many of the 
small businesses in the oils subcategory.
    As such, for facilities in the oils subcategory, EPA is considering 
an alternative monitoring scheme. Facilities may either (1) monitor for 
all pollutants as proposed today; or (2) monitor for the conventional, 
metal parameters, and an indicator parameter such as hexane extractable 
material (HEM) or silica gel treated-hexane extractable material (SGT-
HEM) in lieu of the organic pollutants. EPA is currently conducting a 
study to determine which organic pollutants are measured by SGT-HEM and 
HEM. If facilities choose to monitor for organics with an indicator 
parameter, the facility must comply with all applicable requirements, 
including the requirement that pollutant reductions must not be 
achieved through dilution. EPA solicits comments on this monitoring 
scheme and the use of indicator parameters in general.
    As another alternative that would target monitoring relief to small 
businesses, the SBREFA panel discussed at length the merits and 
disadvantages of providing alternative limitations and pretreatment 
standards for small businesses based on an assumption of less frequent 
monitoring for facilities owned and operated by small businesses. Under 
this approach, EPA would establish two sets of effluent limitations and 
pretreatment standards. Three major issues with this approach were 
raised during the panel process.
    First, current permit application forms do not require facilities 
to indicate whether or not they are owned and operated by small 
businesses. EPA defines small CWT companies as those having sales less 
than $6 million (the Small Business Administration definition of a 
small business for SIC code 4953, Refuse Systems). Information on a 
firm's sales is not always publicly available. Industry representatives 
have indicated that revenue would be a suitable criterion to identify 
small businesses for purposes of a reduced monitoring regime and that 
facilities would be comfortable providing firm-level economic 
information to the federal, state, or local permitting authority as 
long as confidentiality is protected. Note that the designation of 
small business could not be claimed confidential for facilities that 
are granted monitoring relief or alternative limitations on this basis, 
although the data on which the designation was based could be. EPA 
solicits comment on this potential basis for identifying small 
businesses for purposes of monitoring relief.
    Second, EPA does not generally establish nationally-applicable 
monitoring frequency requirements. Even when EPA has established 
minimum monitoring requirements (See 63 FR 18504 April 15, 1998), state 
and local permitting authorities are free to establish more frequent 
monitoring than that specified by EPA. Permitting authorities have 
historically used factors such as raw waste variability, wastewater 
flow, type of treatment, and compliance history to determine 
appropriate monitoring frequencies. EPA is uncertain whether or not, 
and to what extent, recommendations on monitoring frequency based upon 
firm revenue would be considered by permitting authorities. This is 
even more uncertain given that the factors historically used by 
permitting authorities do not correlate to firm size in this industry. 
Permitting authorities that establish more frequent monitoring 
requirements for facilities that pose a greater threat to water quality 
or POTW treatment system effectiveness may not be inclined to allow 
facilities with higher loadings to monitor less frequently than other 
facilities due to the revenues of the parent firm. EPA solicits comment 
on the likelihood that permitting authorities would follow EPA 
recommendations regarding reduced monitoring frequencies for small 
business owned and operated facilities.
    Third, although the technology basis and the long-term average for 
both sets of limitations would be the same, the

[[Page 2317]]

monthly average limitations calculated based upon reduced monitoring 
assumptions would be higher (less stringent). This is due to the 
influence of variability on the limitation calculation which is much 
more pronounced with reduced monitoring: a ``monthly average'' 
limitation based upon an assumption of once a month monitoring equals 
the calculated daily maximum limitation; a ``monthly average'' 
limitation based on daily monitoring would have a value closer to that 
of the long-term average. While both limitations (daily maximum and 
monthly average) are based upon the same technology and same long-term 
average performance, EPA is concerned that higher monthly average 
limitations for facilities with less frequent required monitoring might 
allow these facilities to target a less stringent level of treatment 
than that reflected by the long-term average. Although they would run a 
greater risk of violation if they did this, they might be able to 
reduce their liability for violation by monitoring early in the month, 
and conducting subsequent monitoring within the month if that first 
event is in violation of their (higher) monthly average. EPA recognizes 
that this potential exists to some extent even without higher 
limitations based on less frequent monitoring, but it becomes more 
pronounced as required monitoring frequencies decrease. One way of 
addressing this concern would be to allow the alternative limitations 
to apply only when compliance monitoring is conducted at a comparable 
frequency to that assumed in the development of the alternate 
limitations. For example, a facility could be required to determine in 
advance a random day on which compliance monitoring for a month would 
be conducted. Any other monitoring that the facility might perform for 
its own purposes (eg., process control) could not be used to lower the 
monthly average for compliance purposes. EPA solicits comment on this 
and other alternatives to ensure that any monitoring relief the Agency 
might provide does not jeopardize environmental performance.
    EPA has issued guidance to permit authorities on implementing 
reduced reporting and monitoring requirements in its ``Interim Guidance 
for Performance-based Reduction of NPDES Permit Monitoring 
Frequencies'' (EPA-833-B-96-001, April 1996). Ordering information is 
available from http://www.epa.gov/OWM/avail.htm.

E. Determination of Long-Term Averages, Variability Factors, and 
Limitations

    This subsection describes the statistical methodology used to 
develop long-term averages, variability factors, and limitations for 
BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS. The same basic procedures apply to 
the calculation of all limitations and standards for this industry, 
regardless of whether the technology is BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, or 
PSNS. For simplicity, the following discussion refers only to 
``limitations''; however, the discussion also applies to standards.
    The proposed limitations for pollutants for each option, as 
presented in today's notice, are provided as ``daily maximums'' and 
``maximums for monthly averages.'' Definitions provided in 40 CFR 122.2 
state that the daily maximum limitation is the ``highest allowable 
`daily discharge' '' and the maximum for monthly average limitation is 
the ``highest allowable average of `daily discharges' over a calendar 
month, calculated as the sum of all `daily discharges' measured during 
a calendar month divided by the number of `daily discharges' measured 
during that month.'' Daily discharges are defined to be the `` 
`discharge of a pollutant' measured during a calendar day or any 24-
hour period that reasonably represents the calendar day for purposes of 
sampling.''
    EPA calculates the limitations based upon percentiles chosen with 
the intention, on one hand, to be high enough to accommodate reasonably 
anticipated variability within control of the facility and, on the 
other hand, to be low enough to reflect a level of performance 
consistent with the Clean Water Act requirement that these effluent 
limitations be based on the ``best'' technologies. The daily maximum 
limitation is an estimate of the 99th percentile of the distribution of 
the daily measurements. The maximum for monthly average limitation is 
an estimate of the 95th percentile of the distribution of the monthly 
averages of the daily measurements. The percentiles for both types of 
limitations are estimated using the products of long-term averages and 
variability factors.
    In the first of two steps in estimating both types of limitations, 
EPA determines an average performance level (the ``long-term average'') 
that a facility with well-designed and operated model technologies 
(which reflect the appropriate level of control) is capable of 
achieving. This long-term average is calculated from the data from the 
facilities using the model technologies for the option. EPA expects 
that all facilities subject to the limitations will design and operate 
their treatment systems to achieve the long-term average performance 
level on a consistent basis because facilities with well-designed and 
operated model technologies have demonstrated that this can be done. In 
the second step of developing a limitation, EPA determines an allowance 
for the variation in pollutant concentrations when processed through 
extensive and well designed treatment systems. This allowance for 
variance incorporates all components of variability including shipping, 
sampling, storage, and analytical variability. This allowance is 
incorporated into the limitations through the use of the variability 
factors which are calculated from the data from the facilities using 
the model technologies. For a few pollutants, EPA transferred the long-
term average, variability factors, or limitations from another source 
such as another pollutant group or industrial category (as explained 
briefly in Section IX.B.1 and in detail in Chapter 10 of the technical 
development document). If a facility operates its treatment system to 
meet the relevant long-term average, EPA expects the facility to be 
able to meet the limitations. Variability factors assure that normal 
fluctuations in a facility's treatment are accounted for in the 
limitations. By accounting for these reasonable excursions above the 
long-term average, EPA's use of variability factors results in 
limitations that are generally well above the actual long-term 
averages. The data sources, the selection of pollutants and data, and 
the calculations of pollutant long-term averages and variability 
factors are briefly described below. More detailed explanations are 
provided in the technical development document.
    The long-term averages, variability factors, and limitations were 
based upon pollutant concentrations collected from three data sources: 
EPA sampling episodes, the 1991 Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire, and 
data submitted by industry after the 1995 proposal. These data sources 
are described in Sections VI.B and VI.C. When the data from the EPA 
sampling episodes at a facility met the data editing criteria described 
below, EPA used the sampling data and any monitoring data provided by 
the facility.
    EPA calculated long-term averages for the initial pollutant of 
concern list for each option and each subcategory. As described in 
section VIII.B, the initial pollutant of concern list for each 
subcategory consisted of parameters that were detected at treatable 
levels in at

[[Page 2318]]

least 10 percent of the daily influent wastewater samples collected in 
the EPA sampling episodes. Treatable levels were defined as those equal 
to or greater than ten times the minimum analytical detection limit. 
Generally, the ``minimum analytical detection limit'' was the value 
published in the chemical analytical method. Chapter 15 of the 
technical development document identifies the minimum analytical 
detection limit for all pollutants proposed to be regulated. In 
calculating long-term averages, EPA applied two additional criteria to 
the concentration data sets for the pollutants of concern. If a 
pollutant data set from an EPA sampling episode met both criteria, the 
EPA sampling data and any monitoring data from that facility were used 
in calculating the long-term averages for the pollutant. The first 
criteria EPA applied was whether EPA had detected the pollutant at 
treatable levels in 50 percent or more of the daily influent wastewater 
samples. If not detected at treatable levels in 50 percent or more of 
the samples, then EPA looked to see if the long-term average value of 
the daily influent wastewater samples for a particular pollutant was 
equal to or greater than the treatable levels for that pollutant and 
the pollutant was detected in at least 50% of the influent wastewater 
samples (at any level). If the pollutant data set met the first 
criteria, then EPA applied the second criteria. In the second criteria, 
EPA confirmed that the percent removal for the data set was greater 
than zero. (Percent removal was calculated as 100 times the ratio of 
the difference between the influent and effluent averages to the 
influent average.) If the concentration data for any of the pollutant 
data sets met both criteria, then EPA calculated a long-term average 
for the pollutant. For some pollutants in some options, none of the 
data sets from the EPA sampling episodes met both criteria; thus, EPA 
did not calculate a long-term average for that pollutant for that 
option. Further, as a result of applying the criteria, EPA may have 
proposed slightly different lists of regulated pollutants for the 
options within a given subcategory.
    For each facility that met the criteria and that had the model 
technologies, the long-term average for each pollutant was calculated 
by arithmetically averaging the daily values of the pollutant 
concentrations. (For facilities with continuous flow systems, a daily 
value was the average of the concentrations of a pollutant on a given 
calendar day. For facilities with batch systems, a daily value was the 
average of the concentrations of a pollutant in a batch.) The pollutant 
long-term average for an option was the median of the long-term 
averages from the facilities with the model technologies for the 
option.
    The daily variability factors for each option were developed in 
four steps for each group of pollutants with similar chemical 
structures. (The group for each pollutant is identified in the 
technical development document.) The first step evaluated the size of 
the facility data set that met the criteria and the censoring types of 
its daily values. As described in Chapter 10 of the technical 
development document, a facility data set was excluded if the number of 
non-censored values was too small to reliably estimate the statistical 
distributional parameters used in calculating the daily variability 
factor. (A non-censored value is a measured value, i.e., a 
concentration value greater than the minimum analytical detection 
limit.) The second step was to develop a daily variability factor for 
each pollutant at each facility by fitting a modified delta-lognormal 
distribution to the daily values for the pollutant at each facility. 
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 expected value, or mean, 
of the distribution of the daily values. The third 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 fourth step was to 
develop group daily variability factors for each option. The daily 
variability factor for each group was the median of the daily 
variability factors obtained in the third step for the pollutants in 
the group and option. The daily maximum limitation for a pollutant was 
the product of the pollutant long-term average and its group daily 
variability factor.
    Similarly, the monthly variability factors for each option were 
developed in the same basic four steps described for the daily 
variability factors. However, in the second step, the modified delta-
lognormal distribution was fit to monthly averages rather than daily 
measurements. Another change was that the 95th percentile was used 
rather than the 99th percentile. Thus, the monthly variability factor 
for each pollutant at each facility was the ratio of the estimated 95th 
percentile of the distribution of the monthly average divided by the 
expected value, or mean, of the distribution of the monthly averages. 
Although the monitoring frequency necessary for a facility to 
demonstrate compliance is determined by the local permitting authority, 
EPA must assume a monitoring frequency in order to develop the 
distribution of monthly averages. The distribution fit to averages of 
20 daily values will be different from the distribution fit to averages 
of 4 daily values. 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 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 monthly averages comprising 
four daily values. Certain pollutants such as oil and grease (HEM) are 
expected to be monitored daily; therefore, the monthly variability 
factor was based upon the distribution of averages comprising 20 daily 
values (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 IX.E-1. The maximum for monthly 
average limitation for a pollutant was the product of the pollutant 
long-term average and its group monthly variability factor.

               Table IX.E-1.--Monitoring Frequencies Used To Estimate Monthly Variability Factors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Assumed monitoring frequency        Metals subcategory         Oils subcategory        Organics subcategory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daily Monitoring (20 per month)..  Hexane-Extractable Oil     Hexane-Extractable Oil    BOD5.
                                    and Grease (HEM).          and Grease (HEM).        TSS.
                                   TSS......................  TSS
                                   Antimony
                                   Arsenic
                                   Cadmium
                                   Chromium

[[Page 2319]]

 
                                   Chromium, hex
                                   Cobalt
                                   Copper
                                   Lead
                                   Manganese
                                   Mercury
                                   Nickel
                                   Selenium
                                   Silver
                                   Tin
                                   Titanium
                                   Vanadium
                                   Zinc
                                   Total Cyanide (if
                                    applicable).
Weekly Monitoring................  None.....................  Antimony                  Antimony.
                                                              Arsenic                   Copper.
                                                              Barium                    Molybdenum.
                                                              Cadmium                   Zinc.
                                                              Chromium                  Acetophenone.
                                                              Cobalt                    Aniline.
                                                              Copper                    Benzoic Acid.
                                                              Lead                      o-cresol.
                                                              Mercury                   p-cresol.
                                                              Molybdenum                Phenol.
                                                              Tin                       Pyridine.
                                                              Titanium                  2-butanone.
                                                              Zinc                      2-propanone.
                                                              Alpha terpineol           2,3-dichloroaniline.
                                                              Bis-2-ethylhexyl          2,4,6-trichlorophenol.
                                                              phthalate.
                                                              Butyl benzyl phthlate.
                                                              Carbazole.
                                                              Flouranthene.
                                                              n-decane.
                                                              n-octadecane.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In section XVI of today's reproposal, EPA is soliciting comment on 
two specific aspects of the procedures used to determine the 
limitations. Both of these requests are described further below.
    First, EPA reiterates its request for additional data that can be 
used to evaluate autocorrelation in the data. When data are said to be 
positively autocorrelated, it means that measurements taken at 
different time periods are similar. For example, positive 
autocorrelation would be present in the data if the final effluent 
concentration of oil and grease was relatively high one day and was 
likely to remain at similar high values the next and possibly 
succeeding days. In many industries, measurements in final effluent are 
likely to be similar from one day to the next because of the 
consistency from day-to-day in the production processes and in final 
effluent discharges due to the hydraulic retention time of wastewater 
in basins, holding ponds, and other components of wastewater treatment 
systems. EPA believes that autocorrelation is unlikely to 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 
CWT industry is generated by treating wastes from different sources and 
industrial processes. The wastes treated on a given day will often be 
different from the waste treated on the following day. Because of this, 
autocorrelation would be expected to be absent from measurements of 
wastewater from the CWT industry. In the preamble to the 1995 proposal, 
EPA requested additional monitoring data that would allow for 
evaluating autocorrelation in daily measurements. The monitoring data 
that EPA has received thus far are insufficient for the purpose of 
evaluating the autocorrelation in CWT operations. To determine 
autocorrelation in the data, many measurements for each pollutant would 
be required with values for every single day over an extended period of 
time. Such data were not available to EPA. EPA again requests 
additional monitoring data for this purpose in Section XVI.
    Second, EPA solicits comment on using pollutant variability factors 
rather than group variability factors in calculating the limitations. 
The pollutant variability factor is the average of the variability 
factors for a particular pollutant from facilities with the model 
technologies for the option. The group variability factor is the median 
of the pollutant variability factors from pollutants with similar 
chemical structures. For the 1995 proposed limitations and in today's 
proposed limitations, EPA generally used the group variability factor, 
multiplied by the pollutant long-term average, to calculate each 
pollutant limitation. (Exceptions are described in Chapter 10 of the 
technical development document.) For today's reproposal, EPA 
alternatively considered using the pollutant variability factor instead 
of the group variability factor. For pollutants where pollutant 
variability factors could not be calculated (due to data constraints), 
EPA would continue to use the group variability factor. Using the group 
variability factor eliminates the low and high pollutant variability 
factors. Thus, using individual

[[Page 2320]]

variability factors, limitations for some pollutants would be more 
stringent and for others less stringent. EPA solicits comment on 
whether the pollutant or group variability factors or some combination 
should be used in calculating the limitations to accurately reflect the 
variability of the pollutants discharged by the CWT industry.

X. Costs and Impacts of Regulatory Alternatives

A. Methodology for Estimating Costs and Pollutant Reductions Achieved 
by Treatment Technologies

    EPA estimated industry-wide compliance costs and pollutant loadings 
associated with the effluent limitations and standards proposed today 
using data collected through survey responses, site visits, sampling 
episodes, and comments submitted on the 1995 proposal and 1996 Notice 
of Data Availability. EPA calculated costs based on a computerized 
design and cost model developed for each of the technology options 
considered. The Agency estimated current pollutant loads and projected 
pollutant load reductions using treatment data collected from industry 
and EPA sampling data.
    EPA developed industry-wide costs and pollutant loads using data 
for 145 facilities which responded to the 308 Questionnaire or 
commented to the 1996 Notice of Data Availability. These 145 facilities 
represent a census of the metals and organics subcategory, but only a 
subset of the facilities in the oils subcategory. For the oils 
facilities, EPA calculated costs and loads for the subset and then 
modeled the national population by adjusting the oils results upward to 
estimate the entire oils subcategory population.
    In order to develop costs and to estimate the pollutant reductions 
associated with this proposal, EPA estimated the current performance of 
existing wastewater treatment at each of the facilities. In the 308 
Questionnaire and in the Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire, EPA had 
solicited effluent monitoring data in order to estimate current 
performance. For the majority of facilities, however, data were not 
available either for all pollutants of concern or for pollutants before 
mixing CWT wastewater and non-CWT wastewater. Therefore, EPA developed 
methodologies to estimate current discharge concentrations of each 
pollutant of concern for each facility. The methodologies vary between 
subcategory and facility based on: 1) the analytical data available; 2) 
the characteristics of the facilities in the subcategory; and 3) the 
facility's treatment train. For facilities in multiple subcategories, 
EPA estimated loadings for that portion of the waste stream in each 
subcategory and then added them together. Chapter 12 of the technical 
development document describes the methodologies used to estimate 
loadings for each subcategory in detail.
    For its costing analysis, EPA assumed that facilities whose current 
discharge concentrations were not meeting the limitation concentrations 
proposed in today's notice would incur costs as a result of compliance 
with this guideline. EPA developed costs for a facility which did not 
have the BPT treatment technology in place to install the BPT 
technology. In the case of a facility already having BPT treatment 
technology in place but not currently meeting the proposed limits, EPA 
determined the applicable upgrade to the treatment system. Typical 
upgrades included increasing aeration capacity or residence time, 
installing new equipment, or increasing chemical usage.
    Next, EPA used a computer cost model to estimate compliance costs 
for the selected technology options after taking into account treatment 
in place, current discharge concentrations of pollutants, and 
wastewater flow rates for each facility. EPA programmed the computer 
cost model with technology-specific modules which calculated the costs 
for various combinations of technologies as required by the BPT/BAT 
options and the facilities' wastewater characteristics. The model 
calculated the following costs for each facility:
     Capital costs for installed wastewater treatment 
technologies;
     Operating and maintenance (O&M) costs for installed 
wastewater treatment technologies, including labor, electrical, and 
chemical usage costs; and
     Solids handling costs, including capital, O&M, and 
disposal.
    EPA developed additional cost factors for the capital and O & M 
costs in order to account for site work, interface piping, general 
contracting, engineering, instrumentation and controls, buildings, site 
improvements, legal/administrative fees, interest, contingency, and 
taxes and insurance.
    Other direct costs associated with compliance included retrofit 
costs associated with integrating the existing on-site treatment with 
new equipment, RCRA part B permit modification costs for hazardous 
facilities, additional land, if any, and monitoring costs.
    During the SBREFA panel, one industry representative noted that EPA 
may have underestimated the costs associated with dissolved air 
flotation for low-flow facilities. In fact, this industry 
representative suggested that capital costs for dissolved air flotation 
for low-flow facilities may be twice as high as EPA's estimate. 
Subsequently, EPA reexamined its costing curves for dissolved air 
flotation, and determined that EPA had underestimated DAF costs for 
low-flow facilities. The DAF costs included in the analyses presented 
today reflect the revised DAF cost curves.
    Detailed information on EPA's compliance cost estimates and 
methodologies, including the cost curves for all treatment technologies 
considered as the basis for today's proposed rule, is located in the 
``Detailed Costing Document for the Centralized Waste Treatment 
Industry.'' EPA encourages all interested parties to refer to this 
document and provide comment on any aspect of the methodology or the 
data used to estimate compliance costs associated with today's 
proposal.

B. Regulatory Costs

    The Agency estimated the cost for CWT facilities to achieve each of 
the effluent limitations and standards proposed today. This section 
summarizes these estimated costs and the technical development document 
discusses them in more detail. All cost estimates in this section are 
expressed in terms of 1997 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, land costs associated with that 
equipment, costs for facilities to modify existing RCRA permits, and 
additional costs for discharge monitoring.
1. BPT Costs
    Table X.B-1 summarizes, by subcategory, the total capital 
expenditures, and annual O&M costs for implementing BPT (on a pre-tax 
basis). The total capital expenditures for the process change component 
of BPT are estimated to be $4.08 million with annual O&M costs of $1.77 
million.

[[Page 2321]]



                      Table X.B-1.--Cost of Implementing BPT Regulations (in 1997 Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Total                    Pre-tax
                        Subcategory                           Number of    capital and   Annual O&M     annual
                                                              facilities    land costs     costs      costs \2\
-----------------------------------------------------------------\1\--------------------------------------------
Metals Treatment and Recovery.............................             9     3,195,900    2,471,400    2,852,800
Oils Treatment and Recovery...............................             5       943,200      391,400      485,200
Organics Treatment........................................             4        80,000      215,800      233,200
Combined Regulatory Option................................            14     4,219,100    3,078,600   3,560,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are 14 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\ Because annual costs are used to evaluate the economic impacts of options for each subcategory as well as
  the CWT industry as a whole, lump-sum costs for modifying a RCRA permit are included in the annual costs for
  each RCRA facility in a subcategory and in the combined option. These costs are counted only once in the
  combined option, but may appear in the annual costs for more than one subcategory if a RCRA facility has
  operations in more than one subcategory. Therefore, the annual cost of the combined option is not equal to the
  sum of the subcategory combined costs. For the combined BPT option, the total lump-sum costs across all
  facilities of modifying RCRA permits are $340,800.

    EPA notes that the BPT costs and all analyses presented today do 
not include the additional capital costs that may be associated with 
the transferred TSS limitations for the metals subcategory. For some 
metals subcategory facilities, EPA intends to include capital costs in 
addition to the costs associated with the BPT metals subcategory 
technology basis in order to comply with the transferred TSS 
limitation. These additional costs are projected to increase EPA's 
current estimate of the annualized costs for these metals subcategory 
facilities by zero to fifteen percent, depending on treatment in place. 
EPA will refine its BPT costs estimates for this subcategory prior to 
promulgation.
2. BCT/BAT Costs
    The Agency estimated that there would be no incremental cost of 
compliance for implementing BCT/BAT because the technology used to 
develop BCT/BAT limitations is identical to BPT, and the costs are 
included with BPT.
3. PSES Costs
    The Agency estimated the cost for implementing PSES applying the 
same assumptions and methodology used to estimate cost of implementing 
BPT. Table X.B-2 summarizes, by subcategory, the capital expenditures 
and annual O&M costs for implementing PSES. The total capital 
expenditures for the process change component of PSES are estimated to 
be $36.1 million with annual O&M costs of $10.5 million.

                      Table X.B-2.--Cost of Implementing PSES Regulations (in 1997 Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Total                    Pre-tax
                        Subcategory                           Number of    capital and   Annual O&M     annual
                                                              facilities    land costs     costs      costs \2\
-----------------------------------------------------------------\1\--------------------------------------------
Metals Treatment and Recovery.............................            41     8,014,200    7,140,100    8,088,200
Oils Treatment and Recovery...............................           123    18,519,000   11,343,400   13,362,000
Organics Treatment........................................            14    11,226,200    1,730,800    2,929,200
Combined Regulatory Option................................           147    40,316,500   20,078,600  24,300,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are 147 indirect dischargers. Because some indirect 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\ Because annual costs are used to evaluate the economic impacts of options for each subcategory as well as
  the CWT industry as a whole, lump-sum costs for modifying a RCRA permit are included in the annual costs for
  each RCRA facility in a subcategory and in the combined option.

