[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 201 (Thursday, October 17, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64216-64269]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-11295]



[[Page 64215]]

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

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 420



Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source 
Performance Standards for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source 
Category; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 64216]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 420

[FRL-7206-7]
RIN 2040-AC90


Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New 
Source Performance Standards for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point 
Source Category

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule represents the culmination of the Agency's 
effort to revise Clean Water Act (CWA) effluent limitations guidelines 
and standards for wastewater discharges from the iron and steel 
manufacturing industry. The final regulation revises technology-based 
effluent limitations guidelines and standards for certain wastewater 
discharges associated with metallurgical cokemaking, sintering, and 
ironmaking operations; and codifies new effluent limitations guidelines 
and standards for direct reduced ironmaking, briquetting, and forging. 
EPA is also revising the regulations for the steelmaking subcategory, 
to provide an allowance for existing basic oxygen furnaces operating 
semi-wet air pollution control systems; and to establish technology-
based effluent limitations guidelines and standards for electric arc 
furnaces operating semi-wet pollution control systems. EPA is 
eliminating rule references to the following obsolete operations: 
beehive cokemaking in the cokemaking subcategory, ferromanganese blast 
furnaces in the ironmaking subcategory, and open hearth furnace 
operations in the steelmaking subcategory. EPA is not revising effluent 
limitations guidelines and standards for the remaining subcategories 
within this industrial category: vacuum degassing, continuous casting, 
hot forming, salt bath descaling, acid pickling, cold forming, alkaline 
cleaning and hot coating. Nor is EPA codifying a new subcategorization 
scheme and associated definitions to support the new subcategorization 
for this industrial category.
    EPA expects compliance with this regulation to reduce the discharge 
of conventional pollutants by at least 351,000 pounds per year and 
toxic and non-conventional pollutants by at least 1,018,000 pounds per 
year. EPA estimates the annual cost of the rule will be $12.0 million 
(pre-tax $2001). EPA estimates that the annual benefits of the rule 
will range from $1.4 million to $7.3 million ($2001).

DATES: This regulation shall become effective November 18, 2002.

ADDRESSES: The public record for this rulemaking has been established 
under docket number W-00-25 II and will be located in the Water Docket, 
East Tower Basement, room 57, 401 M St. SW., Washington, DC 
20460 until August 15, 2002. After August 27, 2002 the public record 
will be located at EPA West, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B135, 
Washington, DC 20460. The record is available for inspection from 9 
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. For 
access to the docket materials before August 15, call (202) 260-3027 to 
schedule an appointment. After August 27, call (202) 566-2426. You may 
have to pay a reasonable fee for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information concerning 
today's final rule, contact Mr. George Jett at (202) 566-1070, or Ms. 
Yu-ting Guilaran at (202) 566-1072. For economic information contact 
Mr. William Anderson at (202) 566-1008.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

    Entities potentially regulated by this action include facilities of 
the following types that discharge pollutants to waters of the U.S.:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Category             Examples of regulated entities                Primary SIC and NAICS codes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry                 Discharges from facilities engaged in  SIC 3312, 3316; NAICS 3311, 3312.
                          metallurgical cokemaking, sintering,
                          ironmaking, steelmaking, direct
                          reduced ironmaking, briquetting, and
                          forging.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to 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 listed 
in Sec.  420.01 and the applicability criteria in Sec.  420.10 
(metallurgical cokemaking), Sec.  420.40 (steelmaking), and Sec.  
420.130 (other operations) of today's rule and applicability criteria 
in Sec.  420.20 (sintering), Sec.  420.30 (ironmaking), Sec.  420.50 
(vacuum degassing), Sec.  420.60 (continuous casting), Sec.  420.70 
(hot forming), Sec.  420.80 (salt bath descaling), Sec.  420.90 (acid 
pickling), Sec.  420.100 (cold forming), Sec.  420.110 (alkaline 
cleaning), and Sec.  420.120 (hot coating) of Title 40 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations. The table lists the types of entities that EPA is 
now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. If you still 
have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a 
particular entity (after consulting relevant subsections), consult one 
of the persons listed for technical information in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Judicial Review

    In accordance with 40 CFR 23.2, today's rule is promulgated for the 
purposes of judicial review as of 1 pm Eastern Daylight Time on October 
31, 2002. Under section 509(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 
judicial review of today's effluent limitations guidelines and 
standards is available in the United States Circuit Court of Appeals by 
filing a petition for review within 120 days from the date of 
promulgation of these guidelines and standards. Under Section 509(b)(2) 
of the CWA the requirements of this regulation may not be challenged 
later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these 
requirements.