    These costs are counted only once in the combined option, but may 
appear in the annual costs for more than one subcategory if a RCRA 
facility has operations in more than one subcategory. Therefore, the 
annual cost of the combined option is not equal to the sum of the 
subcategory combined costs. For the combined PSES option, the total 
lump-sum costs across all facilities of modifying RCRA permits are 
$2,557,100.

C. Pollutant Reductions

    The Agency estimated pollutant reductions for CWT activities 
achieving each of the effluent limitations and standards proposed 
today. This section summarizes these estimated reductions and Chapter 
12 of the technical development document discusses them in detail. 
Chapter 12 details the methodologies used to estimate reductions as 
well as some methodological issues related to the loadings estimates.
    Some members of the SBREFA panel expressed concern that the 
Agency's estimates of baseline loadings, post-regulation loadings, and 
pollutant removals may be too high for certain parameters due to 
methodological issues. These issues relate to the relatively small 
number of CWT plants that EPA uses to characterize typical conditions 
of the industry as a whole at baseline and post-regulation, EPA's 
representation of ``non-detect'' data, EPA's method of imputing data, 
and EPA's randomization procedure for assigning baseline pollutant 
loadings for the oils subcategory. Following the completion of the 
SBREFA panel, EPA reexamined all methodological issues raised by the 
panel. For this proposal, EPA modified its approach to attributing 
pollutant concentrations values to non-detects in samples with very 
high sample specific detection values. This, and other issues raised by 
the panel, is discussed in detail in Chapter 12 of technical 
development document and the SBREFA Panel Report. EPA encourages all 
interested parties to refer to these documents and provide comment on 
any aspect of the methodology used to estimate baseline loadings, post-
regulation loadings, and pollutant removals.
1. Conventional Pollutant Reductions
    EPA has calculated how adoption of the proposed BPT/BCT limitations

[[Page 2322]]

would reduce the total quantity of conventional pollutants that are 
discharged. To do this, the Agency developed an estimate of the long-
term average (LTA) loading of BOD5, TSS, and Oil and Grease 
8 that would be discharged after the implementation of BPT. 
Next, these BPT/BCT LTAs for BOD5, TSS, and Oil and Grease 
were multiplied by annual 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 regulation will reduce 
BOD5 discharges by approximately 8.05 million pounds per 
year, TSS discharges by approximately 6.3 million pounds per year, and 
oil and grease discharges by approximately 0.32 million pounds per 
year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Oil and grease removals were not included for the metals 
subcategory since EPA's data show that these wastes do not contain 
significant concentrations of oil and grease.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Priority and Non-conventional Pollutant Reductions
    Today's proposal would 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 
no additional pollutant reductions associated with BAT limitations.
    a. Direct Facility Discharges (BPT/BAT). The estimated reductions 
in priority and non-conventional pollutants directly discharged in 
treated final effluent resulting from implementation of BPT/BAT are 
listed in Table X.C-1. The Agency estimates that proposed BPT/BAT 
regulations will reduce direct facility discharges of priority and non-
conventional pollutants by approximately 1.39 million pounds per year.

 Table X.C-1.--Reduction in Direct Discharge of Priority and Non-Conventional Pollutants After Implementation of
                                               BPT/BAT Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Non-
                                                                Priority     priority   Total metal
                                                               metal and    metal and   and organic   Total lbs-
                         Subcategory                            organics     organic     compounds   equivalent/
                                                               compounds    compounds     lbs/year       year
                                                                lbs/year     lbs/year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Treatment and Recovery...............................      582,200      781,400    1,363,600      372,000
Oils Treatment and Recovery.................................        6,490       17,300       23,800       14,810
Organics Treatment \1\......................................            0            0            0            0
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
    Total Removals for all Subcategories....................      588,700      798,700    1,387,400     386,810
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA estimates there will be no additional removal of organic compounds for the organics subcategory, because
  all facilities had the treatment-in-place for removal of organic compounds.

    b. PSES Effluent Discharges to POTWs. Table X.C-2 lists the 
estimated reductions in priority and non-conventional pollutants 
indirectly discharged to POTWs resulting from implementation of PSES. 
The Agency estimates that proposed PSES regulations would reduce 
indirect facility discharge to POTWs by 8.5 million pounds per year. 
These figures are not adjusted for pollutant removals expected from 
POTWs, and thus do not reflect reductions in dischargers to waters of 
the U.S. Estimated reductions in pollutants discharged indirectly to 
surface waters are provided on a subcategory basis in Tables 12-10 
through 12-13 of the technical development document.

 Table X.C-2.--Reduction in Discharges to POTWs of Priority and Non-Conventional Pollutants After Implementation
                                               of PSES Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Non-
                                                                Priority     priority   Total metal
                                                               metal and    metal and   and organic   Total lbs-
                         Subcategory                            organics     organic     compounds   equivalent/
                                                               compounds    compounds     lbs/year       year
                                                                lbs/year     lbs/year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Treatment and Recovery...............................       51,270      341,500      392,760      372,003
Oils Treatment and Recovery.................................      689,800    3,722,500    4,412,300    9,876,128
Organics Treatment..........................................      816,500    2,905,500    3,721,900      110,149
Combined Regulatory Option..................................    1,557,600    6,973,500    8,527,000   10,358,280
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XI. Economic Analyses

A. Introduction

    EPA's economic impact assessment for this proposal is set forth in 
a report titled ``Economic Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limitations 
Guidelines and Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry'' 
(hereinafter ``EA''). This report estimates the economic and financial 
impacts of compliance with the proposed regulation in terms of process 
and facility closures and company effects. Impacts on new sources are 
also considered. Community

[[Page 2323]]

impacts, foreign trade impacts, market impacts, and an ``environmental 
justice'' analysis are also presented there. The EA also includes a 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis detailing the effects on small CWT 
businesses. Results of a cost-effectiveness analysis are presented in a 
report titled ``Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Proposed Effluent 
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the CWT Industry.''
    As discussed previously, EPA identified 205 CWT facilities, 
including 14 direct dischargers, 147 indirect dischargers, and 44 zero 
discharge facilities. EPA calculated the economic impact on each of the 
facilities based on the cost of compliance with the proposed options 
and the other options considered for the proposal. For direct 
dischargers, EPA calculated impacts for compliance with the proposed 
BPT/BCT/BAT; for indirect dischargers, EPA calculated impacts for 
compliance with PSES. The proposed limitations and standards are based 
on Metals Option 4, Oils Option 9, and Organics Option 4 for direct 
dischargers. (As previously noted, for direct dischargers in the 
organics subcategory, the proposed BPT/BAT is already in place. The 
only costs associated with this option are monitoring costs.) For 
indirect dischargers, the proposed limitations and standards are based 
on Metals Option 4, Oils Option 8, and Organics Option 4. A facility 
with processes in multiple subcategories was assigned costs for meeting 
the limits or standards in each subcategory. Section IX.B of this 
preamble describes the technical basis for each of these options.
    The technologies which are the basis for today's proposal are 
estimated to have a total pre-tax annualized cost of $27.9 million 
(unlike the costs presented in Section X.B, these costs are annualized 
to represent the yearly cost of compliance). Table XI.A-1 presents the 
total annualized costs for BPT/BCT/BAT and PSES in 1997 dollars (these 
costs are extrapolated to represent the entire universe of CWT 
facilities). This notice differentiates between pre-tax annualized 
costs and post-tax annualized costs. The pre-tax annualized costs are 
the engineering estimates of annualized control costs, but the post-tax 
costs more accurately reflect the costs businesses will incur. For that 
reason, post-tax costs are used in the economic impact analysis. Pre-
tax costs, however, more accurately reflect the total cost to society 
of the rule and are used in the cost-effectiveness analysis and 
elsewhere.

              Table XI.A-1.--Total Annualized Costs ($1997)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Pre-tax      Post-tax
                                                 costs  ($    costs  ($
                                                  million)     million)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPT/BCT/BAT Costs (Direct Dischargers)........         3.56         2.17
PSES Costs (Indirect Dischargers).............         24.3         13.2
                                               -------------------------
    Total Costs...............................         27.9         15.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Impacts on facilities are calculated using a market model 
(described in Section XI.C and the EA) to determine closures and other 
impacts at individual CWT facilities. The market model also estimates 
changes in market prices, quantities, and losses in employment. The 
facility-specific changes in revenues and costs are aggregated to the 
company level to predict company-level impacts. The changes in 
employment are also used in the community-level analysis.

B. Economic Description of the CWT Industry and Baseline Conditions

    One source of data used in this analysis is the questionnaire sent 
in 1991 under authority of Section 308 of the CWA (see Section VI of 
today's notice and Chapter 2 of the EA for a full discussion of data 
sources used in the economic analysis). The Agency recognizes that its 
questionnaire database may not precisely reflect current conditions in 
the industry. Nevertheless, EPA has concluded that the data provide a 
sound and reasonable basis for assessing the overall ability of the 
industry to achieve compliance with the regulations. This survey 
provided detailed data on 85 facilities. Additional data for the 
economic analyses are from the Toxic Release Inventory databases and 
several financial databases.
    As detailed in Section VI.E, comments on the original proposed rule 
indicated that a large number of oils treatment and recovery facilities 
were not included in the original survey. EPA estimated profiles for 
these additional oils facilities and analyzed the impacts on these 
facilities from the proposed rule and published this analysis in the 
1996 Notice of Data Availability. EPA sent profiles describing the data 
used for each additional oils facility to that facility, and received 
comments and corrections from many of these facilities. Not all 
facilities who received profiles, however, provided comments. EPA 
polled non-commenting facilities, and based on this communication, EPA 
assigned weights to the commenting oils facilities to account for the 
non-commenting facilities and to represent the total number of CWT 
facilities in the subcategory. Generally, when dealing with facility-
specific information in the oils subcategory, results are weighted to 
extrapolate to the entire subcategory. When not dealing with facility-
specific information, they may or may not be weighted. When dealing 
with aggregate impacts for a specific geographic area (for example, 
community-level impacts or water quality benefits), they are not 
weighted. The choice to weight or not will be described in the relevant 
sections.
    Of the 205 CWT facilities, 201 facilities are commercial, accepting 
waste generated by other facilities and/or generators for treatment and 
management for a fee. Four facilities are non-commercial facilities 
that accept waste from off-site for treatment exclusively from 
facilities under the same ownership. Some facilities perform both 
commercial and non-commercial operations. For the purposes of this 
analysis, a facility's commercial status refers only to the operations 
subject to today's proposal and not other operations at that facility. 
That is, a facility that performs non-commercial CWT operations along 
with other non-CWT commercial operations would still be considered a 
non-commercial facility.
    The companies owning CWT facilities range from large, multi-
facility companies to small companies that operate only a single 
facility. Company-level information is available or estimated for 145 
facilities (unweighted). One hundred and fourteen companies own these 
145 facilities. Of these 114 companies, EPA has reliable company-level 
information for 74 companies; for the remaining 40

[[Page 2324]]

companies, EPA based its estimate of company revenues on facility-level 
information. In the case of companies owning only CWT facilities with 
profiles from the NOA, that company's information was weighted to 
represent the universe of CWT companies.
    EPA currently estimates that 82 companies owning CWT facilities 
(including zero discharge facilities) are small businesses (for the 
purposes of this analysis, EPA has defined small businesses as 
companies with less than $6 million in annual revenues--see Section 
XI.L). Sixty-three small companies own two direct discharging 
facilities and 61 indirect discharging facilities.
    EPA made a number of assumptions when formulating its company-level 
profiles. For facilities that had no reliable company-level 
information, EPA assumed that the facility-level data accurately 
represented the company, although this may underestimate company-level 
revenues (if the company has revenues not associated with the 
facility). In weighting many of these companies to let them represent 
other companies in the universe of CWT companies, EPA may have 
exacerbated this underestimation. Furthermore, the weights were based 
on a survey of facilities and applying these weights to companies may 
not be accurate. Finally, in order to maintain a consistent baseline, a 
facility's status of ownership is based on the year data was collected 
for that facility--1989 or 1995. Although EPA has information about 
changes in ownership status for many of these facilities, which would 
decrease the number of small businesses, EPA conservatively is still 
using its earlier information to maintain consistency with its 
engineering database. EPA believes that these assumptions overestimate 
the number of (and therefore impacts to) small businesses owning the 
CWT facilities in EPA's database. EPA solicits comment on these 
assumptions, and on its conclusion that small business impacts are 
overestimated.
    At the time of the original CWT proposal, about 20 percent of the 
commercial CWT facilities appeared to be unprofitable based on the data 
available to EPA (see Table VI.C-2 in the preamble to the original 
proposal, 60 FR 5490). Several others were only marginally profitable. 
The industry had expanded capacity during the 1980s, but in the late 
1980s, there was a reduction in demand for these services (perhaps due 
to pollution prevention efforts by industrial waste generators). EPA 
believes this trend may have reversed in the 1990s. EPA has 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 
question. It suggests that some of 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. Therefore, while some 
number of facilities are likely to be unprofitable at baseline, for 
purposes of today's proposal, EPA is not eliminating baseline closures 
from its analysis of economic impacts. This decision represents a 
significant departure from previous effluent guidelines. However, given 
the nature of the industry, EPA believes that this is a reasonable 
approach. EPA solicits comments on this decision and on alternative 
methods that could be used to identify baseline closures.

C. Economic Impact and Closure Methodology

1. Overview of 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 CWT facilities, the companies that 
own these facilities, the markets the facilities serve, and the 
communities where they are located.
    CWT facilities are divided into two groups: commercial (those that 
charge a fee for their services) and noncommercial (those that handle 
intracompany waste). Impacts on commercial CWT facilities are estimated 
based on the results of a market model that allows facilities to adjust 
operations in response to changes in operating costs. The market model 
predicts adjustments in market prices and quantities and facility-level 
changes in revenues and employment. After the markets and facilities 
have responded to the regulation, facilities are assumed to close CWT 
treatment operations (or processes) for which operating costs 
(including compliance costs) exceed operating revenues. Impacts on non-
commercial CWT facilities are estimated at the company level, assuming 
that the firm must absorb the full cost of compliance, because these 
facilities do not operate in the markets defined by the model.
    a. Impacts on commercial facilities. Because industrial wastewater 
is costly to transport, the markets for CWT services are localized. The 
model defines six geographic regions for CWT services across the 
continental U.S. Each commercial CWT facility is assigned to one of the 
six regions. Within each region, each facility can be assigned to one 
or more markets for CWT services. These markets are defined by 
operations or processes (metals recovery, metals treatment, oil 
recovery, oil treatment, and organics treatment) and cost of treatment 
(high, medium, and low-cost for metals recovery, metals treatment, and 
oil recovery, high and low cost for organics treatment, and one market 
for oil treatment). The markets are divided in this way because of the 
variability in treatment costs and revenues shown in EPA's data; EPA, 
therefore, assumes that substantially different costs and revenues 
reflect distinct operations. Since a facility may provide more than one 
CWT service, each process line at every facility is assigned to a 
market based on responses to the 308 questionnaire, Notice of Data 
Availability (NOA) modeling assumptions, and comments on the NOA 
assumptions. Each process line is also assigned wastewater quantities 
and treatment costs.
    After assigning facilities to markets, the structure of each 
regional market is determined by the number of facilities in that 
market: monopoly for one facility, duopoly for two facilities, or 
competitive for three or more facilities. The market supply curve is 
modeled as a step function using process line average costs at each 
facility (see Appendix C of the EA). Costs of CWT facilities include 
both those that vary with the quantity of CWT services provided 
(variable costs) and those whose value is fixed, but, for this 
analysis, all costs are modeled as variable. Revenues from CWT 
operations are estimated by multiplying an estimated market price of 
the CWT service by the quantity of waste treated in the CWT market. The 
market price is estimated as the average cost of the high-cost facility 
in each market, consistent with economic theory. (Actual prices vary by 
waste stream and facility, and would not be possible to include in the 
analysis.) Compliance treatment costs are added to the baseline costs 
to form a new post-compliance supply curve. Different assumptions are 
used about the amount of costs that can be passed on to consumers for 
each market structure: monopolists or

[[Page 2325]]

duopolists can pass on a larger portion of costs than facilities in 
competitive markets. The model then solves for a new market price and 
market quantity within each regional market.
    The demand for CWT services is characterized based on the 
responsiveness of quantity demanded to price. In an economic context, 
CWT services are intermediate goods demanded because they are inputs to 
production of other goods and services. CWT facilities treat wastewater 
that results from production of goods at other facilities--a service 
which these other facilities pay CWT facilities to perform. Therefore, 
the economic theory on which EPA's analysis is based is the theory of 
intermediate goods. The sensitivity of quantity demanded to price 
(elasticity of demand) for an intermediate good depends on the 
elasticity of demand for the final good, the share of manufacturing 
costs (for the other good) represented by costs of the intermediate 
good, and the availability of substitutes for the intermediate good. 
The elasticity of demand for manufactured products which require CWT 
services varies widely. The cost of CWT services 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, as long as generators have alternatives to commercial 
treatment (for example, on site treatment, or pollution prevention), 
the quantity of most services traded may be expected to fall (to some 
extent) 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 commercially viable alternatives to 
commercial treatment. EPA's choice of elasticities was governed, in 
part, by these considerations and a review of the empirical literature.
    During the SBREFA panel consideration of the proposal (see 
discussion in Section VI.H), the Small Business Administration (SBA) 
expressed concern that EPA's economic methodology understates impacts. 
In particular, SBA questioned the elasticity of demand assumption used 
by the Agency. As discussed in the EA and this notice, the elasticity 
of demand (which varies depending on the number of facilities in each 
market) is based on economic reasoning that the Agency believes to be 
sound and reflects the limited empirical evidence available in the 
literature. In response to SBA's comment, EPA has reexamined the 
literature and attempted to contact waste generators to obtain further 
information on their responsiveness to the price of CWT services. EPA 
has identified several additional empirical studies that support the 
elasticity parameters used in the EA. The Agency has not been 
successful, however, in eliciting information from waste generators. 
For a complete discussion of the elasticity parameters used in this 
analysis, see Appendix E of the EA.
    Each CWT faced with higher costs of providing CWT services may find 
it economical to shut down a process line in a given market or to 
reduce the quantity of waste it treats (in fact, the model allows only 
a single facility in a competitive market to reduce the amount of waste 
that it treats without closing down a process line although both 
facilities in a duopoly can reduce the amount of waste that they 
treat). This decision is simultaneously modeled for all facilities 
within a regional market (if, during the model run, a process line is 
shut down, the model continues to run, eliminating that process line 
from the market supply curve) to develop consistent estimates of 
facility and market impacts.
    EPA notes that its current model, unlike the market model used for 
the original proposal, does not allow wastewater from processes or 
facilities that close to go to another facility in the market. Although 
the price increase caused by increased compliance costs forces the 
total quantity of waste treated in the market to decline (the amount of 
this decline is governed by the elasticity of demand for a market), 
some of the waste treated by facilities that close should be treated at 
other facilities. To the extent that the EPA's model does not account 
for transfers, the model may overstate economic impacts. Prior to 
promulgation of the final rule, EPA may reconfigure its model to allow 
waste from facilities or process lines that close to be treated 
elsewhere in the market. EPA solicits comments on this issue and on 
appropriate ways to model this transfer.
    b. Impacts on non-commercial and mixed facilities. For non-
commercial facilities, economic impacts were estimated only on the 
company level, not the facility level. This is because the non-
commercial facilities generally do not generate revenues for their 
companies. They exist to perform a service for the rest of the company 
and are not expected to be ``profitable'' as a unit. Facilities with 
mixed commercial and non-commercial operations 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 (for example to underwrite the company waste 
treatment costs), but only a share of treatment costs proportionate to 
the quantity of waste treated commercially is assigned to the 
commercial portion of the facility. Therefore, a ``closure'' of the 
commercial portion of a mixed facility indicates that the facility 
ceases to perform commercial operations. No change in the quantity of 
CWT wastes treated is projected for the non-commercial aspects 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. Employment impacts are also calculated 
for those facilities with some commercial and some non-commercial 
operations.
    c. Other impacts. Changes in facility revenues and costs result in 
changes in the revenues and costs of the companies owning the 
facilities, and thus changes 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. EPA 
evaluates company-level impacts by examining changes in company profit 
margins and returns-to-assets test. These results are presented 
separately for small businesses. For small businesses, EPA also 
evaluated the economic impacts of this proposal using a cost-to-sales 
test, comparing company compliance costs to baseline sales (unadjusted 
for cost pass-through).
    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. 
Facility-level changes in employment are used to calculate total 
employment changes. At the same time, for the communities in which CWT 
facilities are located, water quality may be expected to improve.
2. Changes From Previous Methodology (at Original Proposal and Notice 
of Availability)
    There are two major differences between the economic methodology 
used for the 1995 proposal and the current methodology. First, EPA 
assumed there were no competitive markets at proposal. Since EPA now

[[Page 2326]]

estimates a large increase in the number of oils facilities, some 
markets are now structured as competitive. Second, at proposal, EPA 
examined facility-level profitability, but did not identify closures 
because so many facilities were unprofitable at baseline. For the 
current analysis, EPA examines impacts at the process level and has 
identified facility closures when all processes at a facility are 
projected to close.
    In the proposal analysis, EPA identified 85 facilities, 70 of which 
were commercial (including zero dischargers). These 70 facilities were 
assigned to one of six multi-state regions, and one or more of at most 
nine waste treatment or recovery service markets within each region. 
The markets were defined in terms of type and cost of treatment or 
recovery (for example, metals wastewater treatment) and region. These 
markets were very similar to the markets used in today's proposal.
    With at most 12 facilities in a single regional waste treatment or 
recovery market (39 of 43 regional waste management markets had 5 or 
fewer facilities), the markets were defined as oligopolistic (small 
number of competitors) or monopolistic (only one supplier). Because EPA 
had data that allowed computation of average variable cost of each 
waste management process at each facility, but not enough data to 
estimate upward sloping cost curves, each facility's average variable 
cost for a treatment process was assumed to be constant. EPA used a 
simultaneous equation solution algorithm to estimate the with-
regulation prices, quantities, and profits for each commercial 
facility.
    For the current analysis, EPA has data for 142 commercial CWT 
facilities (including zero dischargers); these include the 73 
facilities identified at proposal (three facilities were redefined as 
commercial based on updated information) plus 69 NOA oil recovery 
facilities. Furthermore, some of the NOA facilities are weighted and 
ultimately represent more than one facility, but no more than two. EPA 
redesigned the economic impact analysis model, incorporating the new 
oil facilities into oil recovery or oily wastewater treatment markets 
in the appropriate regions and also made some adjustments to the market 
definitions. The addition of the NOA facilities to the oil recovery and 
oil treatment markets meant that there were now a larger number of 
facilities in most of the oil markets. For this reason, EPA decided to 
model them as perfectly competitive. (Perfect competition requires that 
the number of sellers in a market be sufficiently high that no single 
seller can influence the market; rather, they accept the market price 
as a ``given,'' and decide the most profitable quantity of waste to 
treat based on the given price.) EPA therefore had to redesign the 
model so that it would allow either a perfectly competitive market 
structure or imperfect competition. Markets are defined as monopoly, 
duopoly (two sellers), or perfect competition, depending on the number 
of sellers. In this modeling approach, any market in any of the 
subcategories with more than two sellers is defined as perfectly 
competitive. In reality, markets with three to eight or ten sellers are 
probably imperfectly competitive oligopolies, but the current modeling 
approach does not allow that market structure. This may tend to 
overstate impacts on markets with only a few sellers because they may 
be able to pass compliance costs on to customers to a greater degree 
than assumed in the model. Conversely, some of the facilities assigned 
to monopoly or duopoly markets may actually face some more competition 
than the model projects, particularly at higher prices, from other 
segments of the CWT industry or from other waste disposal/reduction 
opportunities that may be available to their customers. In this case, 
the model may underestimate impacts because they may be unable to pass 
on as large a share of compliance costs to their customers as the model 
projects. As a sensitivity analysis, EPA also estimated process and 
facility closures assuming no cost pass-through (see Appendix E of the 
EA). This represents a worst case scenario.
    In the proposal analysis, EPA initially analyzed facility closure 
by focusing on overall facility profits. If a facility was not 
profitable, EPA assumed it would shut down. Examination of baseline 
questionnaire data indicated, however, that 22 CWT facilities were 
unprofitable at baseline. When 18 of these unprofitable facilities were 
contacted two years after the survey, 16 were still in operation. 
Owners of CWT facilities did not immediately close their facilities 
when they were unprofitable (for a variety of reasons):
     30 of the 70 commercial CWT facilities treated some waste 
generated by other facilities owned by the same company. They, thus, 
provide a service to the rest of the company for which they may not 
receive revenue, and, therefore, may not close if their revenues 
understate their true value.
     Similarly, some facilities perform a service for the rest 
of their company. For example, one facility generates a metal-rich 
sludge which may be incorporated into the parent company's smelting 
process.
     Many of the CWT facilities are RCRA-regulated and are 
subject to RCRA clean closure requirements, which would entail 
expensive long-term monitoring and possibly clean-up of the site. 
Facilities may decide to try to ``ride out'' an unprofitable period in 
the hopes of avoiding RCRA closure costs.
     Facility owners may feel that the negative profits are due 
to the rapidly changing demand conditions in the market, and may hope 
that once demand conditions stabilize, the facility will become 
profitable. Additionally, many facilities stay in business hoping that 
new environmental regulation, such as the RCRA Phase 3 rule, may create 
more business for facilities.
    For whatever reason, many apparently unprofitable CWT facilities 
continue to operate for years. Thus, EPA decided in 1995 that facility 
profitability was not a closure criterion. In that impact analysis, 
EPA, therefore, examined the impacts of the regulation on facility 
profit, paying particular attention to facilities that had been 
profitable without the regulation, but became unprofitable with the 
regulation in effect (but not termed ``closures''). In adjusting to the 
costs of complying with the regulation, a CWT facility would shut down 
an individual CWT process (metal recovery, for example) if it became 
unprofitable, but the facility as a whole would continue to operate, 
even if it became unprofitable.
    In 1995, EPA also examined the data on CWT operation costs and 
revenues, and found that at most of the unprofitable facilities, the 
individual CWT operations were at least breaking even (revenues from 
wastewater treatment, for example, were at least as great as costs of 
wastewater treatment). The negative profits were due to other 
conditions at the facility, not the actual operations themselves. 
Therefore, as in 1995, EPA has decided to focus exclusively on CWT 
operations and ignore overall facility profits that may be affected by 
other activities, revenues, or costs at CWT facilities.
    In the reproposal analysis, EPA examines impacts on commercial CWT 
facilities in terms of closures, but focuses on potential closures of 
CWT processes by examining the costs and revenues of each waste 
treatment or recovery operation with the regulation in effect (this 
isolated the analysis to only examine CWT operations and not overall 
facility operations). If with-regulation costs of the operation exceed 
revenues, then the operation will be shut down. This is called a 
``process closure.'' If all the waste treatment processes at a facility 
are shut down, this is called a ``facility closure.''