Compliance Dates

    Existing direct dischargers must comply with limitations based on 
the best practicable control technology currently available (BPT), the 
best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT), and the best 
available technology economically achievable (BAT) as soon as their 
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NDPES) permits include 
such limitations. Existing indirect dischargers subject to today's 
regulations must comply with the pretreatment standards for existing 
sources no later than October 17, 2005. New direct and indirect 
discharging sources must comply with applicable guidelines and 
standards on the date the new sources begin discharging. For purposes 
of new source performance standards (NSPS) and pretreatment standards 
for new sources (PSNS), a source is a new source if it commenced 
construction after November 18, 2002.

[[Page 64217]]

Supporting Documentation

    The final regulations are supported by three major documents:
    1. ``Development Document for Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines 
and Standards for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source 
Category'' (EPA-821-R-02-004), referred to in the preamble as the 
Technical Development Document (TDD). This TDD presents the technical 
information that formed the basis for EPA's decisions concerning the 
final rule. In it, EPA describes, among other things, the data 
collection activities, the wastewater treatment technology options 
considered, the pollutants found in the iron and steel manufacturing 
wastewaters, and the estimation of costs to the industry to comply with 
the final limitations and standards.
    2. ``Economic Analysis of Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and 
Standards for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category'' 
(EPA-821-R-02-006) referred to in this preamble as the Economic 
Analysis (EA). The EA estimates the economic and financial costs of 
compliance with the final regulation on individual process lines, 
facilities and companies.
    3. ``Environmental Assessment of the Final Effluent Limitations 
Guidelines and Standards for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point 
Source Category'' (EPA-821-R-02-005) referred to as the Environmental 
Assessment in this preamble.

How To Obtain Supporting Documents

    Supporting documents are available on the internet at www.epa.gov/
ost/ironsteel and before August 15, 2002 from the Office of Water 
Resource Center, MC-4100, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20460; telephone (202) 260-7786 for publication requests. After August 
18, 2002, the Office of Water Resources will be located at 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. The telephone number 
will be 202-566-1729.

Protection of Confidential Business Information (CBI)

    EPA notes that certain information and data in the record 
supporting the final rule have been claimed as CBI and, therefore, are 
not included in the record that is available to the public in the Water 
Docket. 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. To support the 
rulemaking while preserving confidentiality claims, EPA is presenting 
in the public record certain information in aggregated form or, 
alternatively, is masking facility identities or employing other 
strategies. This approach assures that the information in the public 
record explains the basis for today's final rule without compromising 
CBI claims.