[[Page 2327]]

D. Costs and Economic Impacts of Proposed BPT

    For BPT, EPA evaluates treatment options first by calculating pre-
tax total annualized costs and total pollutant removals in pounds. The 
ratio of the costs to the removals for each option are presented in 
Table XI.D-1.
    For BPT, EPA is proposing Option 4 for the metals subcategory and 
Option 9 for the oils subcategory. Direct dischargers in the organics 
subcategory are only assigned costs for monitoring, so there are no 
other compliance costs, nor are there incremental conventional 
removals.

                    Table XI. D-1.--BPT Cost Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Pre-tax
                                   total                   Average cost
            Option               annualized  Removals (M  reasonableness
                                   costs         lbs)       (1997 $/b)
                                 ($1997 M)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Subcategory--9
 Facilities:
    4.........................        $2.85        15.21          $0.19
    2.........................         13.7        14.79           0.93
    3.........................         14.2        15.40           0.96
Oils Subcategory--5
 Facilities:
    8.........................       90.486        0.625           0.78
    9.........................       90.486        0.663           0.69
Organics Subcategory--4
 Facilities:
    4.........................        0.237            0            n/a
    3.........................        0.426            0           n/a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ For direct dischargers, EPA's cost analysis was not able to
  distingish between Option 8 and Option 9. EPA does, however, believe
  that meeting the more stringent Option 9 will result in additional
  removals while the cost differences will be negligible.

    Table XI.D-2 presents the economic impact results for the proposed 
BPT (economic impacts for the options rejected for BPT are presented in 
section XI.F where those options are considered for BAT). Options in 
the Metals and Organics subcategories more stringent than proposed BPT 
are evaluated in Sections XI.E and XI.F. Impacts are presented for 
process closures, facility closures, and employment losses. Process 
closures are a direct output of the market model; facility closures are 
designated if all of the processes at a facility close. Employment 
losses are calculated from process closures, facility closures, and 
from reductions in waste treated by process lines that do not close. In 
all cases, the reduction in employment is calculated as a percentage 
decrease of the facility's total employment proportionate to the 
percentage reduction in waste treated.

                                 Table XI.D-2.--Economic Impacts of BPT Options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Post-tax
                                                                 total                                  Total
                           Option                              annualized    Process      Facility    employment
                                                                 costs       closures     closures      losses
                                                               ($1997 M)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Subcategory--9 Facilities:
    4.......................................................        $1.72            1            1           35
Oils Subcategory--5 Facilities:
    9.......................................................        0.310            0            0            0
Organics Subcategory--4 Facilities:
    4.......................................................        0.138            2            0            0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Economic impacts of the proposed BPT regulations are only one 
process closure and one facility closure in the metals subcategory; 
there are no closures in the oils subcategory; and there are only 2 
process closures, but no facility closures, in the organics 
subcategory. Total job losses for the BPT options are 35. (There are no 
job losses associated with the organics subcategory even though there 
are two process closures because job losses are proportional to flow. 
The organics flow at the facilities with the process closures is so low 
compared to the facility flow that there are no proportional job 
losses.)
    Many facilities in the CWT industry have operations in more than 
one subcategory. EPA therefore evaluated the impacts of a combined BPT 
option on all direct dischargers. This Combined Option consists of 
Metals Option 4, Oils Option 9, and Organics Option 4. The combined 
impacts of this option are presented in Table XI.D-3.

[[Page 2328]]



                             Table XI.D-3.--Economic Impacts of Combined BPT Option
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Post-tax
                                                                 total                                  Total
                           Option                              annualized    Process      Facility    employment
                                                                 costs       closures     closures      losses
                                                               ($1997 M)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Direct Dischargers--14 Facilities:
    Combined................................................        $2.17            1            2           40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The economic impacts of the combined option are one process 
closure, two facility closures, and a total employment loss of 40 jobs. 
The impacts of the chosen BPT options shown in Table XI.D-2 do not add 
to the impacts shown in Table XI.D-3 because a facility closure is 
counted when all of the processes at a given facility close, and a 
process closure is counted when one, but not all, of the processes 
close. Therefore, for facilities with process closures in more than one 
subcategory, the analysis of the combined option can show a lower 
number of process closures and a higher number of facility closures.
    As noted above, EPA also conducted a sensitivity analysis assuming 
no cost pass-through. For direct dischargers (those subject to BPT 
limitations), the number of projected process and facility closures was 
unaffected by this worst-case assumption.

E. Results of BCT Cost Test

    In July 1986, EPA explained how it developed its BCT methodology 
(51 FR 24974). EPA evaluates the reasonableness of BCT candidate 
technologies--those that remove more conventional pollutants than BPT--
by applying a two-part cost test: a POTW test and an industry cost-
effectiveness test.
    EPA first calculates the cost per pound of conventional pollutant 
removed by industrial dischargers in upgrading from BPT to a BCT 
candidate technology, and then compares this cost to the cost per pound 
of conventional pollutant removed in upgrading POTWs from secondary 
treatment. The upgrade cost to industry must be less than the POTW 
benchmark of $0.25 per pound (in 1976 dollars). In the industry cost-
effectiveness test, the ratio of the incremental BPT to BCT cost 
divided by the BPT cost for the industry must be less than 1.29 (that 
is, the cost increase must be less than 29 percent).
    Table XI.E-1 presents the results of the BCT cost test for the 
metals subcategory. For both Option 2 and Option 3, the table presents 
costs and conventional removals and compares them to the BPT baseline, 
Option 4. For one of the BCT options to pass the POTW test, incremental 
cost reasonableness (compared to the BPT option, the ratio of 
incremental costs to incremental conventional removals) for each option 
must be less than $0.71 ($1997) per pound. Option 2 removes fewer 
conventional pounds (see Table XI.D-2), so it is not a candidate BCT 
technology. Option 3 has an incremental cost-reasonableness of $23.65, 
well above the benchmark of $0.71, so it fails the POTW test. This 
option is therefore not BCT, and since it fails the POTW test, it is 
not necessary to perform the industry cost-effectiveness test. Because 
the only BCT option fails the POTW test, BCT is set equal to BPT.

                            Table XI.E-1.--BCT Cost Test Results (Metals Subcategory)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Pre-tax
                                                             total     Conventional    Incremental
                         Option                            annualized  removals  (M       cost-       Pass POTW
                                                             costs         lbs)      reasonableness     test?
                                                           ($1997 M)                     ($/ lb.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.......................................................        $2.85         13.84            n/a           n/a
3.......................................................         14.2         14.32         $23.65            no
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Costs and Economic Impacts of BAT Options

    EPA also evaluated options more stringent than BPT in the metals 
and organics subcategories for BAT (in the oils subcategory, EPA set 
BPT equal to the most stringent option that it considered). These are 
Metals Option 2 and Option 3 and Organics Option 3. For a given 
technology to be the basis for BAT limitations it must be economically 
achievable. EPA is today proposing BAT limitations equivalent to 
proposed BPT for all subcategories; economic impacts are, therefore, 
equivalent to those presented in Section XI.D for the final BPT limits. 
Table XI.F-1 presents the economic impact results for the options 
considered for BAT.

                                 Table XI.F-1.--Economic Impacts of BAT Options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Post-tax
                                                                 total                                  Total
                           Option                              annualized    Process      Facility    employment
                                                                 costs       closures     closures      losses
                                                               ($1997 M)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Subcategory--9 Facilities:
    4.......................................................        $1.72            1            1           35
    2.......................................................         8.28            1            1           37
    3.......................................................         8.60            1            1           37

[[Page 2329]]

 
Oils Subcategory--5 Facilities:
    8.......................................................        0.310            0            0            0
    9.......................................................        0.310            0            0            0
Organics Subcategory--4 Facilities:
    4.......................................................        0.138            2            0            0
    3.......................................................        0.263            2            0            0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The economic impacts of the proposed BAT options are minimal: three 
process closures, one facility closure and 35 job losses. In all cases, 
the closure impacts for the rejected options (Metals options 2 and 3 
and Organics option 3) are equivalent to the impacts for the proposed 
BPT options, although there are slightly more employment losses for the 
rejected metals options. However, as discussed in Section IX.B.3, EPA 
is not proposing these options for BAT.

G. Costs and Economic Impacts of Proposed PSES Options

    In addition to evaluating impacts to direct dischargers for BPT/
BCT/BAT, EPA evaluated the impacts to indirect dischargers for 
complying with PSES. EPA considered the same technology options for 
PSES that it did for BPT and BAT. For the metals and organics 
subcategories, EPA is proposing the same options for PSES that is for 
BPT/BAT: Metals Option 4 and Organics Option 4. For the oils 
subcategory, however, EPA is proposing Option 8 rather than Option 9 as 
discussed in Section IX.B. The impacts of the PSES options are 
presented in Table XI.G-1. Impacts are presented for process closures, 
facility closures, and employment losses. Process closures are a direct 
output of the market model; facility closures are designated if all of 
the processes at a facility close. Employment losses are calculated 
from process closures, facility closures, and from reductions in waste 
treated by process lines that do not close. In all cases, the reduction 
in employment is calculated as a decrease of the facility's total 
employment proportionate to the reduction in waste treated.

                                     Table XI.G-1.--Impacts of PSES Options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Post-tax
                                                                 total                                  Total
                           Option                              annualized    Process      Facility    employment
                                                                 costs       closures     closures      losses
                                                               ($1997 M)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Subcategory--41 Facilities:
    4.......................................................        $4.23            5            0          124
    2.......................................................         14.7            8            1          126
    3.......................................................         15.5            8            1          126
Oils Subcategory--123 Facilities:
    8.......................................................         7.35           12           11          216
    9.......................................................         10.7           14           11          213
Organics Subcategory--14 Facilities
    4.......................................................         1.66            6            0            4
    3.......................................................         2.12            7            0           27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For each subcategory, EPA is proposing the least costly option for 
PSES. For the metals and organics subcategory, PSES is set equal to 
BAT. In the metals subcategory, Option 4 results in five process 
closures, no facility closures, and 124 job losses. Options 2 and 3 
results in eight process closures, one facility closure, and 126 job 
losses. For the organics subcategory, Option 4 results in six process 
closures and no facility closures, with 4 job losses. Organics Option 3 
results in seven process closures and 27 job losses. There are fewer 
employment losses with the more stringent Oils Option 9 because 
different facilities with different numbers of employees close in the 
market model under the two options.
    Many facilities in the CWT industry have operations in more than 
one subcategory. EPA, therefore, evaluated the impacts of a combined 
PSES option on all indirect dischargers. This option consists of Metals 
Option 4, Oils Option 8, and Organics Option 4. To further evaluate the 
impacts of Oils Option 9, a combined option with this option was also 
considered. The impacts of both combined options are presented in Table 
XI.G-2. The impacts of the selected PSES options shown in Table XI.G-1 
do not add to the impacts shown in Table XI.G-2 because a facility 
closure is counted if all of the processes at a given facility close 
while a process closure is counted if one, but not all, processes 
close. Therefore, in the combined options, the number of process 
closures can go down while facility closures go up if processes in 
difference subcategories close. The employment losses also do not add 
up because of rounding. The economic impacts of the combined option 
with Oils Option 9 are higher than the combined option with Oils Option 
8, and the former also has more extensive impacts on small businesses 
(see Section XI.L) .

[[Page 2330]]



                             Table XI.G-2.--Economic Impacts of Combined PSES Option
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Post-tax
                                                                 total                                  Total
                           Option                              annualized    Process      Facility    employment
                                                                 costs       closures     closures      losses
                                                               ($1997 M)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Indirect Dischargers--147 Facilities:
    w/Oils 8................................................        $13.2           15           13          298
    w/Oils 9................................................         16.6           19           13          302
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the sensitivity analysis in which no costs are passed through to 
customers, among indirect dischargers, 29 process closures and 16 
facility closures are projected under the proposed options.

H. Economic Impacts for New Sources

    EPA is establishing NSPS limitations equivalent to the limitations 
that are established for BPT/BCT/BAT for both the organics and oils 
subcategories. In general, EPA believes that new sources will be able 
to comply at costs that are similar to, or less than, the costs for 
existing sources, because new sources can apply control technologies 
more efficiently than sources that need to retrofit for those 
technologies. BPT/BCT/BAT limitations are found to be economically 
achievable; therefore, NSPS limitations will not present a barrier to 
entry for new facilities in these subcategories. EPA is setting PSNS 
equal to PSES limitations for existing sources for the oils and 
organics subcategories. As a result, given EPA's finding of economic 
achievability for PSES in those two subcategories, EPA also finds that 
the PSNS regulation will be economically achievable and will not 
constitute a barrier to entry for new sources.
    For the metals subcategory, however, EPA is proposing Option 3 for 
NSPS and for PSNS. While EPA acknowledges that Option 3 achieves 
slightly greater removals than Option 4 at much higher costs for 
existing sources (see detailed discussion in Section IX.B.4), EPA does 
not believe that this option is a barrier to entry for new sources. 
Unlike the oils subcategory, the information collected by the Agency 
indicates that the metals subcategory is stable over time, with little 
entry or exit, and EPA does not expect this trend to change. 
Furthermore, metals facilities tend to be involved in specialized 
operations and are frequently RCRA-permitted. Therefore, EPA has 
concluded that start-up costs are not the primary factor considered in 
starting a new facility. However, EPA solicits comment on this 
conclusion.

I. Firm Level Impacts

    Complying with the proposed effluent limitations guidelines and 
standards affects the revenues and profitability of firms owning CWT 
facilities. In Section 6.1.4 of the EA, the Agency examines two 
financial ratios to assess the magnitude of these impacts: firm profit 
margin (profit/revenues) and return on assets or ROA (profit/total 
assets). Baseline values are compared to post-regulation values that 
are determined by calculating changes in profits based on output from 
the market model. EPA does not have complete data for all firms, but 
the two measures decline for more than half of the firms for which EPA 
has data. EPA also examined these measures by size categories, 
including a category for small businesses. For most size categories, 
median profit margin and median ROA decline. If not, they stay the 
same. EPA has profit data on 56 small firms and asset data for 15 small 
firms; profit margin declines for 34 of the 56 firms and ROA declines 
for 7 of the 15 firms. As discussed more fully in the EA, these results 
are dependent on the assumptions used in the market model and the 
market in which EPA placed the facilities. EPA is currently considering 
how to refine this analysis for the final rule.

J. Community Impacts

    EPA estimated impacts on communities in which CWT facilities were 
located by estimating the overall change in employment in the community 
as a result of the CWT rule. EPA estimated the change in employment at 
each CWT associated with reductions in the quantity of waste treated at 
facilities incurring economic impacts. Then, EPA applied state-specific 
direct-effect employment multipliers to estimate the total change in 
employment. Most of the change in employment will occur in the 
community where the CWT is located. Thus, EPA estimated the change in 
community employment as a result of the rule by assigning all of the 
change in employment to the community. Table XI.J-1 shows a 
distribution of the estimated changes in community employment resulting 
from the economic impacts of the regulation. Community employment 
losses range from zero to 213 full time equivalents. Even the largest 
reduction in employment represents only 0.7 percent of the baseline 
employment in that community. Thus, the Agency expects the negative 
employment impacts of the regulation to be extremely small. In fact, 
EPA estimates that most facilities will have to hire from one to three 
additional workers to comply with the regulation (although this is not 
taken into account in Table XI.J-1). Taking these impacts into effect, 
almost all facilities will experience increases in employment due to 
the regulation. The overall impact of the regulation on community 
employment is, therefore, generally expected to be positive.

    Table XI.J-1.--Estimated Community Employment Impacts of the CWT
                             Regulation \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Reductions in community employment as a result of process    Number of
                   and facility closures                     communities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greater than 50 full time equivalents......................           5
20 to 50...................................................          11
1 to 20....................................................          14
0 to 1.....................................................          12
Zero.......................................................        100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not account for employment gains associated with compliance.

    The Agency also examined the distribution of benefits across 
communities with different socioeconomic and ethnic characteristics. 
Pursuant to Executive Order 12898, EPA must, to the greatest extent 
practicable and permitted by law, make achieving environmental justice 
part of its mission. Environmental justice concerns arise when 
communities of color and/or low income communities experience 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
impacts. CWT facilities are frequently located in industrial areas; as 
such, the communities frequently have higher minority populations and 
greater poverty than their surrounding states or

[[Page 2331]]

the nation as a whole. Reductions in pollutant exposures to these 
populations would, therefore, improve environmental justice. Table 
XI.J-2 characterizes the communities in which CWT facilities are 
located.

    Table XI.J-2.--Socioeconomic Profile of Communities in Which CWT
                         Facilities Are Located
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Number of
                         Percentage                          communities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Percent of the Population that are Non-Caucasian (National
                            Percentage=16.8%)
 
Less than 10...............................................          32
10 to 20...................................................          17
20 to 30...................................................          35
30 to 50...................................................          39
Over 50....................................................          23
 
  Percent of the Population With Incomes Below Poverty Level (National
                            Percentage=13.5)
 
Less than 7................................................          19
7 to 13....................................................          33
13 to 20...................................................          56
20 to 30...................................................          31
Over 30....................................................           7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using the most recent census data, in 1990, the nation as a whole 
had a population that was 16.8 percent non-Caucasian. Of the 
communities in which CWT facilities were located, on the other hand, 38 
percent had populations that were at least 30 percent minority, and 54 
percent of communities had populations whose minority percentage 
exceeded that of the state in which they were located by more than five 
percentage points. In 1990, 13.5 percent of the U.S. population had 
incomes below the poverty level, 22 percent of communities with CWT 
facilities had at least 20 percent of their residents in poverty, and 
33 percent had percentages of the population in poverty that exceeded 
by at least 5 percentage points the percentage of the population in 
poverty for the states in which they were located. Thus, environmental 
justice is a concern for these communities. The costs of the rule fall 
disproportionately on facilities in minority and low-income 
communities. Benefits may also accrue to these communities as a result 
of this rule, but a large share of benefits are likely to accrue to 
communities downstream from the CWT or POTW, which may not be the same 
community.

K. Foreign Trade Impacts

    The EA does not project any foreign trade impacts as a result of 
the effluent limitations guidelines and standards. Many of the affected 
CWT facilities treat waste that is considered hazardous under RCRA and 
international trade in CWT services for treatment of hazardous wastes 
is virtually nonexistent. There is also very little, if any, 
international trade in treatment of non-hazardous CWT wastes.

L. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The Agency prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis to 
assess the impacts on small companies owning CWT facilities. For 
purposes of this analysis, EPA defines small CWT companies as those 
having sales less than $6 million--the Small Business Administration 
definition of a small business for SIC code 4953, Refuse Systems. This 
is the SIC code that most CWT facilities listed in their questionnaire 
responses (see EA Chapter 3). Two small companies own facilities that 
discharge directly. There are 61 small companies that own facilities 
that discharge indirectly (the total number of small indirects includes 
applying weights to some of the facilities). EPA evaluated the impact 
on small CWT companies using a cost-to-sales test, which compares 
baseline sales to compliance costs (adjusted for inflation so that the 
costs and sales are expressed in the same year's dollars). This 
assessment does not account for any ability of the companies to pass 
any increase in operating costs through to their customers. EPA 
recognizes that costs-to-sales ratios in excess of one percent, and 
particularly those in excess of three percent, may represent 
significant impacts because they will generally correspond to much 
higher rates of cost to pre-compliance profits, and, thus, serve as a 
signal for additional analysis.
    The two small companies that own direct discharging facilities, 
both in the oils subcategory, have cost-to-sales ratios of over three 
percent. Results of the cost-to-sales test for the PSES options are 
presented in Table XI.L-1 for the number of facilities with costs 
exceeding one percent and three percent. Some companies own facilities 
with operations in more than one subcategory.

 Table XI.L-1.--Results of Cost-to-Sales Test for PSES Options for Small
                               Businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Number of    Number of
                                                   small        small
                    Option                       companies    companies
                                                 with cost/   with cost/
                                                 sales >1%    sales >3%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Subcategory--4 Small Businesses:
    4.........................................            3            1
    2.........................................            3            3
    3.........................................            3            3
Oils Subcategory--57 Small Businesses:
    8.........................................           40           21
    9.........................................           49           31
Organics Subcategory--2 Small Businesses:
    4.........................................            2            1
    3.........................................            2            1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As can be seen from Table XI.L-1, the economic impact on small 
businesses of the proposed PSES options is not as great as for the 
other alternatives. In particular, Oils Option 8 has 40 firms (70 
percent of the small businesses) with cost-to-sales ratios in excess of 
1 percent and 21 firms (37 percent of the small businesses) with cost-
to-sales ratios in excess of 3 percent (without adjustment for pass-
through of costs). On the other hand, Oils Option 9 has 49 firms (87 
percent of the small businesses) with cost-to-sales ratios in excess of 
1 percent and 31 firms (55 percent of the small businesses) with cost-
to-sales ratios in excess of 3 percent.
    Many of the facilities owned by small businesses operate processes 
in more than one subcategory so, as with the economic impact analyses 
presented

[[Page 2332]]

earlier in this section, cost-to-sales test results are presented for 
two combined PSES options: one with Oils Option 8 and one with Oils 
Option 9. These results are presented in Table XI.L-2.

 Table XI.L-2.--Results of Cost-to-Sales Test for Combined PSES Options
                          for Small Businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Number of    Number of
                                                   small        small
                Combined option                  companies    companies
                                                 with cost/   with cost/
                                                 sales >1%    sales >3%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indirect Dischargers--61 Small Businesses:
    w/ Oils Option 8..........................           43           23
    w/ Oils Option 9..........................           52           33
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PSES options combined with Oils Option 8 has 43 firms (70 
percent of small businesses) with cost-to-sales ratios in excess of 1 
percent and 23 firms (38 percent of small businesses) with cost-to-
sales ratios in excess of 3 percent. On the other hand, the combined 
option with Oils Option 9 has 52 firms (85 percent of small businesses) 
with cost-to-sales ratios in excess of 1 percent and 33 firms (54 
percent of small businesses) with cost-to-sales ratios in excess of 3 
percent.
    As detailed in Section VI.H, EPA convened a SBREFA panel during the 
development of this rule. As part of those exercises, EPA considered 
several regulatory alternatives to provide relief for small businesses. 
Some of these alternatives are discussed in detail in other sections of 
this document. For example, one option considered by EPA was a reduced 
monitoring alternative. This option is discussed in Section IX.D.
    EPA also analyzed several bases for not including small businesses 
within the scope of this proposal. EPA examined several criteria for 
establishing an exclusion for small businesses such as the volume of 
wastewater flow, employment, or annual revenues. The objective was to 
minimize the impacts on small businesses, still achieve the 
environmental benefits, and stay responsive to the Clean Water Act. EPA 
is defining small CWT businesses according to the SBA size definition 
of $6 million in annual revenue, but considered other criteria that 
would be easier to implement in practice, such as wastewater flow. To 
target relief to small businesses, EPA examined the correlation between 
these criteria and the size definition.
    Since most CWT facilities have similar numbers of employees 
regardless of their size, EPA first eliminated employment as a basis 
for establishing a small business exclusion. While EPA also found no 
correlation between annual volume of wastewater and the size of a 
facility, EPA retained this criteria due to the anticipated ease in 
implementing an exclusion based on this criteria. If an exclusion based 
on volume of wastewater is ultimately selected, the regulation would 
exclude both small and large businesses.
    EPA evaluated alternative levels for criteria based on wastewater 
flow and size as potential bases for limiting the scope of the proposed 
regulation to: (i) indirect dischargers with flows greater than 3.5 
million gallons per year (MGY), (ii and iii) indirect dischargers that 
manage non-hazardous wastes only with flows greater than either 3.5 MGY 
or 7.5 MGY. EPA also considered limiting the applicability of the 
proposed regulation to indirect dischargers not owned by small 
businesses without any specific reference to flow (referred to as ``no 
smalls'' below). The justification for EPA's choice of these particular 
exclusion alternatives is included in the record in materials submitted 
to the SBREFA panel.
    For each potential limitation, EPA estimated the projected economic 
impacts, both in absolute terms and in relative terms (that is, whether 
the impacts were higher, proportionately, for small businesses). The 
economic impacts that EPA considered for small companies include 
process closures, facility closures, employment losses, and the cost-
to-sales test. Table XI.L-3 shows the results of the facility-level 
analyses (if current facility receipts do not change) and the results 
of the analyses for the selected options for comparison purposes for 
all indirect dischargers. Table XI.L-4 shows the results of the cost-
to-sales test, which are company-level impacts for small companies that 
own indirect dischargers. Preliminary versions of these results were 
provided to all small entity representatives and SBREFA panel members.