Organization of This Document

I. Legal Authority
II. Legislative Background
    A. Clean Water Act
    1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available 
(BPT)-Section 304(b)(1) of the CWA
    2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)--Section 
304(b)(4) of the CWA
    3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)--
Section 304(b)(2) of the CWA
    4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)--Section 306 of the 
CWA
    5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)--Section 
307(b) of the CWA
    6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)--Section 307(c) 
of the CWA
    B. Section 304(m) Requirements
III. Iron and Steel Manufacturing Industry Effluent Guideline 
Rulemaking History
    A. 1982 Rule and 1984 Amendments
    B. Preliminary Study
    C. October 31, 2000 Proposed Regulation
    D. February 2001 Notice of Data Availability
    E. April 4, 2001 Notice
IV. Current Economic Condition of the Industry
V. Summary of Significant Decisions
    A. Decisions Regarding the Content of the Regulations
    1. New or Revised Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
    2. Subcategorization Structure
    3. Phenol Pass Through Analysis for Cokemaking
    4. Regulation of Phenols (4AAP)
    5. Retention of the Central Treatment Provision
    6. Production Basis for Calculating Permit Limits
    7. Applicability of Part 420 to Electroplating and Certain 
Finishing Operations
    8. Ammonia-N Standard Waiver for Indirect Discharging 
Cokemaking, Ironmaking, and Sintering Operations
    9. Nitrates in Acid Pickling Wastewater
    B. Decisions Regarding Methodology
    1. Economic Analysis Methodology
    2. Selection of Facilities with Model Treatment and Evaluation 
of Available Data Sets in Establishing Long Term Averages
    3. Reassessment of Production-Normalized Flows (PNFs)
    4. Changes in Methodology for Determining the Baseline Loadings 
and Average Baseline Concentrations
    5. Determination of POTW Percent Removal Estimates
VI. Scope/Applicability of the Regulation
VII. Industry Description
VIII. The Final Regulation
    A. Cokemaking Subcategory
    1. Best Practicable Control Technology (BPT)
    2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)
    3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
    4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
    5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
    6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)
    B. Sintering Subcategory
    1. Best Practicable Control Technology (BPT)/Best Conventional 
Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)
    2. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
    3. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
    4. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
    5. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)
    C. Ironmaking Subcategory
    D. Steelmaking Subcategory
    E. Vacuum Degassing Subcategory
    F. Continuous Casting Subcategory
    G. Hot Forming Subcategory
    H. Salt Bath Descaling Subcategory
    I. Acid Pickling Subcategory
    J. Cold Forming Subcategory
    K. Alkaline Cleaning Subcategory
    L. Hot Coating Subcategory
    M. Other Operations Subcategory
    1. Best Practicable Control Technology (BPT)
    2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)
    3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
    4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
    5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing and New Sources (PSES/
PSNS)
IX. Pollutant Reduction and Compliance Cost Estimates
    A. Pollutant Reductions
    1. Conventional Pollutant Reductions
    2. Priority and Non-conventional Pollutant Reductions
    B. Regulatory Costs
    1. Cokemaking Subcategory
    2. Sintering Subcategory
    3. Steelmaking Subcategory
    4. Other Operations Subcategory
X. Economic Analyses
    A. Introduction and Overview
    B. Economic Description of the Iron and Steel Industry
    C. Economic Impact Methodology
    1. Introduction
    2. Methodology Overview
    D. Economic Costs and Impacts of Technology Options by 
Subcategory
    1. Cokemaking
    2. Sintering
    3. Ironmaking
    4. Integrated Steelmaking
    5. Integrated and Stand Alone Hot Forming
    6. Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot Forming
    7. Steel Finishing
    8. Other Operations

[[Page 64218]]

    E. Facility Level Economic Impacts of the Regulatory Options
    F. Firm Level Impacts
    G. Community Impacts
    H. Foreign Trade Impacts
    I. Small Business Analysis
    J. Cost-Benefit Analysis
    K. Cost-Reasonableness Analysis
    L. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
    1. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
    2. Non-recovery Cokemaking
    3. Other Operations
XI. Water Quality Analysis and Environmental Benefits
    A. Reduced Human Health Cancer Risk
    B. Reduced Noncarcinogenic Human Health Hazard
    C. Improved Ecological Conditions and Recreational Activity
    D. Effect on POTW Operations
    E. Other Benefits Not Quantified
    F. Summary of Benefits
XII. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
    A. Air Pollution
    B. Solid Waste
    C. Energy Requirements
XIII. Regulatory Implementation
    A. Implementation of the Limitations and Standards
    1. Introduction
    2. Compliance Dates
    3. Applicability
    4. Production Basis for Calculation of Permit Limitations
    5. Water Bubble
    6. Compliance with Limitations and Standards
    7. Internal Monitoring Requirements and Compliance with ML 
Limitations for Sintering Subcategory
    8. Implementation for Iron and Steel Facilities Subject to 
Multiple Effluent Limitations Guidelines or Pretreatment Standards
    9. Revisions Affecting Certain Steelmaking Operations
    10. Non-process Wastewater and Storm Water in the Immediate 
Process Area
    B. Upset and Bypass Provisions
    C. Variances and Modifications
    1. Fundamentally Different Factors (FDF) Variances
    2. Water Quality Variances
    3. Permit Modifications
XIV. Related Acts of Congress, Executive Orders and Agency 
Initiatives
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
    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. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    I. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects
    J. Congressional Review Act