                             Table XI.L.--Impacts of PSES Options With Limited Scope
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Post-tax
                                                                 total       Process      Facility      Total
                           Option                              annualized    closures     closures    employment
                                                                 costs       (small/      (small/       losses
                                                               ($1997 M)      large)       large)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    All Indirect Dischargers--147 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Combined Option w/ Oils 8...................................        $13.2         5/10          7/6          298
Reduced monitoring..........................................        11.03         5/11          4/7          286
>3.5 MGY, non-hazardous.....................................         11.7         5/10          3/3          273
>3.5 MGY....................................................         10.3          2/7          0/1          161
>7.5 MGY, non-hazardous.....................................         10.9         5/10          3/3          273
``No smalls''...............................................         8.81         0/12         0/12          142
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 2333]]


  Table XI.L-4.--Results of Cost-to-Sales Test for Small Businesses for
                     PSES Options with Limited Scope
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Cost/        Cost/
                    Option                        sales>1%     sales>3%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Indirect Dischargers--61 Small Businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Combined Option w/Oils Option 8...............           43           23
Reduced monitoring............................           32           14
>3.5 MGY, non-hazardous.......................           27           18
>3.5 MGY......................................           22           14
>7.5 MGY, non-hazardous.......................           22           18
``No smalls''.................................            0            0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some panel members and small entity representatives (SERs) believe 
that these results support not including small businesses in the 
regulation. As described in the Panel's final report, these panel 
members and SERs believe that the ``lost'' pollutant reductions 
associated with not including small businesses would not be 
environmentally significant. Based on analysis available at the time of 
the panel, limiting the applicability to not include all oils 
facilities owned by small businesses would have reduced removals by 12 
percent. Not including indirect dischargers with flows under 3.5 MGY 
would have reduced removals by 6 percent. They also suggested that 
these facilities provide an important ``safety valve'' for an 
affordable and effective treatment alternative for industrial 
facilities that would otherwise find it prohibitively expensive to 
comply with industry-specific categorical standards.
    Other SERs opposed this approach. These commenters believe that not 
including small businesses in the scope of this rule would adversely 
impact the image of the industry. One of these commenters preferred 
reduced monitoring and also suggested that small businesses might be 
granted additional time to comply with the new standards, rather than 
not including those businesses within the scope of the rule. EPA 
expressed concern that the absence of categorical standards for CWT 
facilities has been a major ``loophole'' in a national program to 
control industrial pollution, allowing wastes to be treated off-site 
less effectively than would be required of the same wastes if treated 
on-site. One of EPA's primary concerns with any of the alternatives 
that limit the scope of the rule is that they represent one snapshot of 
a rapidly changing industry. If a segment of the industry is not 
subject to national regulation, these companies might quickly expand 
leading to much greater discharges within a few years than predicted by 
existing data--with environmentally deleterious consequences. In 
addition, EPA believes that most CWT facilities have substantial 
amounts of unused capacity. Because this industry is extremely 
competitive, by limiting the scope of the CWT rule, EPA could actually 
be encouraging ineffective treatment while discouraging effective 
treatment.
    The panel discussed several ways of addressing this concern. One 
idea was to put mass-based limits on receipts as part of the 
eligibility requirement for not subjecting certain facilities to the 
rule, ensuring that these facilities would not handle significant 
volumes of contaminated wastes. However, this approach would also limit 
the flexibility of small businesses not subjected to this rule, and 
might require CWT facilities owned by small companies to give up a 
significant share of their existing waste receipts.
    In summary, in an effort to limit the rule's applicability to 
mitigate small business impacts and still preserve the benefits of the 
rule, EPA considered a variety of potential alternatives. For the 
reasons discussed elsewhere, however, EPA is not proposing to include 
any alternatives that limit the scope of the rule for small businesses. 
However, EPA has followed the panel recommendation that it include a 
full and balanced discussion of possible small business relief measures 
in this preamble and solicits both comments and data that might address 
some of the concerns that have been raised. Examples of such data would 
include plant capacity, as well as influent and effluent 
concentrations. Finally, as recommended by the panel, EPA will strongly 
consider developing some form of regulatory relief for small businesses 
for the final rule if its analyses continue to show significant 
economic impacts on a substantial number of small businesses.

M. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

    EPA also conducted an analysis of the cost-effectiveness of the 
alternative treatment technology options that were considered. The 
report, ``Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limitations 
Guidelines and Standards for the CWT Industry'' (hereinafter, ``Cost-
Effectiveness Report''), describes the methodology, data, and results; 
the report is included in the record of this rulemaking. The results of 
this cost-effectiveness analysis are expressed in terms of the costs 
(in 1981 dollars) per pound-equivalent removed, where pounds-equivalent 
removed for a particular pollutant is determined by multiplying the 
number of pounds of a pollutant removed by each option by a toxic 
weighting factor. The toxic weighting factors account for the 
differences in toxicity among pollutants and are derived using ambient 
water quality criteria. Cost effectiveness results are presented in 
1981 dollars as a reporting convention. Cost-effectiveness is 
calculated as the ratio of pre-tax annualized costs of an option to the 
annual pounds-equivalent removed by that option, and can be expressed 
as the average or incremental cost-effectiveness for an option.
    Average cost-effectiveness can be thought of as the ``increment'' 
between no regulation and the selected option for any given rule. For 
direct dischargers, the technologies used as the basis for BPT/BCT/BAT 
in all subcategories have an average cost-effectiveness ratio of $5.58/
lb-equivalent. For indirect dischargers, the technologies used as the 
basis for PSES in all subcategories have an average cost-effectiveness 
ratio of $23.59/lb-equivalent. These results incorporate all 
subcategories with their selected options.
    Incremental cost-effectiveness is the appropriate measure for 
comparing one regulatory option to an alternative, less stringent 
regulatory option for the same subcategory. Cost-effectiveness results 
by subcategory and option are presented for direct dischargers in Table 
XI.M-1 and indirect dischargers in Table XI.M-2. The options are listed 
in order of increasing removals. The calculations reflect only those 
increments that are ``efficient,'' in that they remove more for an 
incremental cost. In this context,

[[Page 2334]]

``inefficient'' options (i.e., those that cost more but remove less) 
are eliminated from the analysis. For example, Metals Subcategory 
Option 4 for direct dischargers has greater removals than Option 2, but 
costs less. Therefore, the incremental ``cost-effectiveness'' of the 
``inefficient'' option--Option 2--is displayed as ``n/a'' for ``not 
applicable,'' and Option 4 becomes the first option in the series 
against which further increments are compared.

                             Table XI.M-1.--BPT/BCT/BAT Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Pre-tax                                 Incremental
                                                             total                   Average cost      cost-
                         Option                            annualized    Removals   effectiveness  effectiveness
                                                             costs       (lbs-eq)    (1981 $/lb-    (1981 $/lb-
                                                           ($1981 M)                     eq)            eq)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Subcategory--9 Facilities:
    2...................................................        $8.85      369,112        $23.99            n/a
    4...................................................         1.84      370,040          4.95
    3...................................................         9.18      379,571         24.18         974.19
Oils Subcategory--5 Facilities:
    8...................................................        0.314       13,943         22.49
    9...................................................        0.314       14,811         21.17          n/a a
Organics Subcategory--4 Facilities:
    4...................................................        0.151            0
    3...................................................        0.275       27,055         10.17           4.58
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a EPA is not able to distinguish between the costs to direct dischargers to comply with Options 8 and 9, and
  therefore is not able to compute incremental cost-effectiveness.


                                 Table XI.M-2.--PSES Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Pre-tax                                 Incremental
                                                             total                   Average cost      cost-
                         Option                            annualized    Removals   effectiveness  effectiveness
                                                             costs       (lbs-eq)    (1981 $/lb-    (1981 $/lb-
                                                           ($1981 M)                     eq)            eq)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Subcategory--9 Facilities:
    4...................................................        $5.23       25,843       $202.22   .............
    2...................................................        17.86       26,943        662.86      11,484.84
    3...................................................        18.84       27,480        685.58       1,825.82
Oils Subcategory--5 Facilities:
    8...................................................         8.63      510,740         16.90   .............
    9...................................................        12.30      514,398         23.91         725.50
Organics Subcategory--4 Facilities:
    4...................................................         1.89       87,917         21.53   .............
    3...................................................         2.42      165,392         14.63           6.80
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One of the issues discussed at length by the SBREFA panel members 
was EPA's analyses of toxic loadings and removals which underlie the 
cost-effectiveness analysis for the various regulatory options for the 
oils subcategory. For the oils subcategory, the cost-effectiveness 
analysis appears to be driven largely by a limited number of 
observations for one or two pollutants. For example, a single 
pollutant, benzo(a)pyrene, accounts for 88% of the estimated toxic 
removals by indirect dischargers and 80% of the estimated toxic 
removals by direct dischargers in the oils subcategory. Benzo(a)pyrene 
was detected in the effluent from the emulsion breaking/gravity 
separation process (which EPA used to establish baseline loadings for 
this subcategory) in four out of nine daily composite samples from one 
of the facilities sampled in this subcategory. One of the four daily 
composite samples was biphasic--the technology did not completely 
separate the oil from the water phase. The concentration of 
benzo(a)pyrene in the oil phase of this sample was several orders of 
magnitude greater than the concentration in the water phase and in the 
other samples at that facility. Therefore, the average concentration of 
benzo(a)pyrene for that facility is largely driven by its concentration 
in the oil phase of the biphasic sample. Applying its baseline loading 
methodology (see detailed discussion in Chapter 12 of the technical 
development document), EPA also attributed the average concentration of 
benzo(a)pyrene for the facility with the biphasic sample to 10 other 
facilities (approximately 13% of all the oils subcategory indirect 
dischargers). Consequently, the benzo(a)pyrene concentration detected 
in the oil phase of the daily composite biphasic sample accounts for a 
third to a half of the total pound-equivalent removals estimated for 
indirect dischargers in the oils subcategory.
    EPA acknowledges that this daily composite sample significantly 
influences its estimate of pound-equivalent removals for indirect 
dischargers in the oils subcategory. However, EPA believes it is 
reasonable to project that some portion of other oils subcategory 
indirect discharging facilities may experience biphasic effluents from 
emulsion breaking/gravity separation and may thus also contain high 
baseline concentrations of highly toxic pollutants. Even if the 
concentration of benzo(a)pyrene in this sample were non-representative 
of other oily waste facilities, there may be other, highly toxic 
pollutants that were not detected in the waste streams of the plants 
sampled. The nature of this industry is to accept highly variable waste 
streams, so there is no ``typical'' set of pollutants and 
representative

[[Page 2335]]

concentrations. EPA solicits comment and data on this conclusion.
    Finally, EPA notes that its extension of the average pollutant 
concentrations for the facility with the biphasic sample to 10 other 
facilities (unscaled) in this subcategory was conducted without 
consideration of whether these facilities treat non-hazardous materials 
or a mixture of hazardous and non-hazardous materials. If EPA were to 
analyze facilities on this basis, it might also effect EPA's estimate 
of toxic removals for this subcategory. This issue is discussed in more 
detail in Section IV.S.

XII. Water Quality Analysis and Environmental Benefits

    In addition to costs and impacts, EPA also estimated the 
environmental and human health benefits of today's proposed 
requirements. Benefits identified as a result of this proposed rule are 
associated with improvements in water quality. Section X.C of this 
notice and Chapter 12 of the technical development document (TDD) 
describe the estimated reductions in effluent discharges. Those 
reductions and the estimates of incremental environmental improvements 
are derived by a comparison of estimated post-compliance discharges to 
a baseline of current discharges. Because current discharges are a 
function of current technology, this is the same baseline that is used 
to establish the costs of complying with this rule.
    EPA is confident that its estimate of compliance costs is a full 
and accurate account of such costs. EPA is less confident, however, 
that its estimate of benefits is similarly complete. EPA is not 
currently able to evaluate all human health and ecosystem benefits 
associated with water quality improvements quantitatively. EPA is even 
more limited in its ability to assign monetary values to these 
benefits. The economic benefit values described below and in the 
``Economic Analysis of the Proposed Effluent Limitations, Guidelines 
and Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry'' (EA) 
should be considered a subset of the total benefits of this rule and 
should be evaluated along with descriptive assessments of benefits and 
the acknowledgment that even these may fall short of the real-world 
benefits that may result from this rule. For example, the analyses 
consider the effects of metals and organic pollutants, but do not 
evaluate the impacts of other classes of pollutants, such as five-day 
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), chemical oxygen demand 
(COD), and total suspended solids (TSS), which can produce significant 
adverse environmental impacts. In addition, EPA has not calculated any 
benefits from water quality improvement at facilities that are 
represented by survey weights from the NOA (Notice of Data 
Availability) facilities. Assigning benefits to these facilities 
requires data specific to the reach into which the facility discharges. 
The monetized benefits presented in this section are therefore 
underestimated, and should not be directly compared with the costs 
presented in Section XI.
    Within these confines, EPA analyzes the effects of current water 
discharges and assesses the benefits of reductions in these discharges 
resulting from this proposed regulation. EPA evaluated water quality 
benefits of controlling the discharge from CWT facilities to surface 
waters and POTWs for direct and indirect dischargers located throughout 
the United States. CWT industry waste effluents contain pollutants 
that, when discharged into freshwater and estuarine ecosystems, may 
alter aquatic habitats, affect aquatic life, and adversely affect human 
health. In fact, all 105 pollutants of concern considered in this 
analysis have at least one toxic effect (they are a human health 
carcinogen and/or human health systemic toxicant or aquatic life 
toxicant). Many of these pollutants are persistent and bioaccumulate in 
aquatic organisms. In addition, many of these pollutants can also 
adversely affect POTW operations or contribute to POTW biosolid 
contamination.
    Water quality problems from four direct discharging CWT facilities 
and nine POTWs (which receive discharges from 14 indirect facilities) 
have been documented in State 304(l) Short Lists of impaired water 
bodies. In the case of indirect dischargers, the 9 POTWs have had water 
quality problems with pollutants that are typical of CWT discharges and 
these POTWs receive discharges from CWT facilities. However, EPA cannot 
definitely link the water quality problems with these CWT facilities. 
Finally, EPA has documented seven cases of impairment of POTW 
operations.
    EPA expects a variety of human health, environmental, and economic 
benefits to result from these reductions in effluent loadings (see 
``Environmental Assessment of the Proposed Effluent Guidelines for the 
Centralized Waste Treaters Industry,'' (Environmental Assessment)). In 
particular, the benefits assessment addresses the following benefit 
categories: a) human health benefits due to reductions in excess cancer 
risk; b) human health benefits due to reductions in lead exposure; c) 
human health benefits due to reductions in non-carcinogenic hazard 
(systemic); d) ecological and recreational benefits due to improved 
water quality with respect to toxic pollutants; and e) benefits to 
POTWs from reductions in interference, pass-through, and biosolid 
contamination, and elimination of some of the efforts associated with 
establishing local pretreatment limits.
    Out of a total of 205 CWT facilities, EPA evaluated 10 direct 
wastewater dischargers and 85 indirect wastewater dischargers 
discharging up to 105 pollutants. Facilities not evaluated either are 
zero dischargers (44) or had insufficient data to conduct the water 
quality analysis. To estimate some of the benefits from the 
improvements in water quality expected to result from this rule, 
instream concentration estimates are modeled and then compared to both 
aquatic life and human health ambient water quality criteria (AWQC) or 
toxic effect levels to evaluate whether these discharges pose risk to 
aquatic organisms or to human health. The analyses were first performed 
on a subcategory-specific basis. The subcategory-specific analyses, 
however, consider only impacts of discharges from individual 
subcategories, and therefore, underestimate overall water quality 
impacts for facilities that treat wastes in more than one subcategory. 
At least 20 percent of facilities in the CWT industry accept wastes in 
multiple subcategories. In order to evaluate overall benefits of the 
proposed technologies, EPA also analyzed water quality and POTW impacts 
for subcategory combinations, as appropriate, for individual 
facilities.
    For indirect dischargers, EPA also evaluates the potential 
inhibition of POTW operations and biosolid contamination (thereby 
limiting its use for land application) based on current and proposed 
pretreatment levels. Inhibition of POTW operations are projected by 
comparing modeled POTW influent concentrations to known inhibition 
levels from the literature; potential contamination of biosolids is 
estimated by comparing projected pollutant concentrations in biosolids 
to available EPA biosolid regulatory standards.
    EPA monetizes the estimated benefits for reduced cancer risk, 
reduced lead health risk, improved recreational activity, improved 
nonuse (intrinsic) value, and reduced biosolid contamination at POTWs. 
However, EPA is unable to quantify the dollar value of benefits from 
the other benefit categories such as reduced noncarcinogenic hazards. 
The methodology and data used in the

[[Page 2336]]

estimate of all benefits are described in detail in the EA.

A. Reduced Human Health Cancer Risk

    EPA expects that reduced loadings to surface waters associated with 
the proposal will reduce cancer incidences by approximately 0.65 per 
year with estimated monetized benefits of $1.5 to $8.0 million ($1997) 
per year. These estimated benefits are attributable to reducing the 
cancer risks associated with consuming contaminated fish tissue. EPA 
developed these benefit estimates by applying an existing estimate of 
the value of a statistical life to the estimated number of excess 
cancer cases avoided. The estimated range of the value of a statistical 
life used in this analysis is $2.3 million to 12.4 million ($1997).

B. Reduced Lead Health Risk

    EPA expects that reduced loadings to surface waters will 
significantly reduce lead. Under the proposed treatment levels, the 
ingestion of lead-contaminated fish tissues by recreational and 
subsistence anglers would be substantially reduced at four water 
bodies. Because elevated blood lead levels can cause intellectual 
impairment in exposed children 0 to 6 years of age, benefits to the at-
risk child populations are quantified by estimating the reduced 
potential IQ point loss. Benefits to adults are quantified by 
estimating the reduced risk for cardiovascular diseases including 
hypertension, coronary heart disease, and strokes (the benefits of 
reduced heart disease and strokes include both fatal and non-fatal 
cases). The benefits are quantified and monetized using methodologies 
developed in the Retrospective Analysis of the Clean Air Act (Final 
Report to Congress on Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1970 to 
1990; EPA 410-R-97-002). EPA estimates that this proposed regulation 
would reduce annual cases of these adverse health effects: 3.209 cases 
of hypertension valued at $838 per case, 0.185 cases of heart disease 
valued at $63,690 per case, 0.012 cases of cerebrovascular accidents 
valued at $246,000 per case for men and $123,000 per case for women, 
0.008 cases of brain infarctions also valued at $246,000 per case for 
men and $123,000 per case for women, .222 cases of premature mortality 
valued at $2.3 million to $12.4 million per case, 72 increased IQ 
points in children valued at $3,637 per case, and 34 children with an 
IQ that is prevented from going below 70 (and thus requiring special 
education) valued at $64,800 per case. The total benefit for these 
reductions would range from approximately $3.0 million to $5.2 million 
($1997). EPA also solicits comment on the methods that it used to 
calculate benefits from the reduction of lead health risks.

C. Reduced Noncarcinogenic Human Health Hazard

    Exposure to toxic substances poses risk of systemic and other 
effects to humans, including effects on the circulatory, respiratory or 
digestive systems, and neurological and developmental effects. This 
proposed rule is expected to generate human health benefits by reducing 
exposure to these substances, thus reducing the hazards of these 
associated effects. EPA expects that reduced loadings to surface waters 
would reduce the number of persons potentially exposed to non-cancer 
effects due to consumption of contaminated fish tissue by 19,000 
people. Presently, EPA does not have methodology for monetizing these 
benefits.

D. Improved Ecological Conditions and Recreational Activity

    EPA expects this proposed rule to generate environmental benefits 
by improving water quality. There is a wide range of benefits 
associated with the maintenance and improvement of water quality. These 
benefits include use values (e.g., recreational fishing), ecological 
values (e.g., preservation of habitat), and passive-use values. For 
example, water pollution might affect the quality of the fish and 
wildlife habitat provided by water resources, thus affecting the 
species using these resources. This, in turn, might affect the quality 
and value of recreational experiences of users, such as anglers fishing 
in the affected streams. EPA considers the value of the recreational 
fishing benefits and intrinsic benefits resulting from this proposed 
rule, but does not evaluate the other types of recreational benefits 
and improvements to other recreational activities, such as swimming, 
boating, water skiing, and wildlife observation due to data 
limitations.
    The projected reductions in loadings of metals and organics to 
surface waters and POTWs are significant. Modeled (unscaled) end-of-
pipe metals and organic pollutant loadings are estimated to decline by 
about 83 percent, from 5.04 million pounds per year under current 
conditions to 0.88 million pounds per year under this proposed rule. 
The analysis comparing modeled instream pollutant levels to AWQC 
estimates that current discharge loadings result in 110 contraventions 
at 18 receiving water locations. The proposed rule would reduce this to 
53 contraventions at 13 receiving water locations.
    EPA estimates that the annual monetized recreational benefits to 
anglers associated with the expected changes in water quality range 
from $0.41 million to $1.2 million ($1997). EPA evaluates these 
recreational benefits, applying a model that considers the increase in 
value of a ``contaminant-free fishery'' to recreational anglers 
resulting from the elimination of all pollutant concentrations in 
excess of AWQC at 5 of the 18 receiving water locations. The monetized 
value of impaired recreational fishing opportunity is estimated by 
first calculating the baseline value of the receiving stream using a 
value per person day of recreational fishing, and the number of person-
days fished on the receiving stream. The value of improving water 
quality in this fishery, based on the increase in value to anglers of 
achieving contaminant-free fishing, is then calculated. Because the 
valuation of these benefits is based on estimates of a willingness to 
pay for recreational fishing benefits in different fisheries with 
different water quality conditions, EPA recognizes that they are only 
approximate.
    In addition, EPA estimates that the annual monetized intrinsic 
benefits to the general public, as a result of the same improvements in 
water quality, range from at least $0.20 million to $0.60 million 
($1997). These intrinsic benefits are estimated as half of the 
recreational benefits and may be over or underestimated.

E. Improved POTW Operations

    EPA considers two potential sources of benefits to POTWs from this 
proposed regulation: (1) reductions in the likelihood of interference, 
pass-through, and biosolid contamination problems; and (2) reductions 
in costs potentially incurred by POTWs in analyzing toxic pollutants 
and determining whether to, and the appropriate level at which to, set 
local limits. EPA is unable to quantify these benefits, but they are 
discussed qualitatively below.
    First, regarding potential interference, pass-through and biosolid 
contamination, this proposed rule is expected to help reduce these 
problems by reducing pollutant loadings in the industry's effluent and 
reducing shock releases. Anecdotal evidence from POTW operators and 
sampling results indicate that such effects can occur. EPA also expects 
the proposed rule to improve the biosolid quality of 4,100

[[Page 2337]]

metric tons permitting the use of less expensive disposal mechanisms. 
The estimated monetized benefit for improving biosolid quality is 
$0.15-$0.93 million ($1997).
    EPA recognizes that POTWs already have responsibility and full 
authority to prevent interference and pass-through due to discharges by 
industrial users by the establishment and enforcement of local limits. 
Reducing the pollutant load to local POTWs may eliminate some of the 
efforts associated with establishing these local limits for new CWT 
facilities or existing CWT facilities which begin to accept different 
waste types other than those upon which their permits are based. (Local 
limits have already been established for existing CWT facilities, and 
will need to be recalculated based on the new limits once promulgated.) 
Local limits are sometimes required to protect against pass-through and 
interference, and to protect worker health and safety. Several POTWs 
indicated that establishment of more effective national pretreatment 
standards would reduce the time and effort required to establish local 
limits.
    Furthermore, reducing the discharge of toxic pollutants reduces the 
likelihood that the POTW effluents will exhibit excessive toxicity. 
When POTW effluent exhibits excessive toxicity, the POTW must enact a 
rigorous, costly analytical program to identify and reduce the source 
of toxicity. As noted above, however, POTWs generally address this 
issue through the establishment of local limits.