I. Legal Authority

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is promulgating these 
regulations 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 that 
restrict pollutant discharges for facilities that discharge wastewater 
through sewers flowing to publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) 
(Section 307(b) and (c), 33 U.S.C. 1317(b) and (c)). National 
pretreatment standards are established for those pollutants in 
wastewater from indirect dischargers which pass through, interfere 
with, or are otherwise incompatible with POTW operations. Generally, 
pretreatment standards are designed to ensure that wastewater from 
direct and indirect industrial dischargers are subject to similar 
levels of treatment. In addition, POTWs are required to develop and 
enforce local pretreatment 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 regulations, EPA defines BPT effluent limits for 
conventional, toxic, and non-conventional pollutants. 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). EPA has 
identified 126 pollutants as priority toxic pollutants. See Appendix A 
to Part 403 (reprinted after 40 CFR 423.17). All other pollutants are 
considered to be non-conventional.
    In specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number of factors. EPA first 
considers the total cost of applying the control technology 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 EPA Administrator 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 existing performance is uniformly 
inadequate, BPT may reflect higher levels of control than currently in 
place in an industrial category if the Agency determines that the 
technology can be practically applied.
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 for 
discharges from existing industrial point sources. In addition to the 
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).

[[Page 64219]]

3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)--Section 
304(b)(2) of the CWA
    In general, BAT effluent limitations guidelines represent the best 
available economically achievable performance of plants in the 
industrial subcategory or category. The factors considered in assessing 
BAT include the cost of achieving BAT effluent reductions, the age of 
equipment and facilities involved, the process employed, potential 
process changes, and non-water quality environmental impacts, including 
energy requirements. The Agency retains considerable discretion in 
assigning the weight to be accorded these factors. BAT limitations may 
be based on effluent reductions attainable through changes in a 
facility's processes and operations. Where existing performance is 
uniformly inadequate, BAT may reflect a higher level of performance 
than is currently being achieved within a particular subcategory 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 sources 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 demonstrated control technology for 
all pollutants (i.e., conventional, non-conventional, 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 (POTWs), including sludge 
disposal methods at POTWs. Pretreatment standards for existing sources 
are technology-based and are analogous to BAT effluent limitations 
guidelines.
    The General Pretreatment Regulations, which set forth the framework 
for the implementation of national pretreatment standards, are found at 
40 CFR part 403.
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)--Section 307(c) 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.

B. Section 304(m) Requirements

    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 its first Effluent Guidelines Plan (55 FR 80), 
which established schedules for developing new and revised effluent 
guidelines for several industry categories.
    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. Reilly, Civ. No. 89-2980 
(D.D.C.)). Plaintiffs and EPA settled the litigation by means of a 
consent decree entered on January 31, 1992. The consent decree, which 
has been modified several times, established a schedule by which EPA is 
to propose and take final action for eleven point source categories 
identified by name in the decree and for eight other point source 
categories to be selected by EPA. After completing a preliminary study 
(EPA 821-R95-037, September 1995) as required by the decree, EPA 
selected the iron and steel industry as the subject for a revised rule. 
Under the decree, as modified, the Administrator was required to sign a 
proposed rule for the iron and steel industry no later than October 31, 
2000, and must take final action no later than April 30, 2002.

III. Iron and Steel Manufacturing Industry Effluent Guideline 
Rulemaking History

A. 1982 Rule and 1984 Amendments

    EPA promulgated effluent limitations guidelines and standards for 
the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category, 40 CFR part 420 
in May 1982 (47 FR 23258). This rule established BPT, BCT, and BAT 
effluent limitations that apply to wastewater discharges to waters of 
the U.S. from existing iron and steel facilities and NSPS limits that 
apply to wastewater discharges to waters of the U.S. from new iron and 
steel facilities. It also established pretreatment standards that apply 
to wastewater discharges to POTWs from existing and new iron and steel 
facilities (PSES and PSNS).
    The 1982 rule was based on an approach that mirrored the sequential 
process steps through a typical mill. EPA concluded that it was 
reasonable to establish a subcategorization structure based on the type 
of manufacturing operation employed. This resulted in twelve 
subcategories.
    The American Iron and Steel Institute, certain members of the iron 
and steel industry, and NRDC filed petitions to review the 1982 
regulation. On February 4, 1983, the parties in the consolidated 
lawsuit entered into a comprehensive settlement agreement that resolved 
all issues raised by the petitioners. In accordance with the settlement 
agreement, EPA modified and clarified certain parts of the Iron and 
Steel rule and published additional preamble language regarding the 
rule. The Iron and Steel rule was amended on May 17, 1984 (49 FR 
21024). The major changes included in the amendment are discussed in 
the preamble to the 2000 proposed rule (65 FR 81964-82083) and in 
Chapter 2 of the Technical Development Document for today's final rule. 
The 1982 regulation, as amended in 1984, can be found on line at: 
www.epa.gov/ost/ironsteel/reg.html.