F. Other Benefits Not Quantified

    The above benefit analyses focus mainly on identified compounds 
with quantifiable toxic or carcinogenic effects. This potentially leads 
to an underestimation of benefits, since some pollutant 
characterizations are not considered. For example, the analyses do not 
include the benefits associated with reducing the particulate load 
(measured as TSS), or the oxygen demand (measured as BOD5 
and COD) of the effluents. TSS loads can degrade ecological habitat by 
reducing light penetration and primary productivity, and from 
accumulation of solid particles that alter benthic spawning grounds and 
feeding habitats. BOD5 and COD loads can deplete oxygen 
levels, which can produce mortality or other adverse effects in fish, 
as well as reduce biological diversity.

G. Summary of Benefits

    EPA estimates that the annual monetized benefits resulting from 
this proposed rule are in the range of $5.3 million to $15.9 million 
($1997). Table XII.F.1 summarizes these benefits, by category. The 
range reflects the uncertainty in evaluating the effects of this 
proposed rule and in placing a dollar value on these effects. As 
indicated in Table XII.F.1, these monetized benefits ranges do not 
reflect some of the benefit categories such as improved POTW 
operations. Therefore, the reported benefit estimate may understate the 
total benefits of this proposed rule. On the other hand, EPA has not 
applied a discount factor to any of the monetized health and 
environmental benefits, although there are likely to be significant 
lags between implementation of the rule and realization of some types 
of benefits. This would tend to overstate the benefits of the rule. 
However, EPA also repeats that benefits were quantified and/or 
monetized for the 105 (out of the 205 total) CWT facilities for which 
EPA had enough data to perform the analysis, whereas the costs of the 
rule accounted for 205 facilities.

                                   Table XII.F.1--Potential Economic Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Benefit category                                Millions of 1997 dollars per year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced Cancer Risk........................................  1.5-8.0.
Reduced Lead Health Risk...................................  3.0-5.2.
Reduced Non-Carcinogenic Hazard............................  Unquantified.
Improved Ecological Conditions.............................  Unquantified.
Improved Recreation Value..................................  0.41-1.2.
Improved Intrinsic Value...................................  0.20-0.60.
Reduced Biosolid Contamination at POTW.....................  0.65-0.93.
Improved POTW Operation (inhibition).......................  Unquantified.
Improved Occupational Conditions at POTWs..................  Unquantified.
Total Monetized Benefits...................................  5.3-15.9.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XIII. 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 require 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.
    While it is difficult to balance environmental impacts across all 
media and energy use, the Agency has determined that the impacts 
identified below are acceptable in light of the benefits associated 
with compliance with the limitations and standards.

A. 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 wastewaters often pass through a 
series of collection and treatment units that are open to the 
atmosphere and allow wastewater containing organic compounds to contact 
ambient air. Atmospheric exposure of the organic-containing 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.
    As discussed previously, EPA considered including air stripping in 
the technology basis for today's proposed limitations and standards, 
but rejected it because it would not have resulted in significantly 
different limitations. Because the proposed rule would not allow any 
less stringent control of VOCs than is currently in place at most CWT 
facilities, EPA does not project any net increase in air emissions of 
volatile pollutants due to today's proposal. As such, no adverse air 
impacts are expected to occur as a result of the proposed regulations.
    Finally, while this proposal does not require the use of air 
stripping with emissions control to control the

[[Page 2338]]

emission of volatile pollutants, EPA encourages all facilities which 
accept waste containing volatile pollutants to incorporate air 
stripping with overhead recovery or destruction into their wastewater 
treatment systems. Additionally, EPA also notes that CWT sources of 
hazardous air pollutants are subject to maximum achievable control 
technology (MACT) as promulgated for off-site waste and recovery 
operations on July 1, 1996 (61 FR 34140) as 40 CFR Part 63.

B. Solid Waste

    Solid waste will be generated due to a number of the proposed 
treatment technologies. These wastes include sludge from biological 
treatment systems, chemical precipitation and clarification systems, 
and gravity separation and dissolved air flotation systems. EPA costed 
off-site disposal in Subtitle C and D landfills of the solid wastes 
generated due to the implementation of the technologies discussed 
above. These costs were included in the economic evaluation of the 
proposed technologies.
    The precipitation and subsequent separation proposed as the 
technology basis for the metals subcategory will produce a metal-rich 
filter cake which requires disposal. EPA estimates that metals 
subcategory facilities will generate annually 3.7 million gallons of 
filter cake. Dissolved air flotation and additional gravity separation 
steps proposed as the technology basis for the oils subcategory will 
also produce a metal-rich filter press cake requiring disposal. EPA 
estimates that oils subcategory facilities will generate annually 22.7 
million gallons of filter press cake. Finally, the biological treatment 
system proposed for the organics subcategory will also produce a sludge 
requiring disposal. EPA estimates that 4.3 million gallons will be 
generated annually by the organics subcategory facilities.

C. Energy Requirements

    EPA estimates that the attainment of BPT, BCT, BAT, and PSES will 
increase energy consumption by a small increment over present industry 
use. With the exception of the oils subcategory, the projected increase 
in energy consumption is primarily due to the incorporation of 
components such as power pumps, mixers, blowers, and controls. For the 
metals subcategory, EPA projects an increased energy usage of 3.3 
million kilowatt hours per year and, for the organics subcategory, an 
increased energy usage of 0.5 million kilowatt hours per year. For the 
oils subcategory, however, the main energy requirement in today's 
proposed rule is for the operation of dissolved air flotation units. 
Dissolved air flotation units require air sparging to help separate the 
waste stream. For the oils subcategory, EPA projects an increased 
energy usage of 3.5 million kilowatt hours per year. Overall, an 
increase of 7.5 million kilowatt-hours per year would be required for 
the proposed regulation which equates to 20 barrels of oil per day. In 
1996, the United States consumed 18.3 million barrels of oil per day. 
The costs associated with these energy requirements are included in 
EPA's estimated operating costs for compliance with the proposed rule.

XIV. Regulatory Implementation

A. 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, but should continue to base limits on BPJ 
until final limits for this industry are promulgated. Although the 
information provided in this preamble and the accompanying documents 
may provide useful information and guidance to permit writers in 
determining BPJ permit limits, the permit writer will still need to 
justify any permit limits based on the conditions at the individual 
facility.

B. Upset and Bypass Provisions

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

C. Variances and Modifications

    The CWA requires application of 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. Consequently, 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.
1. Fundamentally Different Factors Variances
    EPA has established procedures for determining effluent limitations 
or standards different from the otherwise applicable requirements if an 
individual existing discharging facility is fundamentally different 
with respect to factors considered in establishing the limitations or 
standards applicable to the individual facility. Such a modification is 
known as a ``fundamentally different factors'' (FDF) variance. The 
SBREFA panel that reviewed this proposal encouraged the consideration 
of ways to streamline the Agency's processes for obtaining an FDF 
variance. One suggestion advanced was that the Agency provide for 
facilities to submit ``group'' FDF requests.
    Early on, EPA, by regulation, provided for FDF modifications from 
BPT effluent limitations, BAT limitations for priority and non-
conventional pollutants, and BCT limitations 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 standards. 
Section 301(n) also defined the conditions under which EPA may 
establish alternative requirements. Under Section 301(n), an 
application for approval of FDF variance must be based solely on (1) 
information submitted during 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

[[Page 2339]]

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 (for example, 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 (for example, 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 dischargers 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.
    In reality, the Agency has only granted a limited number of the 
requests for FDF variances.
    The legislative history of Section 301(n) underscores the necessity 
for the FDF variance applicant to establish eligibility for the 
variance. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 125.32(b)(1) are explicit in 
imposing this burden upon the applicant. The applicant must show that 
the factors relating to the discharge controlled by the applicant's 
permit which are claimed to be fundamentally different are, in fact, 
fundamentally different from those factors considered by the EPA in 
establishing the applicable guidelines. The pretreatment regulations 
incorporate a similar requirement at 40 CFR 403.13(h)(9).
    The Agency requests comment on how to modify its existing 
regulation to provide additional flexibility to small businesses in 
obtaining FDF variances in light of the specific statutory requirement 
that each individual discharger establish the fundamental difference in 
its operations through information submitted during development of the 
limitations and standards or show there was no opportunity to submit 
such information. It would be helpful if commenters supplied specific 
suggested changes to the regulatory language found at 40 CFR 125.32 and 
403.13.
    An FDF variance is not available to a new source subject to NSPS or 
PSNS.
2. 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 a permit modification. There are two classifications of 
modifications: major and minor. From a procedural standpoint, they 
differ primarily with respect to the public notice requirements. Major 
modifications require public notice while minor modifications do not. 
Virtually any modification that results in less stringent conditions is 
treated as a major 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.
3. Removal credits
    The CWA establishes a discretionary program for POTWs to grant 
``removal credits'' to their indirect discharges. This credit, in the 
form of a less stringent pretreatment standard, allows an increased 
concentration of a pollutant in the flow from the indirect discharger's 
facility to the POTW. See 40 CFR 403.7. EPA has promulgated removal 
credit regulations as part of its pretreatment regulations. Under EPA's 
pretreatment regulations, the availability of a removal credit for a 
particular pollutant is linked to the POTW method of using or disposing 
of its sewage sludge. The regulations provide that removal credits are 
only available for certain pollutants regulated in EPA's 40 CFR Part 
503 sewage sludge regulations (58 FR 9386). The pretreatment 
regulations at 40 CFR Part 403 provide that removal credits may be made 
potentially available for the following pollutants:
    (1) If a POTW applies its sewage sludge to the land for beneficial 
uses, disposes of it on surface disposal sites, or incinerates it, 
removal credits may be available, depending on which use or disposal 
method is selected (so long as the POTW complies with the requirements 
in Part 503). When sewage sludge is applied to land, removal credits 
may be available for ten metals. When sewage sludge is disposed of on a 
surface disposal site, removal credits 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 (40 CFR 
403.7(a)(3)(iv)(A)).
    (2) In addition, when sewage sludge is used on land or disposed of 
on a surface disposal site or incinerated, removal credits may also be 
available for additional pollutants so long as the concentration of the 
pollutant in sludge does not exceed a concentration level established 
in Part 403. When sewage sludge is applied to land, removal credits may 
be available for two additional metals and 14 organic pollutants. When 
the sewage sludge is disposed of on a surface disposal site, removal 
credits may be available for seven additional metals and 13 organic 
pollutants. When the sewage sludge is incinerated, removal credits may 
be available for three other metals (40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(iv)(B)).
    (3) When a POTW disposes of its sewage sludge in a municipal solid 
waste landfill (MSWLF) that meets the criteria of 40 CFR Part 258, 
removal credits may be available for any pollutant in the POTW's sewage 
sludge (40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(iv)(C)).
    Given the statutory requirements for removal credits, the Agency 
has only received a very limited number of removal credit requests (2 
or fewer).
    Given compliance with the requirements of EPA's removal credit 
regulations, following promulgation of the pretreatment standards being 
proposed today, removal credits may be authorized for any pollutant 
subject to pretreatment standards if the applying POTW disposes of its 
sewage sludge in a MSWLF that meets the requirements of 40 CFR Part 
258. If the POTW uses or disposes of its sewage sludge by land 
application, surface disposal or incineration, removal credits may be 
available for the following metal pollutants (depending on the method 
of use or disposal): arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, 
molybdenum, nickel, selenium, and zinc.

[[Page 2340]]

    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), EPA may 
authorize removal credits only when EPA determines that, if removal 
credits are authorized, the increased discharges of a pollutant to 
POTWs resulting from removal credits will not prevent POTW sewage 
sludge use or disposal in accordance with EPA's regulations. As 
discussed in the preamble to amendments to the Part 403 regulations (58 
FR 9382-83), EPA has interpreted these sections to authorize removal 
credits for a pollutant only in one of two circumstances. Removal 
credits may be authorized for any categorical pollutant for which EPA 
either has established a numerical pollutant limit in Part 503, or 
determined will not threaten human health and the environment when used 
or disposed of in sewage sludge. The pollutants described in paragraphs 
(1)--(3) above include all those pollutants that EPA either 
specifically regulated in Part 503 or evaluated for regulation and 
determined would not adversely affect sludge use and disposal.
    EPA will soon propose to amend Part 403 to make removal credits 
available for those pollutants that are not now listed in Appendix G as 
eligible for removal credits provided a POTW seeking removal credit 
authority studies the impact that granting removal credits would have 
on the concentration of the pollutant in the POTW's sewage sludge, and 
establishes that the pollutants will not interfere with sewage sludge 
use or disposal. This proposed change would provide POTWs and their 
industrial users with additional opportunities to use removal credits 
to efficiently allocate treatment.
    The proposal addresses the availability of removal credits for 
pollutants for which EPA has not developed a Part 503 pollutant limit 
or determined through a national study a concentration for the 
pollutant in sewage sludge below which public health and the 
environment are protected when the sewage sludge is used or disposed. 
Because EPA is only considering two additional pollutants for 
regulation under Part 503, the proposal would provide a mechanism for 
evaluating other pollutants for removal credit purposes. As noted 
above, EPA has interpreted the Court's decision in NRDC v. EPA as only 
allowing removal credits for a pollutant if EPA had either regulated 
the pollutant or established a concentration of the pollutant in sewage 
sludge below which public health and the environment are protected when 
sewage sludge is used or disposed. The proposal would allow the POTW to 
perform the study that would establish that allowable concentration. 
The POTW analysis would need to establish that the granting of removal 
credits will not increase the level of pollutants in the POTW's sewage 
sludge to a level that would fail to protect public health and the 
environment from reasonably anticipated adverse effects of the 
pollutant.

D. Relationship of Effluent Limitations and Pretreatment Standards to 
Monitoring Requirements

    Effluent limitations and pretreatment standards 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 and local limits developed for POTWs issued by 
the EPA or authorized States under Section 402 of the Act and local 
pretreatment programs under Section 307 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 or local 
POTW may elect to establish technology-based permit limits or local 
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 or standards on covered 
pollutants to achieve compliance), the permitting authority must apply 
those limitations or standards.
    Working in conjunction with the effluent limitations and standards 
are the monitoring conditions set out in an NPDES or local POTW 
pretreatment permit. An integral part of the monitoring conditions is 
the point at which a facility must monitor to demonstrate compliance. 
The point at which a sample is collected can have a dramatic effect on 
the monitoring results for that facility. Therefore, it may be 
necessary to require internal monitoring points in order to assure 
compliance. EPA's regulations authorize establishment of monitoring 
requirements for internal waste streams in prescribed circumstances. 
See 40 CFR 122.44(i)(1)(iii), 122.45(h), and 403.6(e). Control 
authorities may establish additional internal monitoring points to the 
extent consistent with EPA's regulations.
    Some observers have questioned EPA's authority to require in-plant 
monitoring in light of the recent decision in American Iron and Steel 
Institute (AISI) v. EPA, 115 F.3d 979 (D.C. Cir. 1997). There, a court 
held that, although EPA has the authority to require monitoring of 
internal waste streams, see AISI, 115 F.3d at 995, the CWA does not 
authorize EPA to require compliance with water quality-based effluent 
limitations at a point inside the facility and thereby deprive a 
permittee of the ability to choose its own control system to meet the 
limitations, see id. at 966. EPA does not believe that decision would 
affect the Agency's approach taken for today's proposal. The AISI court 
did not consider the question of whether EPA has authority to take 
internal waste streams into consideration in establishing technology-
based controls such as BPT/BAT, PSES, and NSPS/PSNS. Unlike water 
quality-based effluent limitations, which are calculated to ensure that 
water quality standards for the receiving water are attained, 
technology-based limitations and standards are derived to measure the 
performance of specific model technologies that EPA is required by 
statute to identify. In identifying these technologies, EPA is directed 
to consider precisely the type of internal controls that are irrelevant 
to the development of water quality-based effluent limitations, such as 
the processes employed, process changes, and the engineering aspects of 
various types of control technologies. EPA's technology-based effluent 
limitations are intended to reflect, for each industrial category or 
subcategory, the ``base level'' of technology (including process 
changes) and to ensure that ``in no case * * * should any plant be 
allowed to discharge more pollutants per unit of production than is 
defined by that base level'' (E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Train, 
430 U.S. at 129 (1973)).
    EPA concluded that it can require in-plant monitoring to 
demonstrate compliance with technology-based effluent limitations in 
accordance with the CWA and its regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(i), 
122.45(h), 122.3(e), and 403.6(e) if such monitoring is necessary to 
demonstrate that wastes are being treated to a level corresponding to 
the technology basis of the standards. In today's rule, EPA is, 
therefore, requiring in-plant monitoring for compliance with 
limitations in the circumstances described above. Were EPA to require 
compliance monitoring of the final effluent without adjustment for the 
amount of dilution, there would be no

[[Page 2341]]

way to determine whether the facility had adequately controlled for 
pollutants or whether the effluent had simply been diluted below the 
analytical detection level. Diluting pollutants in this manner, rather 
than preventing their discharge, is inconsistent with achieving the 
removals represented by the technology-based levels of control and 
hence with the purposes of the limitations. It is also inconsistent 
with the goals of the CWA in general.

E. Subcategorization Determination

    EPA believes that the paperwork and analyses currently performed at 
CWT facilities, as part of their waste acceptance procedures (as 
detailed in V.A), provide CWT facilities with sufficient information 
for them to determine into which of the proposed subcategories their 
treated waste would fall. EPA tried to base its recommended 
subcategorization determination procedure on information generally 
obtained during these waste acceptance and confirmation procedures. In 
EPA's view, permit writers and local pretreatment authorities should 
not (because they need not) require additional monitoring or paperwork 
solely for the purpose of subcategory determinations. EPA believes that 
if CWT facilities follow EPA's recommendations, they should easily 
classify their wastes. Permit writers and local authorities, in these, 
circumstances, would only need to satisfy themselves that the facility 
made a good-faith effort to determine the category of wastes treated. 
In most cases, as detailed below, EPA believes the subcategory 
determination can be made on the type of waste receipt, e.g., metal-
bearing sludge, waste oil, or landfill leachate. Certainly, in EPA's 
estimation, all CWT facilities should, at a minimum, collect adequate 
information from the generator on the type of waste received at the CWT 
facility, because this is the minimum information required by CWT 
facilities to treat off-site wastes effectively.
    To determine an existing facility's subcategory classification(s), 
the facility should review data for a period of one year on its 
incoming wastes. Information in Table XIV.E-1 below should aid CWT 
facilities in classifying each of its waste receipts for that one year 
period into a subcategory.

              Table XIV.E-1.--Waste Receipt Classification
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Subcategory                             spent electroplating
                                                baths and/or sludges
                                               metal finishing rinse
                                                water and sludges
                                               chromate wastes
                                               air pollution control
                                                blow down water and
                                                sludges
                                               spent anodizing solutions
                                               incineration wastewaters
                                               waste liquid mercury
                                               cyanide-containing wastes
                                                (> 136 mg/L)
                                               waste acids and bases
                                                with or without metals
Oils Subcategory                               used oils
                                               oil-water emulsions or
                                                mixtures
                                               lubricants
                                               coolants
                                               contaminated groundwater
                                                clean-up from petroleum
                                                sources
                                               used petroleum products
                                               oil spill clean-up
                                               bilge water
                                               rinse/wash waters from
                                                petroleum sources
                                               interceptor wastes
                                               off-specification fuels
                                               underground storage
                                                remediation waste
                                               tank clean-out from
                                                petroleum or oily
                                                sources
Organics Subcategory                           landfill leachate
                                               contaminated groundwater
                                                clean-up from non-
                                                petroleum sources
                                               solvent-bearing wastes
                                               off-specification organic
                                                product
                                               still bottoms
                                               used glycols
                                               wastewater from paint
                                                washes
                                               wastewater from adhesives
                                                and/or epoxies
                                               wastewater from chemical
                                                product operations
                                               tank clean-out from
                                                organic, non-petroleum
                                                sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the CWT facility receives the wastes listed above, the 
subcategory determination may be made solely from this information. If, 
however, the wastes are unknown or not listed above, EPA recommends 
that the facility use the following hierarchy to determine how to 
characterize the wastes it is treating, so as to identify the 
appropriate regulatory subcategory.
    (1) If the waste receipt contains oil and grease at or in excess of 
100 mg/L, the waste receipt should be classified in the oils 
subcategory;
    (2) If the waste receipt contains oil and grease <100 mg/L, and has 
any of the pollutants listed below in concentrations in excess of the 
values listed below, the waste receipt should be classified in the 
metals subcategory.

Cadmium: 0.2 mg/L
Chromium: 8.9 mg/L
Copper: 4.9 mg/L
Nickel: 37.5 mg/L

    (3) If the waste receipt contains oil and grease < 100 mg/L, and 
does not have concentrations of cadmium, chromium, copper, or nickel 
above any of the values listed above, the waste receipt should be 
classified in the organics subcategory.

[[Page 2342]]

    Once all wastes receipts have been categorized, the facility should 
determine the relative percent of the amount of off-site wastes 
accepted in each subcategory (by volume). For ease of implementation 
during development of this proposal, EPA considered an approach which 
would allow the facility to round the relative percent of wastes in 
each subcategory to the nearest five percent (by volume). Thus, under 
such an approach, a facility which discharges one million gallons per 
year, 950,000 gallons of which is classified in the metals subcategory 
and 50,000 gallons of which is classified in the oils subcategory, 
would be considered a metals subcategory facility only. However, EPA is 
concerned that this approach would potentially allow facilities to 
discharge large quantities of untreated pollutants on a mass basis, 
particularly from facilities with large discharge flows. Therefore, for 
today's notice, EPA is not proposing this approach. At the same time, 
EPA recognizes the practical difficulty of implementing limits for 
facilities that may receive waste in more than one subcategory due to 
the significant paperwork involved in detailed tracking of waste 
receipts. Thus, EPA solicits comments on this approach and ways to 
implement it while ensuring treatment, rather than dilution.
    Members of the CWT industry have expressed concern that wastes may 
be received from the generator as a ``mixed waste'', i.e., the waste 
may be classified in more than one subcategory. Using the 
subcategorization procedure recommended in this section, EPA has had no 
difficulty classifying each waste receipt in one of the subcategories. 
Therefore, EPA believes that these ``mixed waste receipt'' concerns 
have been addressed in the current subcategorization procedure. EPA 
requests comments on the subcategorization determination procedure in 
general. Additionally, EPA requests specific information on mixed waste 
receipts that cannot be classified into a single subcategory using this 
procedure, as well as information on additional types of waste receipts 
that EPA should include in Table XIV.E-1 above.
    Once a facility's subcategory determination has been made, EPA does 
not believe the facility should be required to repeat this annual 
determination process unnecessarily. However, if a single subcategory 
facility alters its operation to accept wastes from another subcategory 
or if a mixed waste facility alters its annual operations to change the 
relative percentage of waste receipts in one subcategory by more than 
20 percent, the facility should notify the appropriate permit writer or 
pretreatment authority and the subcategory determination should be 
revisited. EPA notes that current permit regulations require 
notification to the permitting authority when significant changes 
occur. EPA also recommends that the subcategory determination be 
reevaluated whenever the permit is reissued, though this would not 
necessarily require complete characterization of a subsequent year's 
waste receipts if there were no indication that the make-up of the 
facility's receipts had significantly changed.
    For new CWT facilities, the facility should estimate the percentage 
of waste receipts expected in each subcategory. Alternatively, the 
facility could compare the treatment technologies being installed to 
the selected treatment technologies for each subcategory. After the 
initial year of operation, the permit writer or pretreatment authority 
should revisit the facility's subcategory determination and follow the 
procedure outlined for existing facilities.

F. Implementation for Facilities in Multiple Subcategories

    EPA estimates that many facilities in the CWT industry accept 
wastes 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 situation is different from the case in 
which 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.
    In implementing this rule for multiple subcategory CWT facilities, 
the permit writer or pretreatment authority needs to ensure that the 
CWT facility has an optimal waste management program. First, the 
control authority should verify that the CWT facility is identifying 
and segregating waste streams appropriately since segregation of 
similar waste streams is the first step in obtaining optimal mass 
removals of pollutants from industrial wastes. Next, the control 
authority should verify that the CWT facility is employing treatment 
technologies designed to treat all off-site waste receipts effectively. 
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 metal-bearing and oily waste for treatment, the facility must 
comply with the limitations and standards based on a treatment system 
which achieves the same pollutant reductions as the model system 
(dissolved air flotation or secondary gravity separation and dissolved 
air flotation) 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 that achieves the same reduction as the model system 
(two stage chemical precipitation and multimedia filtration).
    EPA wants to ensure that wastes treated at multiple subcategory 
facilities are treated to the same level as wastes at single 
subcategory facilities. Therefore, EPA has costed all CWT facilities 
for compliance monitoring immediately following treatment of 
subcategory waste streams.
    EPA recognizes, however, that the costs associated with monitoring 
immediately following treatment of subcategory waste streams can be 
significant. Additionally, EPA recognizes that requiring compliance 
monitoring immediately following treatment of subcategory waste streams 
would require some facilities to reconfigure their facility. 
Consequently, EPA is additionally proposing a monitoring alternative 
which would allow compliance monitoring at the discharge point only. 
Under this alternative, a multi subcategory CWT facility's limitations 
or pretreatment standards would be determined using the combined waste 
stream formula (CWF) or ``building block approach.'' Limitations or 
standards developed through the use of the combined waste stream 
formula or building block approach are essentially flow-weighted 
combinations of BPT/BAT/PSES limitations for the applicable 
subcategories.
    The source of information used for calculating ``building block 
approach'' NPDES categorical limitations for direct dischargers is the 
``U.S. EPA NPDES Permit Writer's Manual'' (December 1996, EPA-833-B-96-
003). The sources of information that should be used for the CWT point 
source category for applying the combined waste stream formula in 
calculating federal pretreatment standards for indirect dischargers are 
40 CFR Part 403.6 and ``EPA's Industrial User Permitting Guidance 
Manual.'' However, for this subcategory, EPA is proposing to amend the 
CWF to define an individual parameter as having a ``regulated flow'' if 
the pollutant is limited through BAT (not PSES). For pollutants which 
are limited through BAT and not PSES, EPA has included an allowance 
which is

[[Page 2343]]

based on the PSES standard if one had been proposed. EPA is proposing 
this approach, since a pollutant may pass the pass-through test and not 
be regulated as PSES, but still provide a significant contribution of 
that pollutant in the combined waste stream. By adopting this approach, 
EPA can ensure that standards for indirect dischargers are equivalent 
to standards for direct dischargers, and still allow for any 
contribution by this pollutant to the combined waste stream.
    Chapter 14 of the technical development document provides a more 
thorough discussion, including specific examples, of the use of the 
combined waste stream formula or building block approaches. EPA 
encourages all interested parties to refer to this document and provide 
comment on its selected and alternative compliance monitoring 
requirements.
    Some facilities, such as those located near auto manufacturers, 
claim that their waste streams vary significantly for very limited time 
spans each year, and that they would be unable to meet limitations 
based on their annual waste receipts during these time periods. In 
these cases, one set of limits or standards may not be appropriate for 
the permit's entire period. EPA recommends that a tiering approach be 
used in such situations. In tiered permits, the control authority 
issues one set of permits for ``standard'' conditions and another set 
which take effect when there is a significant change in the waste 
receipts accepted. ``EPA's Industrial User Permitting Guidance Manual'' 
(September 1989) recommends that tiered permits should be considered 
when production rate varies by 20 percent or greater. Since this rule 
is not production based, EPA recommends that for the CWT industry, 
tiered permits should be considered when the subcategory determination 
varies for selected time periods by more than 20 percent. An example 
when a tiered approach may be appropriate in the CWT industry would be 
if a CWT facility's major customer (in terms of flow) does not operate 
for a two week period in December. The CWT facility would not be 
receiving waste receipts from the generating facility during its two 
week closure which could greatly alter the relative percent of waste 
accepted by the CWT facility for the two week period only.
    As explained previously, many facilities have waste streams that 
vary on a daily basis. EPA cautions that the tiering approach should 
only be used for facilities which have limited, well-defined, ``non-
standard'' time periods. A tiered permit should only be considered when 
the control authority thoroughly understands the CWT facility's 
operations and when a substantial change in the relative percentages of 
waste in each subcategory would effect permit conditions.
    Finally, as described in Section VII.D, the Agency considered, but 
is not proposing to establish, and rejected the suggestion to 
establish, a separate set of limitations for facilities that commingle 
flows from all subcategories. EPA is concerned that this approach would 
not address its concerns about co-dilution, instead of treatment, 
occurring as a result of commingling different types of waste streams. 
The Agency solicits comment on its approach to multiple subcategory 
facilities, particularly in regard to ensuring effective treatment. 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. If adequate data become available, 
EPA will reconsider this issue for the final rule.

XV. Related Acts of Congress, Executive Orders, and Agency 
Initiatives

A. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866 [58 Federal Register 51735, (October 4, 
1993)], the Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is 
``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of Management and 
Budget (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
    (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 proposal is a ``significant regulatory action.'' 
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.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA), EPA generally is required to prepare an initial regulatory 
flexibility analysis (IRFA) describing the impact of a proposed rule on 
small entities as part of rulemaking. Under section 605(b) of the RFA, 
if the Administrator certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
EPA is not required to prepare an IRFA.
    Based on its preliminary assessment of the economic impact of 
regulatory options being considered for the proposed rule, EPA had 
concluded that the proposal might significantly affect a number of 
small entities. Accordingly, EPA prepared an IRFA pursuant to section 
603(b) of the RFA.
    The IRFA is discussed at Section XI.L and found in Chapter 8 of the 
``Economic Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and 
Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry.'' As described 
above, while there is not a large number of small businesses in 
absolute terms that would be subject to the proposal, a large 
percentage of those that would be (forty-five out of 63) would incur 
annual costs under the proposal greater than one percent of sales (that 
is, annual costs as a percentage of annual revenue). Somewhat fewer 
(twenty-three firms) would have costs exceeding three percent of sales. 
EPA notes that this analysis does not account for the extent that a 
company can pass the additional costs of compliance on to their 
customers, and so may overstate the impacts of the proposed rule.
    Pursuant to the RFA as amended by SBREFA, EPA convened a Small 
Business Advocacy Review panel as described above at VI.H. Section 
VI.H. provides detail on the purpose of the panel and summarizes the 
issues raised by the panel. The panel's findings are presented in the 
``Final Report of the SBREFA Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on 
EPA's Planned Proposed Rule for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and 
Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry--January 23, 
1998.'' (This document is included in the public record). The panel 
made several recommendations that are reflected in today's proposal. 
Because the panel discussions and recommendations addressed integral

[[Page 2344]]

analyses and decision factors that formed the basis of today's 
proposal, their discussions and recommendations have been identified 
throughout this notice. In addition, the following discussion 
summarizes the panel's recommendations, describes EPA's actions, and 
identifies where the issues are discussed in today's notice.
    (a) EPA should solicit comment on the number of small entities that 
would be subject to this rule. EPA solicited names and addresses of 
additional CWT facilities in the specific data and comments 
solicitation section, XVI.B.
    (b) EPA should consider alternatives to reduce monitoring costs. 
EPA today solicits comments on an alternative monitoring scheme in 
which facilities may either (1) monitor for all pollutants as regulated 
today, or (2) monitor for the conventional, metal parameters, and an 
indicator parameter such as hexane extractable material (HEM) for the 
organic pollutants. EPA also solicits comments on recommending reduced 
monitoring frequencies for small businesses to alleviate economic 
impacts. These issues, as well as potential bases for identifying small 
businesses for purposes of providing monitoring relief, are discussed 
in more detail in IX.D and in the comment solicitation section, XVI.B.
    (c) EPA should consider ways to streamline the FDF variance process 
for small businesses. EPA considered ways to streamline the FDF 
variance process for small businesses to the extent permitted by the 
Clean Water Act. One option considered would have allowed facilities to 
submit a ``group'' FDF request. However, EPA determined that the Clean 
Water Act requires that facilities submit FDF requests on a facility-
specific basis. FDF variances are discussed in detail in XIV.C.1 of 
today's notice.
    (d) EPA should consider less costly technology, specifically, 
emulsion breaking and secondary gravity separation for the oils 
subcategory. EPA is concerned that emulsion breaking and secondary 
gravity separation may not achieve acceptable pollutant removals as 
evidenced by EPA's limited sampling data for facilities employing this 
technology. EPA is requesting comment and additional data on this 
issue. This issue is discussed in greater detail in IX.B.1.ii. In 
addition, for indirect dischargers in all three subcategories, EPA is 
proposing pretreatment standards based on the least expensive 
technology option considered. In fact, PSES for the oils subcategory 
are based on less costly and less effective technology than the oils 
subcategory BAT limitations. The less costly and effective technology 
was selected for the basis of PSES largely due to small business impact 
concerns. Finally, in Section XVI.B, EPA solicits comments on 
alternative treatment technologies that would accomplish the stated 
objectives of the CWA and minimize any significant economic impact on 
small entities.
    (e) EPA should include a full and balanced discussion of possible 
small business relief measures. In addition to the monitoring 
alternatives discussed above and the selection of the less costly PSES 
technology basis, EPA also considered several other regulatory 
alternatives to provide relief for small businesses. These 
alternatives, all of which involve different bases for exemptions, and 
the results of EPA's analyses are discussed in detail in XI.L 
Additionally, EPA solicits comment in IV.S and XVI.B on regulatory 
alternatives for small businesses. Specifically, EPA solicits comments 
on whether exclusions are warranted for any portion of this industry.
    (f) EPA should consider the degree of flexibility available under 
the Clean Water Act to select a cost-effective treatment option on 
which to base new source standards for the metals subcategory. Under 
the Clean Water Act, in establishing NSPS, EPA is directed to select 
the most stringent controls attainable through the application of the 
best control technology for all pollutants. In addition, EPA is 
directed to take into consideration the cost of achieving the effluent 
reduction and any non-water quality environmental impacts and energy 
requirements. EPA does not consider the increased cost of NSPS for the 
metals subcategory to be a barrier to entry for new sources in that 
subcategory (see Section XI.H). However, EPA's technology basis for the 
proposed limitations is closely tied to its preliminary conclusion that 
facilities will choose to recover and reuse metals. In the event that 
EPA concludes that new sources would not generally do so, EPA will 
promulgate NSPS based on the proposed BAT technology basis. EPA 
solicits comments on the technology basis selected for NSPS for the 
metals subcategory and its barrier to entry analysis in Section XI.H.
    (g) EPA should identify any limitations of the pollutant loadings 
estimate methodologies. Based on recommendations by panel members, EPA 
reviewed its loadings methodologies, specifically its use of non-
detects and its modeling procedures for assigning current performance 
estimates to oils subcategory facilities. Section X.C of today's notice 
discusses all of the pollutant loading methodological issues raised 
during the SBREFA panel and requests comment on them. Additionally, 
each of the issues is discussed in detail in the technical development 
document. Finally, in XVI.B, EPA solicits wastewater monitoring data, 
current performance information, and current pollutant loadings from 
the treatment and/or recovery of oily wastes, wastewaters and/or used 
materials.
    (h) EPA should solicit additional data and perhaps itself perform 
additional sampling to determine if an adequate basis exists for 
distinguishing between hazardous and non-hazardous flows. EPA is not 
proposing a regulatory distinction based on whether a facility has a 
RCRA permit because its current analyses do not support such a 
distinction. This issue is discussed further in Section IV.T. As 
discussed in VI.C, following the completion of the SBREFA panel, EPA 
obtained grab samples of non-hazardous oily wastewaters from 10 
additional oils facilities. Additionally, in today's notice, EPA 
solicits additional analytical data on the pollutants and concentration 
of pollutants in non-hazardous CWT waste receipts and hazardous CWT 
waste receipts. While the analytical results of the recent sampling 
episodes are in the appendix of the technical development document, EPA 
has not included these results in the analyses presented today. EPA 
will reconsider this issue based on the recent sampling data and any 
analytical data submitted during the comment period prior to 
promulgation.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L. 
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are

[[Page 2345]]

inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to 
adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, 
or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes the 
final rule with an explanation of why that alternative was not adopted. 
Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal 
governments, it must have developed, under section 203 of the UMRA, a 
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying 
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected 
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the 
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal 
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising 
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    EPA has determined that the proposed rule, if promulgated, would 
not contain a Federal mandate that will result in expenditures of $100 
million or more for State, local and tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. Accordingly, today's 
proposal is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of 
the UMRA. EPA has determined that this proposal contains no regulation 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely effect small 
governments, and, thus, is not subject to the requirements of section 
203 of UMRA. The proposal itself, if promulgated, would not establish 
requirements that would apply to small governments. Any new costs that 
may result would arise from previously promulgated regulatory 
requirements, not promulgation of CWT limitations and standards. EPA 
has, however, sought meaningful and timely input from the private 
sector, states, and small governments on the development of this 
notice. Prior to issuing this proposed rule, EPA met with members of 
private sector as discussed earlier in the preamble.
    As noted, EPA has determined that the requirements being proposed 
today will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments, 
including tribal governments. EPA recognizes that small governments may 
own or operate POTWs that will need to enter into pretreatment 
agreements with the indirect dischargers of the CWT industry that would 
be subject to this proposed rule. However, EPA currently estimates that 
the added costs of entering into or modifying existing pretreatment 
agreements will be minimal. The main costs resulting from this proposed 
rule will fall upon the private entities that own and operate CWT 
facilities.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq., EPA must submit an information collection request 
covering information collection requirements in proposed rules to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. OMB has 
previously approved information collection requirements for CWA direct 
dischargers to comply with their NPDES permits and for indirect 
dischargers to comply with pretreatment requirements. Burden estimates 
for direct dischargers to comply with this rule are contained in the 
``National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)/Compliance 
Assessment/Certification Information'' ICR (OMB control no. 2040-0110). 
Burden estimates for indirect discharging facilities to comply with 40 
CFR Part 403 are included in the ``National Pretreatment Program (40 
CFR Part 403)'' ICR (OMB control no. 2040-0009).

E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under Sec. 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 
Advancement Act (NTTAA), the Agency is required to use voluntary 
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would 
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials 
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices, 
etc.) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards 
bodies. Where available and potentially applicable voluntary consensus 
standards are not used by EPA, the Act requires the Agency to provide 
Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), an 
explanation of the reasons for not using such standards. The following 
discussion summarizes EPA's response to the requirements of the NTTAA.
    EPA performed a search of the technical literature to identify any 
applicable analytical test methods from industry, academia, voluntary 
consensus standard bodies, and other parties that could be used to 
measure the analytes in today's proposed rulemaking. EPA's search 
revealed that there are consensus standards for many of the analytes 
specified in the tables at 40 CFR 136.3. Even prior to enactment of the 
NTTAA, EPA has traditionally included any applicable consensus test 
methods in its regulations. Consistent with the requirements of the 
CWA, those applicable consensus test methods are incorporated by 
reference in the tables at 40 CFR 136.3. The consensus test methods in 
these tables include American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) and 
Standard Methods.
    Today's proposal would require dischargers to monitor for up to 18 
metals, 18 organics, BOD5, total cyanide, hexavalent 
chromium, TSS, and Oil and Grease (HEM). Examples of pollutants with 
consensus methods promulgated by reference in today's rule include the 
metals, total cyanide, BOD5, TSS, and some organic 
pollutants such as fluoranthene and 2,4,6-trichlorophenol. In addition, 
EPA is developing additional data for certain nonconventional 
pollutants not included in the tables at 40 CFR 136.3 in support of the 
centralized waste treatment rule and the relevant analytical methods 
are discussed in section VI.D of this preamble. The pollutants for 
which additional data are being gathered include acetophenone, aniline, 
pyridine, o-cresol, p-cresol, 2,3-dichloroaniline, and benzoic acid. 
EPA notes that no applicable consensus methods were found for those 
pollutants. EPA plans to approve use of test methods for these 
pollutants, including any applicable consensus methods, if available, 
in conjunction with the promulgation of the CWT final rule. Commenters 
should identify any potentially applicable voluntary consensus 
standards for EPA's consideration.

F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental 
health risk or safety risk that the Agency has reason to believe may 
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action 
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health 
or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not an 
economically significant rule as defined under Executive Order 12866. 
However, EPA did evaluate children's health effects (specifically, 
impaired IQ) in its analysis of environmental benefits (see XII.B).

[[Page 2346]]

G. The Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act

    The Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act, Public Law 104-55, requires 
most federal agencies to differentiate between, and establish separate 
classes for (1) animal fats and oils and greases, fish and marine 
mammal oils, and oils of vegetable origin, and (2) other greases and 
oils, including petroleum, when issuing or enforcing any regulation or 
establishing any interpretation or guideline relating to the 
transportation, storage, discharge, release, emission, or disposal of a 
fat, oil, or grease.
    The Agency believes that vegetable oils and animal fats pose 
similar types of threats to the environment as petroleum oils when 
spilled to the environment (62 FR 54508 Oct. 20, 1997).
    The deleterious environmental effects of spills of petroleum and 
non-petroleum oils, including animal fats and vegetable oils, are 
produced through physical contact and destruction of food sources (via 
smothering or coating) as well as toxic contamination (62 FR 54511). 
However, the permitted discharge of CWT wastewater containing residual 
and dilute quantities of petroleum and non-petroleum oils is 
significantly different from an uncontrolled spill of pure petroleum or 
non-petroleum oil products.
    CWT facilities that would be subject to the proposal do not 
typically accept wastes with appreciable amounts of animal fats and 
oils, etc. The exception are grease trap wastes. Today's proposal would 
not apply to that portion of wastewater treated at CWT facilities that 
represents grease trap wastes.

H. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing Intergovernmental Partnerships

    Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local 
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by 
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office 
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal 
governments, the nature of their concerns, any written communications 
from the governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of State, local and tribal governments ``to provide 
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals 
containing significant unfunded mandates.''
    Today's proposed rule would not, if promulgated, create a mandate 
on State, local, or tribal governments. The rule does not impose any 
enforceable duties on these entities. The proposal would establish 
requirements that apply to directly and indirectly discharging CWT 
facilities and not to State, local, or tribal governments. Accordingly, 
the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive Order 12875 would not 
apply to this rule.

I. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters 
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
    Today's proposed rule would not, if promulgated, significantly or 
uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments or impose 
substantial direct compliance costs on those communities. The proposal 
would establish requirements that apply to directly and indirectly 
discharging CWT facilities and not to tribal governments or their 
communities. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13084 
would not apply to this rule.

XVI. 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. Comments on the proposal must be received by 
[60 days after publication in Federal Register].

B. Specific Data and Comment Solicitations

1. Estimation of Industry Size
    Based on data gathered from various sources for today's proposal, 
EPA has estimated there are 205 facilities in the CWT industry. EPA 
solicits general comments on this estimate as well as specific 
information on the number, name, location, and company information 
(particularly size status) of facilities within the industry (See 
Section V.A and Section VI). In addition, EPA is aware that an emerging 
activity at many CWT facilities is the recovery of used glycols. EPA 
requests information on CWT facilities that are performing this service 
alone or in combination with other CWT activities.
2. Applicability to Facilities Subject to 40 CFR (Parts 400 through 
471)
    As described in Section IV.B, EPA is today proposing to include 
within the scope of the CWT rule wastewater received from off-site (and 
commingled for treatment with on-site wastewater) at facilities 
currently subject to limitations or standards unless the wastes 
received from off-site for treatment would be subject to the 
limitations or standards as the on-site generated wastes.
    Alternatively, EPA is considering an option that allows (subject to 
permit writer's discretion) manufacturing facilities who treat off-site 
wastes to meet all categorical limitations and standards that would 
otherwise apply to the off-site wastewater and to set limitations and 
pretreatment standards using the ``combined waste stream formula'' or 
``building block approach'' as modified by today's notice. EPA 
envisions that the second alternative

[[Page 2347]]

would be preferable for facilities that only receive continuous flows 
of process wastewaters with relatively consistent pollutant profiles 
from a limited number of customers. The decision to base limitations in 
this manner would be at the permit writers' discretion only. EPA 
solicits comment on this alternative as well as the application of the 
CWT rule to manufacturing facilities in general.
3. Applicability to Manufacturing Facilities That Are Not Subject to 40 
CFR (Parts 400 through 471)
    EPA has not established effluent limitations guidelines or 
pretreatment standards for all manufacturing industries. Under EPA 
regulations, the permit writer would develop BPJ limits for such 
facilities. However, like the facilities described in Solicitation 2 
above, some of these may accept off-site wastewater that is commingled 
for treatment with on-site process wastewater. These off-site 
wastewaters may be subject to existing guidelines and standards. EPA's 
present thinking is that, with respect to such wastewater, the facility 
would be a CWT facility and the associated wastewater, subject to CWT 
limits. Its on-site wastewater would be subject to BPJ limits. 
Alternatively, applying either a building block or combined waste 
stream formula approach, on-site wastewater would be subject to BPJ 
limits or standards and the off-site categorical wastewater subject to 
categorical limits. The Agency solicits comment on how it should treat 
such facilities. (See discussion in Section IV.B.).
4. Zero Discharge Requirement for Facilities Engaged in High 
Temperature Metals Recovery
    EPA's data show that high temperature metals recovery (HTMR) 
operations generate no process wastewater. Accordingly, EPA excluded 
HTMR recovery operations from the scope of the CWT rule. EPA is also 
considering whether this rule, when promulgated, should include a 
subcategory for HTMR operations with a zero discharge requirement. EPA 
is requesting comment on such an approach and specifically seeks any 
data on facilities that may produce a process wastewater in their HTMR 
operations.
5. Used Oil Filter Recycling
    EPA's data show that used oil filter recycling operations generate 
no process wastewater. Therefore, EPA excluded used oil filter 
recycling operations from the scope of the CWT rule as proposed today. 
EPA is also considering whether this rule, when promulgated, should 
include a subcategory for used oil filter recycling with a zero 
discharge requirement for such operations. EPA is requesting comment on 
such an approach and the number of facilities engaged in this activity. 
EPA specifically seeks any data on any such facilities that may produce 
a process wastewater in their operations.
6. Stabilization
    EPA's data show that waste solidification/stabilization operations 
are dry and do not produce a wastewater. As such, stabilization/
solidification processes are not subject to the CWT rule as proposed 
today. EPA is also considering whether this rule, when promulgated, 
should include a subcategory for stabilization operations with a zero 
discharge requirement. EPA is requesting comment on such an approach 
and specifically seeks any data on facilities that may produce a 
process wastewater in their stabilization operations.
7. Other Applicability Issues
    In addition to the applicability issues discussed above, EPA 
solicits comments on each of the issues discussed in IV as well as any 
other applicability issues that are not specifically addressed in 
today's notice.
8. Mixed Waste Subcategory
    Based on comments on the original proposal, for today's proposal, 
EPA considered a fourth subcategory, a mixed waste subcategory, that 
would apply to facilities that accept wastes in multiple subcategories. 
Limitations and pretreatment standards for this subcategory would 
combine pollutant limitations from all three subcategories, selecting 
the most stringent value where they overlap. EPA has chosen, however, 
not to propose a mixed waste subcategory. EPA is eager to ensure that 
mixed wastes receive adequate treatment. In many cases, facilities that 
accept wastes in multiple subcategories do not have treatment in place 
to provide effective treatment of all waste receipts. EPA solicits 
comments on ways to develop a ``mixed waste subcategory'' while 
ensuring treatment rather than dilution (See discussion in Section 
VII.D).
    Alternatively, EPA considered an approach which would allow 
facilities to round the relative percent of wastes in each subcategory 
to the nearest five percent (by volume). However, EPA is concerned that 
this approach may allow facilities to discharge large quantities of 
untreated pollutants on a mass basis, particularly from facilities with 
large discharge flows. Therefore, for today's notice, EPA is not 
proposing this approach. EPA solicits comments on this approach and 
ways to implement it while ensuring treatment, rather than dilution.
    Finally, EPA requests additional data that would aid in 
characterizing the efficiency of waste treatment systems that commingle 
waste from multiple subcategories prior to treatment.
9. Characterization of Wastewater Resulting From Dissolved Air 
Flotation
    EPA solicits data on the chemical composition of wastewaters 
resulting from the effective treatment of CWT wastewaters using 
dissolved air flotation (DAF). EPA is particularly interested in 
obtaining data on DAF systems which are designed and operated to 
effectively remove oil and grease and TSS. All of the DAF systems 
studied by EPA were used at facilities that discharge to POTWs and, 
therefore, optimal control of oil and grease and TSS is not required. 
In addition, EPA solicits data on the effectiveness of dissolved air 
flotation systems in general. As such, EPA solicits data on the 
composition of CWT wastewaters entering and leaving dissolved air 
flotations systems. (See discussion in Section IX.B.1.b.ii).
10. Economic Achievability of Oils Subcategory PSES Options
    As detailed in IX.B of today's notice, while EPA generally sets the 
technology basis for PSES equivalent to BAT, EPA is proposing a less 
stringent option for PSES for the oils subcategory than that 
established for BAT based on economic achievability concerns. EPA 
requests comments on whether any treatment technology basis more 
stringent, albeit more expensive, than dissolved air flotation is 
economically achievable.
11. Use of Indicator Parameters for Organic Pollutants
    EPA recognizes that monitoring costs represent a significant 
portion of the compliance costs of this proposed rule. This is 
particularly true for facilities in the oils subcategory, many of which 
are owned by small businesses. The majority of the costs associated 
with EPA's recommended monitoring scheme are for organic pollutants. As 
such, EPA is considering an alternative to allow facilities to either 
(1) monitor for all pollutants as regulated today, or (2) monitor for 
the conventional and metal parameters and an indicator parameter such 
as hexane extractable material (HEM) or silica gel treatment--hexane 
extractable material (SGT-HEM) for the organic pollutants. EPA solicits

[[Page 2348]]

comment on this alternative, the appropriateness of HEM or SGT-HEM as 
an indicator parameter, alternative indicator parameters, and the use 
of indicator parameters in general. (See Section IX.D).
12. Reduced Monitoring Frequencies for Facilities Owned by Small 
Businesses
    EPA recognizes that monitoring costs represent a significant share 
of the compliance costs of this proposed rule, particularly for small 
businesses. EPA is considering offering facilities an alternative 
monitoring scheme involving indicator parameters to alleviate some of 
the costs associated with monitoring. In the event that a suitable 
indicator parameter cannot be found, EPA is also considering 
recommending reduced monitoring frequencies for small businesses to 
alleviate economic impacts.
    As detailed in Section IX.D, under a reduced monitoring 
alternative, two sets of limitations and pretreatment standards would 
be promulgated. Although the long-term average for both sets of 
limitations would be based upon the same technology and same long-term 
average performance, the monthly average limitations calculated based 
upon reduced monitoring assumptions would be higher (less stringent). 
EPA is concerned that facilities may target the monthly average as the 
basis for their design and operation of pollution control and treatment 
to comply with the regulation, rather than the long-term average that 
formed the basis of the limitations. One way to ensure that the 
appropriate level of control is not jeopardized in favor of reduced 
monitoring costs would be to allow the alternative limitations to apply 
only when monitoring is conducted at a lower frequency than assumed in 
the development of the limitations that apply to non-small business 
facilities. EPA solicits comment on this and other alternatives to 
ensure that the monitoring relief provides relief without jeopardizing 
environmental performance. EPA also solicits comment on the likelihood 
that permitting authorities would follow EPA recommendations regarding 
reduced monitoring frequencies for small-business owned and operated 
facilities.
    Finally, EPA solicits comments on potential bases for defining 
small businesses for purposes of this monitoring relief. (See 
discussion in Section IX.D).
13. Loadings Methodology
    Section X.C and Chapter 12 of the technical development document 
detail the methodologies EPA used to estimate baseline loadings, post-
regulation loadings, and pollutant removals. EPA solicits comment on 
these methodologies. Specifically, EPA requests comment on its 
representation of ``non-detect'' data, its method of imputing data, and 
the modeling procedures used for estimating baseline pollutant loadings 
for the oils subcategory.
14. Regulatory Costs
    Section X.B, Chapter 11 of the technical development document, and 
the ``Detailed Costing Document for the Centralized Waste Treatment 
Industry'' discuss EPA's estimates of the cost for CWT facilities to 
achieve the effluent limitations and standards proposed today. EPA 
solicits comment on all aspects of the methodology and data used to 
estimate these compliance costs.
15. Cost Estimates for Direct Dischargers in Oils Subcategory
    For direct dischargers, EPA's cost analysis was not able to 
distinguish between Option 8 and Option 9. All of the direct 
discharging facilities in this subcategory for which EPA estimated 
costs currently employ rather extensive treatment (relative to the rest 
of the facilities in the oils subcategory), but the treatment 
technologies for the majority of the facilities are different from the 
technology basis for Option 8 or Option 9. While EPA believes these 
treatment technologies would allow these facilities to comply with 
either option for many pollutants, none of these in-place treatment 
technologies would achieve significant removals of metals pollutants. 
Therefore, for both options, EPA included costs of installing and 
operating dissolved air flotation. EPA believes its estimates (for both 
options) are, in fact, overestimates. EPA does, however, believe that 
meeting the more stringent Option 9 will result in additional removals 
while the cost differences will be negligible. EPA solicits comments on 
its conclusion as well as quantitative information on the cost 
differences for such facilities.
16. Cost Estimates for Direct Dischargers in Organics Subcategory
    EPA believes that all direct discharging facilities in the organics 
subcategory currently employ equalization and biological treatment 
systems. EPA has assumed that all facilities which currently utilize 
equalization and biological treatment will be able to meet the BPT 
limitations without additional capital or operating costs. While EPA 
recognizes that some facilities may incur increased operating costs 
associated with the proposed limits, EPA believes these increases are 
negligible and has not quantified them. EPA solicits comments on its 
assumptions for these facilities as well as specific data which would 
aid in quantifying these increases.
17. Baseline Closures
    Based on information obtained in the Waste Treatment Industry 
Questionnaire, at the time of the original proposal EPA estimated that 
approximately 20 percent of the commercial CWT facilities were 
unprofitable. Through telephone calls to these facilities, EPA found 
that many of these facilities were still in operation three years 
later, even though they continued to be unprofitable. The continued 
operation of such a large share of unprofitable facilities in the 
industry raises a significant issue. It suggests that some of the 
traditional tools of economic analysis used to project potential 
closures in an industry due to 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. Therefore, for this proposal, EPA has not eliminated 
baseline closures from its analysis of economic impacts. EPA solicits 
comments on this approach and on alternative methods that could be used 
to identify baseline closures for this industry (See Section XI.B).
18. Market Model Approach
    For this industry, EPA developed a market model to predict the 
impact of the regulation on the industry. Markets are defined as 
monopoly, duopoly, or perfect competition, depending on the number of 
facilities. Any market with more than three facilities is defined as 
perfectly competitive. This approach may overstate impacts in markets 
with one or two facilities, and may understate impacts on markets with 
three to ten facilities. EPA solicits comments on this approach and on 
appropriate ways to determine levels of competition for CWT markets 
(See XI.C.2).
19. SBREFA Panel Recommendations
    In today's notice, VI.H. and XV.B detail the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) and the recommendations of 
the SBREFA Small Business Advocacy Review panel. Additional references 
to the panel discussions and recommendations have been identified 
throughout this notice. In particular, Section XV.B describes many of 
the panel's recommendations and

[[Page 2349]]

summarizes EPA's response. EPA solicits data and comments on all issues 
raised by the panel members.
20. Regulatory Alternatives for Small Businesses
    Because EPA projects significant costs for many CWT facilities 
owned by small firms, EPA analyzed several alternatives which would 
exempt various portions of the industry.
    EPA's primary concern with an exclusion based on these analyses is 
that they represent one snapshot of a rapidly changing industry. EPA is 
concerned that if any segment of the industry were excluded, the 
segment might quickly expand as a result of the exclusion, leading to 
much greater discharges within a few years than predicted by existing 
data. In addition, EPA believes that most CWT facilities have 
substantial unused capacity.
    EPA solicits comments on a small business exclusion that would 
minimize impacts on small firms for which projected compliance costs 
represent a significant share of costs or net income, or, more 
generally, any regulatory alternative that would minimize the economic 
impacts on small businesses. EPA is particularly interested in 
obtaining information on any less costly, but effective, treatment 
technology alternatives. Additionally, EPA solicits information on the 
current amount of unused capacity in the CWT industry (See Section 
XI.L).
21. Waste Receipt Characterization
    As detailed in Sections VIII.B, industry has provided very little 
information on the concentration of pollutants in their waste receipts. 
EPA requests qualitative and quantitative data on a subcategory basis 
on the types of waste accepted for treatment as well as constituents 
found in the incoming wastes, wastewaters, and used materials. EPA 
specifically requests quantitative data on waste receipts from the 
organics subcategory that have not been commingled with waste receipts 
from other subcategories.
22. Characterization of Wastewater
    EPA is interested in the pollutant levels in wastewater resulting 
from treatment processes currently in place at CWT facilities including 
the technologies discussed in this preamble and any other effective 
technologies. EPA is particularly interested in the pollutant levels 
currently being discharged in the treated final effluent resulting 
solely from the treatment of organics wastes and wastewaters at 
organics facilities. Specifically, EPA requests discharge monitoring 
data from treatment trains that treat wastes from a sole subcategory 
prior to commingling with wastewaters from other subcategories, non-
contaminated stormwater, or other sources of water. As supporting 
information for this information, EPA requests the concentrations of 
pollutants in waste receipts and in intermediate waste streams that 
correspond to the reporting period of the final effluent discharges.
    EPA also requests detailed information about the treatment system 
at the facility. To determine autocorrelation in the data, EPA requests 
final effluent data that contain many measurements for each pollutant 
for every single day over an extended period of time. (When data are 
said to be positively autocorrelated, it means that measurements taken 
at different time periods are similar. See discussion in IX.E)
    Prior to submitting information about the wastewater currently in 
place at your CWT facility, please discuss your data submission with 
one of the technical contacts in the ``For Further Information'' 
section at the beginning of this preamble.
23. RCRA Classification
    EPA's database contains information that was collected at 
facilities which treat hazardous waste only, non-hazardous waste only, 
and a mixture of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. EPA solicits 
comments and data on the pollutants and concentration of pollutants in 
non-hazardous CWT waste receipts and in hazardous CWT waste receipts.
24. Waste Receipt Subcategorization Determination Procedure
    EPA solicits comment on the subcategorization determination 
procedure outlined in XIV.E of this notice. Specifically, EPA requests 
data on waste receipts that have not been subcategorized and mixed 
waste receipts that can not be classified into a single subcategory 
using the recommended approach.
25. Facility Subcategorization Determination
    In developing today's notice, for ease of implementation, EPA 
considered a facility subcategorization approach which would allow CWT 
facilities to round the relative percentage of wastes in each 
subcategory to the nearest five percent (by volume). EPA solicits 
comments on this approach and ways to implement it while ensuring 
treatment, rather than co-dilution (see XIV.E).
26. Status of Companies Owning CWT Facilities
    EPA had to make a number of assumptions when formulating its 
company-level profiles, as detailed in Section XI.B EPA solicits 
comments on these assumptions.
27. New Source Performance Standards Selection for Metals Subcategory
    In establishing NSPS, EPA is directed to select the technology 
basis that represents the most stringent controls attainable through 
the application of the best control technology for all pollutants. EPA 
is also directed to take into consideration the cost of achieving the 
effluent reduction and any non-water quality environmental impact. In 
today's proposal, EPA proposed limitations and standards for the metals 
subcategory based on the metals option 3 technology. The model facility 
for metals Option 3 recovers metals and sells them to a smelter for 
reuse. EPA solicits comments and data on the market for recovered 
metals and revenue generated from the sale of recovered metals. EPA 
also solicits comments on the extent to which new sources may chose to 
recover and reuse metals through the Option 3 technology basis or 
simply comply with the limitations and continue to dispose of their 
metal sludges in a landfill.
    Finally, for today's proposal, in evaluating NSPS for the metals 
subcategory, EPA used a ``barrier to entry'' analysis. EPA has 
traditionally evaluated different technologies for NSPS by testing 
whether the cost of a particular technology is so great as to act as a 
barrier to the entry of new firms into the business. EPA has 
tentatively determined that the proposed technology basis will not pose 
a barrier to entry. However, as discussed further in Section IX.B, EPA 
also considered another technology basis that would remove only 
slightly less pollutants at significantly lower costs. EPA solicits 
comment on its technology basis selected for NSPS for the metals 
subcategory.
28. Transfer of Oil and Grease Limitations From Industrial Laundries or 
TECI
    As discussed in IX.B, EPA has reviewed data from the Industrial 
Laundries and the TECI rulemaking for dissolved air flotation systems. 
For similar influent oil and grease concentrations, these systems 
removed oil and grease to levels well below those achieved at the DAF 
systems sampled for development of this regulation. Given the 
similarities in the oil and

[[Page 2350]]

grease levels of these wastes, EPA is considering whether use of this 
data is appropriate in determining CWT limitations. EPA requests 
comments on this issue as well as data generally on the efficacy of 
dissolved air flotation systems in treating CWT wastewaters.
29. Group FDF Requests
    The Agency requests comment on how to modify its existing 
regulation to provide additional flexibility to small businesses in 
obtaining FDF variances in light of the specific statutory requirement 
that each individual discharger establish the fundamental difference in 
its operations through information submitted during development of the 
limitations and standards or show there was no opportunity to submit 
such information. It would be helpful if commenters supplied specific 
suggested changes to the regulatory language found at 40 CFR 125.32 and 
403.13.
30. Small Business Identification
    EPA defines small CWT companies as those having sales less than $6 
million--the Small Business Administration definition of a small 
business for SIC Code 4953, Refuse Systems. Industry representatives 
have indicated that revenue would be a suitable criterion to identify 
small businesses for purposes of any small business regulatory 
alternatives (including reduced monitoring) and that facilities would 
be comfortable providing firm-level economic information to the 
federal, state, or local permitting authority as long as 
confidentiality is protected. EPA solicits comment on this basis, 
particularly from CWT facilities that are owned by a parent company, as 
well as alternative bases for identifying small businesses.
31. Effect of TDS on Chemical Precipitation
    As detailed in Section VI.I, EPA conducted a laboratory study 
designed to determine the effect of TDS levels on chemical 
precipitation treatment performance. The resulting data and analysis 
are included in the record. EPA solicits comments on this data and 
analyses. Additionally, EPA consulted various literature sources to 
obtain information about the effect of TDS levels on chemical 
precipitation. EPA found no data or information which related directly 
to TDS effects on chemical precipitation. EPA solicits comment on and 
copies of any such literature sources.
    Finally, the facility which forms the technology basis for Metals 
Option 4 (see Section IX.B.1.b.i) had high influent levels of TDS in 
their wastewaters during EPA's sampling episode. Consequently, the 
proposed BPT, BAT, and PSES limitations and standards can be achieved 
by all metals subcategory facilities, even those with high levels of 
TDS. EPA solicits comment and any data commenters may have bearing on 
this issue.
32. Benefits of Lead Health Risk Reduction
    EPA quantified and monetized the benefits of health risk reductions 
from lower discharges of lead using methodologies developed in the 
Retrospective Analysis of the Clean Air Act (Final Report to Congress 
on Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1970 to 1990; EPA 410-R-97-
002). This exercise required a number of assumptions. EPA solicits 
comment on the methodology used to calculate lead benefits.
33. Elasticity Assumptions Used in the Economic Model
    As discussed in Section XI.C, EPA chose specific elasticity 
parameters for use in the economic model based on reasoning that it 
believes to be sound and on the available literature. EPA solicits 
comments on the elasticity assumptions and, in particular, requests 
additional studies that provide elasticity estimates. EPA prefers 
studies that have been peer-reviewed, but is interested in any well-
done study. EPA also requests data that could be used to calculate an 
elasticity and has placed a detailed description of data requirements 
in the record.
34. Variability Factors
    Today's proposal discusses two different approaches to calculate 
variability factors--one based on pollutant variability factors and one 
based on group variability factors. The pollutant variability factor is 
the average of the variability factors from facilities with the model 
technologies for the option, and the group variability factor is the 
median of the pollutant variability factors from pollutants with 
similar chemical structures. In today's proposal, EPA generally used 
the product of the group variability factor and the pollutant long-term 
average in calculating each pollutant limitation. The calculation of 
variability factors is discussed in more detail in Section IX.E. EPA 
solicits comment on whether the pollutant or group variability factors 
or some combination should be used in calculating the limitations to 
accurately reflect the variability of the pollutants discharged by the 
CWT industry.

Appendix A: Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations Used in This 
Notice

    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, 
applicable to effluent limitations to be achieved by July 1, 1984, 
for industrial discharges to surface waters, as defined by section 
304(b)(2)(B) of the CWA.
    BCT--The best conventional pollutant control technology, 
applicable to discharges of conventional pollutants from existing 
industrial point sources, as defined by section. 304(b)(4) of the 
CWA.
    BPT--The best practicable control technology currently 
available, applicable to effluent limitations to be achieved by July 
1, 1977, for industrial discharges to surface waters, as defined by 
section 304(b)(1) of the CWA.
    CENTRALIZED WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY--Any facility that treats 
and/or recovers or recycles any hazardous or non-hazardous 
industrial waste, hazardous or non-hazardous industrial wastewater, 
and/or used material from off-site.
    CENTRALIZED WASTE TREATMENT WASTEWATER--Wastewater generated as 
a result of CWT activities. CWT wastewater sources may include, but 
are not limited to: liquid waste receipts, solubilization water, 
used oil emulsion-breaking wastewater, tanker truck/drum/roll-off 
box washes, equipment washes, air pollution control scrubber blow-
down, laboratory-derived wastewater, on-site industrial waste 
combustor wastewaters, on-site landfill wastewaters, and 
contaminated stormwater.
    CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA)--The Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
Amendments of 1972 (33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq.), as amended by 
the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95-217), and the Water Quality 
Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-4).
    CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA) SECTION 308 QUESTIONNAIRE--A questionnaire 
sent to facilities under the authority of Section 308 of the CWA, 
which requests information to be used in the development of national 
effluent guidelines and standards.
    COMMERCIAL FACILITY--A CWT facility that accepts off-site 
generated wastes, wastewaters, or used material from other 
facilities not under the same ownership as this facility. Commercial 
operations are usually made available for a fee or other 
remuneration.
    CONTAMINATED Stormwater--Stormwater which comes in direct 
contact with the waste or waste handling and treatment areas.
    CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS--Constituents of wastewater as 
determined by Sec. 304(a)(4) of the CWA, including, but not limited 
to, pollutants classified as

[[Page 2351]]

biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids, oil and grease, 
fecal coliform, and pH.
    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.
    DETAILED MONITORING QUESTIONNAIRE (DMQ)--Questionnaires sent to 
collect monitoring data from 20 selected CWT facilities based on 
responses to the Section 308 Questionnaire.
    DIRECT DISCHARGER--A facility that discharges or may discharge 
treated or untreated wastewaters into waters of the United States.
    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)).
    EXISTING SOURCE--Any facility from which there is or may be a 
discharge of pollutants, the construction of which is commenced 
before the publication of the proposed regulations prescribing a 
standard of performance under Sec. 306 of the CWA.
    FACILITY--All contiguous property owned, operated, leased, or 
under the control of the same person or entity
    FUEL BLENDING--The process of mixing waste, wastewater, or used 
material for the purpose of regenerating a fuel for reuse.
    HAZARDOUS WASTE--Any waste, including wastewater, defined as 
hazardous under RCRA, TSCA, or any state law.
    HIGH TEMPERATURE METALS RECOVERY (HTMR)--A metals recovery 
process in which solid forms of metal containing materials are 
processed with a heat-based pyrometallurgical technology to produce 
a remelt alloy which can then be sold as feed material in the 
production of metals.
    IN-SCOPE--Facilities and/or wastewaters that EPA proposes to be 
subject to this guideline.
    INDIRECT DISCHARGER--A facility that discharges or may discharge 
wastewaters into a publicly-owned treatment works.
    INTERCOMPANY--Facilities that treat and/or recycle/recover 
waste, wastewater, and/or used material generated by off-site 
facilities not under the same corporate ownership. These facilities 
are also referred to as ``commercial'' CWT facilities.
    INTRACOMPANY TRANSFER--Facilities that treat and/or recycle/
recover waste, wastewater, and/or used material generated by off-
site facilities under the same corporate ownership. These facilities 
are also referred to as ``non-commercial'' CWT facilities.
    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.
    MARINE-GENERATED WASTE--Waste, wastewater, and/or used material 
generated as part of the normal maintenance and operation of a ship, 
boat, or barge operating on inland, coastal, or open waters.
    METAL-BEARING WASTES--Wastes and/or used materials that contain 
significant quantities of metal pollutants, but not significant 
quantities of oil and grease (generally less than 100 mg/L), from 
manufacturing or processing facilities or other commercial 
operations. These wastes include, but are not limited to, the 
following: spent electroplating baths and sludges, metal finishing 
rinse water and sludges, chromate wastes, air pollution control blow 
down water and sludges, spent anodizing solutions, incineration air 
pollution control wastewaters, waste liquid mercury, cyanide 
containing wastes greater than 136 mg/L, and waste acids and bases 
with or without metals.
    MINIMUM LEVEL--the lowest level at which the entire analytical 
system must give a recognizable signals and an acceptable 
calibration point for the analyte.
    MIXED COMMERCIAL/NON-COMMERCIAL FACILITY--Facilities that treat 
and/or recycle/recover waste, wastewater, and/or used material 
generated by off-site facilities both under the same corporate 
ownership and different corporate ownership.
    NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PERMIT--
A permit to discharge wastewater into waters of the United States 
issued under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination system, 
authorized by Section 402 of the CWA.
    NEW SOURCE--Any facility from which there is or may be a 
discharge of pollutants, the construction of which is commenced 
after the proposal of regulations prescribing a standard of 
performance under section 306 of the Act and 403.3(k).
    NON-COMMERCIAL FACILITY--Facilities that accept waste from off-
site for treatment and/or recovery from generating facilities under 
the same corporate ownership as the CWT facility.
    NON-CONTAMINATED STORMWATER--Stormwater which does not come into 
direct contact with the waste or waste handling and treatment areas.
    NON-CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS--Pollutants that are neither 
conventional pollutants nor priority pollutants listed at 40 CFR 
Section 401.
    NON-DETECT VALUE--The analyte is below the level of detection 
that can be reliably measured by the analytical method. This is also 
known, in statistical terms, as left-censoring.
    NON-WATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT--Deleterious aspects of 
control and treatment technologies applicable to point source 
category wastes, including, but not limited to air pollution, noise, 
radiation, sludge and solid waste generation, and energy used.
    NSPS--New Sources Performance Standards, applicable to 
industrial facilities whose construction is begun after the 
publication of the proposed regulations, as defined by Sec. 306 of 
the CWA.
    OCPSF--Organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers 
manufacturing point source category. (40 CFR Part 414).
    OFF SITE--Outside the boundaries of a facility.
    OILY WASTES--Wastes and/or used materials that contain oil and 
grease (generally at or in excess of 100 mg/L) from manufacturing or 
processing facilities or other commercial operations. These wastes 
include, but are not limited to, the following: used oils, oil-water 
emulsions or mixtures, lubricants, coolants, contaminated 
groundwater clean-up from petroleum sources, used petroleum 
products, oil spill clean-up, bilge water, rinse/wash waters from 
petroleum sources, interceptor wastes, off-specification fuels, 
underground storage remediation waste, and tank clean out from 
petroleum or oily sources.
    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--The same or geographically contiguous property, which 
may be divided by a public or private right-of-way, provided the 
entrance and exit between the properties is at a crossroads 
intersection, and access is by crossing as opposed to going along 
the right-of-way. Non-contiguous properties owned by the same 
company or locality but connected by a right-of-way, which it 
controls, and to which the public does not have access, is also 
considered on-site property.
    ORGANIC-BEARING WASTES--Wastes and/or used materials that 
contain organic pollutants, but not a significant quantity of oil 
and grease (generally less than 100 mg/L) from manufacturing or 
processing facilities or other commercial operations. These wastes 
include, but are not limited to, landfill leachate, contaminated 
groundwater clean-up from non-petroleum sources, solvent-bearing 
wastes, off-specification organic product, still bottoms, used 
glycols, wastewater from paint washes, wastewater from adhesives 
and/or epoxies, wastewater from chemical product operations, and 
tank clean-out from organic, non-petroleum sources.
    OUTFALL--The mouth of conduit drains and other conduits from 
which a facility effluent discharges into receiving waters.
    OUT-OF-SCOPE--Out-of-scope facilities are facilities which only 
perform centralized waste treatment activities which EPA has not 
proposed to be subject to provisions of this guideline. Out-of-scope 
operations are centralized waste treatment operations which EPA has 
not proposed to be subject to provisions of this guideline.
    PIPELINE--Pipeline means an open or closed conduit used for the 
conveyance of material. A pipeline includes a channel, pipe, tube, 
trench, ditch, or fixed delivery system.
    PASS THROUGH--A pollutant is determined to ``pass through'' a 
POTW when the average percentage removed by an efficiently operated 
POTW is less than the average percentage removed by the industry's 
direct dischargers that are using well-defined, well-operated BAT 
technology.
    POINT SOURCE--Any discernable, confined, and discrete conveyance 
from which pollutants are or may be discharged.

[[Page 2352]]

    POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN (POCs)--Pollutants commonly found in 
centralized waste treatment wastewaters. For the purposes of this 
guideline, a POC is a pollutant that is detected at or above a 
treatable level in influent wastewater samples from centralized 
waste treatment facilities. Additionally, a CWT POC must be present 
in at least ten percent of the influent wastewater samples.
    PRIORITY POLLUTANT--One hundred twenty-six compounds that are a 
subset of the 65 toxic pollutants and classes of pollutants outlined 
in Section 307 of the CWA. The priority pollutants are specified in 
the NRDC settlement agreement (Natural Resources Defense Council et 
al v. Train, 8 E.R.C. 2120 [D.D.C. 1976], modified 12 E.R.C. 1833 
[D.D.C. 1979]).
    PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP--A program practiced by many manufacturing 
facilities which involves taking back spent, used, or unused 
products, shipping and storage containers with product residues, 
off-specification products, and waste materials from use of 
products.
    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) of the CWA.
    PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS (POTW)--Any device or system, 
owned by a state or municipality, used in the treatment (including 
recycling and reclamation) of municipal sewage or industrial wastes 
of a liquid nature that is owned by a state or municipality. This 
includes sewers, pipes, or other conveyances only if they convey 
wastewater to a POTW providing treatment (40 CFR 122.2).
    RCRA--The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) 
(42 U.S.C. Section 6901 et seq.), which regulates the generation, 
treatment, storage, disposal, or recycling of solid and hazardous 
wastes.
    RE-REFINING--Distillation, hydrotreating, and/or other treatment 
employing acid, caustic, solvent, clay and/or chemicals of used oil 
in order to produce high quality base stock for lubricants or other 
petroleum products.
    SIC--Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)--A numerical 
categorization system used by the U.S. Department of Commerce to 
catalogue economic activity. SIC codes refer to the products, or 
group of products, produced or distributed, or to services rendered 
by an operating establishment. SIC codes are used to group 
establishments by the economic activities in which they are engaged. 
SIC codes often denote a facility's primary, secondary, tertiary, 
etc. economic activities.
    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) which is being used to characterize the CWT industry.
    SOLIDIFICATION--The addition of sorbents to convert liquid or 
semi-liquid waste to a solid by means of adsorption, absorption or 
both. The process is usually accompanied by stabilization.
    STABILIZATION--A waste process that decreases the mobility of 
waste constituents by means of a chemical reaction. For the purpose 
of this rule, chemical precipitation is not a technique for 
stabilization.
    VARIABILITY FACTOR--Used in calculating a limitation (or 
standard) to allow for reasonable variation in pollutant 
concentrations when processed through extensive and well designed 
treatment systems. Variability factors assure that normal 
fluctuations in a facility's treatment are accounted for in the 
limitations. By accounting for these reasonable excursions above the 
long-term average, EPA's use of variability factors results in 
limitations that are generally well above the actual long-term 
averages. WASTE RECEIPT--Wastes, wastewater, or used material 
received for treatment and/or recovery. Waste receipts can be 
liquids or solids.
    ZERO OR ALTERNATIVE DISCHARGE--No discharge of pollutants to 
waters of the United States or to a POTW. Also included in this 
definition is disposal of pollutants by way of evaporation, deep-
well injection, off-site transfer, and land application.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 437

    Environmental protection, Waste treatment and disposal, Water 
pollution control.

    Dated: December 29, 1998.
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.
437.01  Applicability.
437.02  Definitions.
437.03  Monitoring requirements.

Subpart A--Metals Treatment and Recovery Subcategory

437.10  Applicability; description of the Metals Subcategory.
437.11  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of best practicable control 
technology currently available (BPT).
437.12  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of best conventional 
pollutant control technology (BCT).
437.13  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology 
economically achievable (BAT).
437.14  New source performance standards (NSPS).
437.15  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
437.16  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

Subpart B--Oils Treatment and Recovery Subcategory

437.20  Applicability; description of the Oils Subcategory.
437.21  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of best practicable control 
technology currently available (BPT).
437.22  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the best conventional pollutant control 
technology (BCT).
437.23  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology 
economically achievable (BAT).
437.24  New source performance standards (NSPS).
437.25  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
437.26  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

Subpart C--Organics Treatment or Recovery Subcategory

437.30  Applicability; description of the Organics Subcategory.
437.31  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of best practicable control 
technology currently available (BPT).
437.32  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of best conventional 
pollutant control technology (BCT).
437.33  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology 
economically achievable (BAT).
437.34  New source performance standards (NSPS).
437.35  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
437.36  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

Subpart D--Combined Waste stream Formula

437.40 Combined waste stream formula.

    Authority: Sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 402, and 501 of the 
Clean Water Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 
1342, and 1361).

GENERAL PROVISIONS


Sec. 437.01  Applicability.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this 
section, this part applies to that portion of wastewater discharges 
from a centralized waste treatment (CWT) facility that results from any 
of the following activities:
    (1) The treatment of metal-bearing wastes, oily wastes and organic-
bearing wastes received from off-site.
    (2) The treatment of CWT wastewater.
    (3) Used oil re-refining operations.
    (4) Solvent recovery operations based on fuel blending.

[[Page 2353]]

    (b) This part does not apply to that portion of wastewater 
discharges from a CWT facility that results from:
    (1) The treatment of wastes that are generated on-site and are 
subject to another part of subchapter N.
    (2) The treatment of a mixture of wastes that are generated off-
site and on-site so long as the wastewater resulting from the treatment 
of the off-site wastes, if discharged at the site where generated, 
would have been subject to the same provisions of subchapter N as the 
wastewater resulting from the treatment of wastes generated on-site.
    (3) The treatment of wastes received from off-site solely via 
conduit (e.g., pipelines, channels, ditches, trenches, etc.) from the 
facility that generates the wastes. A facility that acts as a waste 
collection or consolidation center is not a facility that generates 
wastes.
    (4) The treatment of sanitary wastes and wastes of domestic origin 
including chemical toilet wastes, septage, and restaurant wastes.
    (5) The treatment or recovery of animal or vegetable fats/oils from 
grease traps or interceptors generated by facilities engaged in food 
service activities.
    (c) This part does not apply to the discharge of wastewater from 
facilities which are engaged exclusively in cleaning the interiors of 
tanker trucks, rail tank cars, or barges. The discharge resulting from 
the treatment of off-site wastewater generated in cleaning 
transportation equipment (or on-site wastewater generated in cleaning 
equipment) treated at a CWT facility along with other off-site wastes 
not generated in cleaning transportation equipment is, however, subject 
to this part.
    (d) This part does not apply to the discharge of wastewater that 
results from the treatment of landfill wastes generated on-site at a 
CWT facility so long as landfill wastes are not mixed with other wastes 
for treatment. The discharge resulting from the treatment of landfill 
wastewater, whether generated on-site or off-site, treated at CWT 
facilities along with other off-site waste is, however, subject to this 
part.
    (e) This part does not apply to wastewater discharges at a CWT 
facility that is exclusively engaged in the treatment of wastewater 
generated by industrial waste combustors. The discharge resulting from 
the treatment of off-site wastewater generated in the incineration of 
industrial waste that is treated at a CWT facility along with other 
off-site waste streams is subject to this part.
    (f) This part does not apply to the discharge of wastewater 
generated in solvent recovery operations so long as the solvent 
recovery operations involve the separation of solvent mixtures by 
distillation. The discharge of wastewater resulting from distillation-
based solvent recovery operations is subject to 40 CFR part 414.
    (g) This part does not apply to marine generated wastes including 
wash water from equipment and tank cleaning, ballast water, bilge 
water, and other wastes generated as part of routine ship maintenance 
and operation as long as they are treated and discharged at the ship 
servicing facility where it is off-loaded. The discharges resulting 
from the treatment of marine generated wastes that are off-loaded and 
subsequently sent to a centralized waste treatment facility at a 
separate location are, however, subject to this part.


Sec. 437.02  Definitions.

    As used in this part:
    (a) The general definitions, abbreviations and methods of analysis 
in 40 CFR parts 122 and 401 and 403 shall apply.
    (b) The term centralized waste treatment (CWT) facility means 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. ``CWT facility'' includes both a 
facility that treats waste received from off-site exclusively, as well 
as a facility that treats wastes generated on-site and waste received 
from off-site. For example, an organic chemical manufacturing plant 
may, in certain circumstances, be a CWT facility if it treats 
industrial wastes received from offsite as well as industrial waste 
generated at the organic chemical manufacturing plant. The term CWT 
facility does not apply to facilities engaged in the following 
activities:
    (1) Solids recovery operations so long as the wastes recovered are 
from non-industrial sources, do not generate a wastewater, or do not 
leach any metal or organic chemicals into the water. Solids recovery 
operations include, but are not limited to, the recycling of aluminum 
cans, glass, and plastic bottles.
    (2) High temperature metals recovery operations that use heat-based 
pyrometallurgical technologies to recover metals.
    (3) Used oil filter recycling operations generating no process 
wastewater.
    (4) Waste solidification/stabilization operations that generate no 
process wastewater.
    (5) Electrolytic plating operation with metallic replacement silver 
recovery operations on used photographic and x-ray materials. A 
facility that treats off-site silver-bearing wastes using other 
processes is a CWT.
    (c) The term centralized waste treatment wastewater means water 
that comes in contact with wastes received from off-site for treatment 
or recovery, or water that comes in contact with the area in which the 
off-site wastes are received, stored or collected.
    (d) The term conventional pollutants means those pollutants EPA has 
identified as conventional pollutant pursuant to section Sec. 304(a)(4) 
of the CWA (see 40 CFR Sec. 401.16)
    (e) The term electrolytic plating operation means the application 
of various types of processes which lower the concentration of 
dissolved metals in solution by the passage of current through an 
electrolyte.
    (F) The term facility means all contiguous property owned, 
operated, leased or under the control of the same person or entity. The 
contiguous property may be divided by public or private right-of-way 
may .
    (g) The term fuel blending means the process of mixing hydrocarbon 
wastes for the purpose of regenerating a fuel for reuse. However, fuel 
blending may be loosely applied to any process where recovered 
hydrocarbons are combined as a fuel product where some pretreatment 
operations generate wastewater.
    (h) The term high temperature metals recovery means a metals 
recovery process in which solid forms of metal containing materials are 
processed with a heat-based pyrometallurgical technology to produce a 
remelt alloy which can then be sold as feed material in the production 
of metals.
    (i) The term metal-bearing wastes means wastes and/or used 
materials that contain significant quantities of metal pollutants, but 
not significant quantities of oil and grease (generally less than 100 
mg/L), from manufacturing or processing facilities or other commercial 
operations. Examples of these wastes are spent electroplating baths and 
sludges, metal finishing rinse water and sludges, chromate wastes, air 
pollution control blow down water and sludges, spent anodizing 
solutions, incineration air pollution control wastewaters, waste liquid 
mercury, cyanide containing wastes greater than 136 mg/L, and waste 
acids and bases with or without metals.
    (j) The term off-site means outside the boundaries of a facility.
    (k) The term oily wastes means wastes and/or used materials that 
contain oil and grease (generally at or in excess of

[[Page 2354]]

100 mg/L) from manufacturing or processing facilities or other 
commercial operations. Examples of these wastes are used oils, oil-
water emulsions or mixtures, lubricants, coolants, contaminated 
groundwater clean-up from petroleum sources, used petroleum products, 
oil spill clean-up, bilge water, rinse/wash waters from petroleum 
sources, interceptor wastes, off-specification fuels, underground 
storage remediation waste, and tank clean out from petroleum or oily 
sources, and wastes that contain oil and grease from manufacturing or 
processing facilities or other commercial operations.
    (l) The term on-site means within the boundaries of a facility.
    (m) The term organic wastes means wastes and/or used materials that 
contain organic pollutants, but not a significant quantity of oil and 
grease (generally less than 100 mg/L) from manufacturing or processing 
facilities or other commercial operations. Examples of these wastes are 
landfill leachate, contaminated groundwater clean-up from non-petroleum 
sources, solvent-bearing wastes, off-specification organic product, 
still bottoms, used glycols, wastewater from paint washes, wastewater 
from adhesives and/or epoxies, wastewater from chemical product 
operations, and tank clean-out from organic, non-petroleum sources.
    (n) The term pipeline means an open or closed conduit used for the 
conveyance of material. A pipeline includes a channel, pipe, tube, 
trench, or ditch.
    (o) The term solvent recovery includes fuel blending operations and 
the recycling of spent solvents through separation of solvent mixtures 
in distillation columns. Solvent recovery may require an additional, 
pretreatment step prior to distillation.
    (p) The term treatment means any method, technique, or process 
designed to change the physical, chemical or biological character or 
composition of any metal-bearing, oily, or organic waste so as to 
neutralize such wastes, to render such wastes amenable to discharge or 
to recover energy or recover metal, oil, or organic content from the 
wastes.
    (q) The term used oil filter recycling means crushing and draining 
of used oil filters of entrained oil and/or shredding and separation of 
used oil filters.
    (r) The term waste includes aqueous, non-aqueous and solid wastes.


Sec. 437.03  Monitoring requirements.

    (a) Permit compliance monitoring is required for each regulated 
pollutant.
    (b) Any CWT facility that discharges wastewater resulting from the 
treatment of metal-bearing waste, oily waste, or organic-bearing waste 
must monitor as follows:
    (1) Facilities subject to more than one subpart must monitor for 
compliance for each subpart after treatment and before mixing of the 
waste with any other subpart wastes, stormwater, or wastewater subject 
to another effluent limitation or standard in Subchapter N. If, 
however, the facility can demonstrate to the receiving POTW or 
permitting authority the capability of achieving the effluent 
limitation or standard for each subpart, the facility may monitor for 
compliance after mixing.
    (2) Whenever a CWT facility is treating any waste receipt that 
contains more than 136 mg/l of Total Cyanide, the CWT facility must 
monitor for cyanide after cyanide treatment and before dilution with 
other waste streams. If, however, the facility can demonstrate to the 
receiving POTW or permitting authority the capability of achieving the 
Total Cyanide limitation or standard after cyanide treatment and before 
mixing with other waste steams, the facility may monitor for compliance 
after mixing.

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 
results from the treatment of, or recovery of metals from, metal-
bearing wastes received from off-site and that CWT facility's contact 
water.


Sec. 437.11  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 effluent 
limitations listed in the following table. These limitations apply to 
the pretreatment of metal-bearing waste which contain cyanide and the 
metals treatment effluent.

  In-Plant BPT Limitations for Cyanide Pretreatment--Metals Subcategory
                                 [mg/L]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Maximum
         Pollutant or pollutant parameter            for any    Monthly
                                                     one Day    average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cyanide.....................................        500        178
------------------------------------------------------------------------


              BPT Effluent Limitations--Metals Subcategory
                                 [mg/L]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Maximum
         Pollutant or pollutant parameter            for any    Monthly
                                                     one day    average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional Pollutants:
  TSS.............................................       60.0       31.0
  Oil and Grease..................................       88.4       27.8
Priority and non-conventional pollutants:
  Antimony........................................      0.214       .176
  Arsenic.........................................      0.106      0.087
  Cadmium.........................................      0.111      0.052
  Chromium........................................       2.93       1.37
  Chromium, hexavalent............................       2.68      0.988
  Cobalt..........................................      0.285      0.133
  Copper..........................................       1.45      0.674
  Lead............................................      0.290      0.135
  Manganese.......................................      0.121      0.057
  Mercury.........................................     0.0027     0.0013
  Nickel..........................................       2.66       1.24
  Selenium........................................       2.83      0.583
  Silver..........................................      0.057      0.026
  Tin.............................................      0.223      0.104
  Titanium........................................      0.141      0.066
  Vanadium........................................      0.124      0.058
  Zinc............................................       1.05      0.489
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 437.12  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of 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 are the same as those 
specified in Sec. 437.11 of this subpart.


Sec. 437.13  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). Except for the conventional pollutants, the 
limitations are the same as those specified in Sec. 437.11 of this 
subpart.


Sec. 437.14  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 cyanide

[[Page 2355]]

pretreatment limitations are the same as those specified in Sec. 437.11 
of this subpart. The NSPS limitations are:

              NSPS Effluent Limitations--Metals Subcategory
                                 [mg/L]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Maximum
         Pollutant or pollutant parameter            for any    Monthly
                                                     one day    average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional Pollutants:
  TSS.............................................       29.6       11.3
  Oil and Grease..................................       88.4       27.8
Priority and non-conventional pollutants:
  Antimony........................................      0.111      0.031
  Arsenic.........................................      0.059      0.017
  Cadmium.........................................      0.319      0.104
  Chromium........................................      0.155      0.051
  Chromium, hexavalent............................      0.138      0.057
  Cobalt..........................................      0.224      0.073
  Copper..........................................      0.658      0.216
  Lead............................................      0.215      0.070
  Manganese.......................................      0.058      0.019
  Mercury.........................................     0.0008     0.0003
  Nickel..........................................       1.05      0.345
  Silver..........................................      0.039      0.013
  Tin.............................................      0.117      0.038
  Titanium........................................      0.020      0.006
  Vanadium........................................      0.195      0.064
  Zinc............................................      0.803      0.263
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 437.15  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing user 
subject to this subpart must comply with 40 CFR Part 403 and achieve 
the following pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

    In-Plant PSES for Cyanide Pretreatment--Metals Subcategory (mg/L)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Maximum
         Pollutant or pollutant parameter            for any    Monthly
                                                     one day    average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cyanide.....................................        500        178
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                        PSES--Metals Subcategory
                                 [mg/L]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Maximum
         Pollutant or pollutant parameter            for any    Monthly
                                                     one day    average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority and non-conventional pollutants:
  Antimony........................................      0.214       .176
  Arsenic.........................................      0.106      0.087
  Cadmium.........................................      0.111      0.052
  Chromium........................................       2.93       1.37
  Chromium, hexavalent............................       2.68      0.988
  Cobalt..........................................      0.285      0.133
  Copper..........................................       1.45      0.674
  Lead............................................      0.290      0.135
  Manganese.......................................      0.121      0.057
  Mercury.........................................      0.003      0.001
  Nickel..........................................       2.66       1.24
  Selenium........................................       2.83      0.583
  Silver..........................................      0.057      0.026
  Tin.............................................      0.223      0.104
  Titanium........................................      0.141      0.066
  Vanadium........................................      0.124      0.058
  Zinc............................................       1.05      0.489
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 437.16  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new user subject to this 
subpart must comply with 40 CFR Part 403. The cyanide pretreatment 
limitations are the same as those specified in Sec. 437.15. The 
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS) are:

                        PSNS--Metals Subcategory
                                 [mg/L]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Maximum
         Pollutant or pollutant parameter            for any    Monthly
                                                     one day    average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority and non-conventional pollutants:
  Antimony........................................      0.111      0.031
  Arsenic.........................................      0.059      0.017
  Cadmium.........................................      0.319      0.104
  Chromium........................................      0.155      0.051
  Chromium, hexavalent............................      0.138      0.057
  Cobalt..........................................      0.224      0.073
  Copper..........................................      0.658      0.216
  Lead............................................      0.215      0.070
  Manganese.......................................      0.058      0.019
  Mercury.........................................     0.0008     0.0003
  Nickel..........................................       1.05      0.345
  Silver..........................................      0.039      0.013
  Tin.............................................      0.117      0.038
  Titanium........................................      0.020      0.006
  Vanadium........................................      0.195      0.064
  Zinc............................................      0.803      0.263
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
results from the treatment of, or recovery of oils from, oily waste 
received from off-site and CWT facility contact water.


Sec. 437.21  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--Oils Subcategory
                                 [mg/L]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Maximum
         Pollutant or pollutant parameter            for any    Monthly
                                                     one day    average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional pollutants:
  Oil & Grease....................................        127       38.0
  TSS.............................................       74.1       30.6
Priority and non-conventional pollutants:
  Antimony........................................      0.237      0.141
  Arsenic.........................................       1.81       1.08
  Barium..........................................      0.783      0.359
  Cadmium.........................................      0.027      0.012
  Chromium........................................      0.650      0.298
  Cobalt..........................................       26.3       12.1
  Copper..........................................      0.400      0.183
  Lead............................................      0.350      0.160
  Mercury.........................................      0.011      0.005
  Molybdenum......................................       5.48       2.51
  Tin.............................................      0.380      0.174
  Titanium........................................      0.077      0.035
  Zinc............................................       7.20       3.30
  Alpha-terpineol.................................      0.166      0.081
  Bis-2-ethylhexylphthalate.......................      0.215      0.101
  Butyl benzyl phthlate...........................      0.188      0.089
  Carbazole.......................................      0.520      0.255
  Fluoranthene....................................      0.045      0.024
  n-decane........................................      0.778      0.403
  n-octadecane....................................      0.662      0.343
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 437.22  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of 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 oil and grease and TSS 
are the same as those specified in Sec. 437.21 of this subpart.

[[Page 2356]]

Sec. 437.23  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). Except for the conventional pollutants, 
the limitations are the same as those specified in Sec. 437.21 of this 
subpart.


Sec. 437.24  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 are the same as those 
specified in Sec. 437.21 of this subpart.


Sec. 437.25  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing user 
subject to this subpart must comply with 40 CFR Part 403 and achieve 
the following pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

                         PSES--Oils Subcategory
                                 [mg/L]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Maximum
         Pollutant or pollutant parameter            for any    Monthly
                                                     one day    average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority and non-conventional pollutants:
  Antimony........................................      0.237      0.141
  Barium..........................................      0.703      0.340
  Cobalt..........................................       23.7       11.4
  Copper..........................................      0.500      0.242
  Molybdenum......................................       4.92       2.38
  Tin.............................................      0.341      0.165
  Titanium........................................      0.069      0.034
  Zinc............................................       10.0       4.84
  Alpha-terpineol.................................      0.141      0.071
  Bis-2-ethylhexylphthalate.......................      0.267      0.158
  Carbazole.......................................      0.440      0.222
  Fluoranthene....................................      0.611      0.347
  n-decane........................................       5.96       3.48
  n-octadecane....................................       1.99       1.16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 437.26  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new user subject to this 
subpart must comply with 40 CFR Part 403 and achieve the following 
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

                         PSNS--Oils Subcategory
                                 [mg/L]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Maximum
         Pollutant or pollutant parameter            for any    Monthly
                                                     one day    average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority and non-conventional pollutants:
  Antimony........................................      0.237      0.141
  Barium..........................................      0.783      0.359
  Cobalt..........................................       26.3       12.1
  Copper..........................................      0.400      0.183
  Molybdenum......................................       5.48       2.51
  Tin.............................................      0.380      0.174
  Titanium........................................      0.077      0.035
  Zinc............................................       7.20       3.30
  Alpha-terpineol.................................      0.166      0.081
  bis-2-ethylhexylphthalate.......................      0.215      0.101
  carbazole.......................................      0.520      0.255
  fluoranthene....................................      0.045      0.024
  n-decane........................................      0.778      0.403
  n-octadecane....................................      0.662      0.343
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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  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
  TSS.............................................        216         61
Priority and non-conventional pollutants:
  Antimony........................................      0.972      0.691
  Copper..........................................      0.850      0.752
  Molybdenum......................................       1.14       1.01
  Zinc............................................      0.461      0.408
  Acetophenone....................................      0.155      0.072
  Aniline.........................................      0.046      0.021
  Benzoic Acid....................................       1.39      0.638
  o-cresol........................................       1.89      0.556
  p-cresol........................................      0.677      0.199
  Phenol..........................................       3.70       1.09
  Pyridine........................................      0.370      0.182
  2-butanone......................................       8.83       2.62
  2-propanone.....................................       20.7       6.15
  2,3-dichloroaniline.............................      0.100      0.046
  2,4,6-trichlorophenol...........................      0.155      0.106
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 437.32  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of 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 and TSS are the same 
as those specified in Sec. 437.31 of this subpart.


Sec. 437.33  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). Except for the conventional pollutants, the limitations are the 
same as those specified in Sec. 437.31 of this subpart.


Sec. 437.34  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 are the same as those 
specified in Sec. 437.31 of this subpart.


Sec. 437.35  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing user 
subject to this subpart must comply with 40 CFR Part 403 and achieve 
the following pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

[[Page 2357]]



                       PSES--Organics Subcategory
                                 [mg/L]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Maximum
         Pollutant or pollutant parameter            for any    Monthly
                                                     one day    average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority and non-conventional pollutants:
  Molybdenum......................................       1.14       1.01
  Aniline.........................................      0.046      0.021
  Benzoic Acid....................................       1.39      0.638
  o-cresol........................................       1.89      0.556
  p-cresol........................................      0.677      0.199
  2,3-dichloroaniline.............................      0.100      0.046
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 437.36  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new user subject to this 
subpart must comply with 40 CFR Part 403 and achieve pretreatment 
standards for new sources (PSNS). The standards are the same as those 
specified in Sec. 437.35 of this subpart.

Subpart D--Combined Waste stream Formula


Sec. 437.40  Combined waste stream formula.

    Whenever any new or existing user subject to pretreatment standards 
mixes wastewater subject to subparts A, B, or C of this Part prior to 
treatment, the Control Authority, as defined in Sec. 403.12(a) or 
Industrial User with the written concurrence of the Control Authority, 
must calculate fixed alternative discharge concentration limits using 
the ``combined waste stream formula'' of Sec. 403.7(e). For purposes of 
calculating fixed alternative discharge limits pursuant to 
Sec. 403.6(e), wastewater subject to this part is a ``regulated flow.'' 
In calculating fixed alternative discharge limits pursuant to 
Sec. 403.6(e), the Control Authority should use the following 
categorical concentration limits:
    (a) Metals subcategory categorical concentration standards. There 
are no allowances for the metals subcategory.
    (b) Oils subcategory categorical concentration limits.

                            Oils Subcategory
                                 [mg/L]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Maximum
         Pollutant or Pollutant Parameter            for any    Monthly
                                                     one day    average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsenic...........................................       1.81       1.08
Cadmium...........................................      0.024      0.012
Chromium..........................................      0.584      0.283
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) Organics subcategory categorical concentration limits.

                          Organics Subcategory
                                 [mg/L]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Maximum
         Pollutant or Pollutant Parameter            for any    Monthly
                                                     one day    average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony..........................................      0.972      0.691
Copper............................................      0.850      0.752
Zinc..............................................      0.461      0.408
Acetophenone......................................      0.155      0.072
Phenol............................................       3.70       1.09
Pyridine..........................................      0.370      0.182
2-butanone........................................       8.83       2.62
2-propanone.......................................       20.7       6.15
2,4,6-trichlorophenol.............................      0.155      0.106
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 99-130 Filed 1-12-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P