B. Preliminary Study

    The Clean Water Act requires EPA to review effluent limitations 
guidelines and standards periodically to determine whether it is 
appropriate to revise them. Furthermore, under the consent decree 
discussed in Section II.B, EPA is also required to undertake rulemaking 
with respect to the effluent limitations guidelines and standards on a 
set schedule and was required to complete a study of the iron and steel 
industry. Accordingly, EPA developed and published the ``Preliminary 
Study of the Iron and Steel Category'' (EPA 821-R-95-037) in September 
1995.
    In the preliminary study, EPA assessed the status of the iron and 
steel industry with respect to the regulation promulgated in 1982 and 
amended in 1984; identified better performing facilities that use 
conventional and innovative in-process pollution

[[Page 64220]]

prevention and end-of-pipe technologies; estimated possible effluent 
reduction benefits if the industry were upgraded to the level of better 
performing facilities; discussed regulatory and implementation issues 
associated with the current regulation; and identified possible 
solutions to those issues. This study concluded that the industry has 
changed substantially in production technology and pollution control 
since the 1982 regulations were promulgated. Pollutant loadings had 
decreased due to advances in treatment system operations and improved 
wastewater treatment processes. In addition, the study also found that 
many pollution prevention opportunities exist in the areas of increased 
process water recycle and reuse, the cascade of process wastewaters 
from one operation to another, residuals management, and non-discharge 
disposal methods. At the time of the study, many better-performing 
mills were discharging wastewater loadings far below the current 
standards; however, not all of the industry had improved wastewater 
treatment or implemented proactive pollution prevention practices. As a 
result of the study, EPA initiated this rulemaking to reassess the 
effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the Iron and Steel 
Manufacturing Point Source Category. The Preliminary Study can be found 
on line at www.epa.gov/OST/ironsteel/pstudy.html.

C. October 31, 2000 Proposed Regulation

    On October 31, 2000, the EPA Administrator signed proposed 
revisions to technology-based effluent limitations guidelines and 
standards for wastewater discharges from new and existing iron and 
steel facilities. The proposed rule was published in the Federal 
Register on December 27, 2000 (65 FR 81964). EPA proposed to alter the 
applicability and scope of the existing rule by adding electroplating 
operations and by including direct iron reduction, briquetting, and 
forging operations. In addition, EPA proposed excluding from the iron 
and steel guideline in Part 420 some wiring, cold forming, and hot dip 
coating operations. In a proposed rule for the Metal Products and 
Machinery (MP&M) industrial category published on January 3, 2001 (66 
FR 424), EPA proposed to address these operations under Part 438.
    The Agency proposed to revise the subcategorization scheme to 
create seven subcategories of iron and steel facilities based on co-
treatment of compatible waste streams. This would have replaced the 
present structure of 12 subcategories. The proposed subcategorization 
approach would have reflected the way treatment systems are run in the 
iron and steel industry. EPA proposed the following seven 
subcategories:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subcategory                            Segment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart A Cokemaking             By-product.
 Subcategory.
                                 Non-recovery.
Subpart B Ironmaking             Blast Furnace.
 Subcategory.
                                 Sintering.
Subpart C Steelmaking
 Subcategory
Subpart D Integrated and Stand   Carbon and Alloy.
 Alone Hot Forming Mills
 Subcategory.
                                 Stainless.
Subpart E Non-integrated         Carbon and Alloy.
 Steelmaking and Hot Forming
 Operations Subcategory.
                                 Stainless.
Subpart F Steel Finishing        Carbon and Alloy.
 Subcategory.
                                 Stainless.
Subpart G Other Operations.....  Direct-Reduced Ironmaking.
                                 Forging.
                                 Briquetting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For most of the subcategories, except for cokemaking, finishing, 
and the newly added subcategory for other operations, the Agency 
proposed limits based on improved performance and operation of the same 
technologies that were the basis for the limits and standards 
promulgated in 1982 and amended in 1984. Consequently, the proposed 
limitations were more stringent than the limitations promulgated in 
1982. For the cokemaking subcategory, EPA proposed BAT limits based on 
a technology option that was essentially the same as the 1982 
technology basis but included an additional treatment step--alkaline 
chlorination. For finishing, EPA proposed limits based on the 1982 
technology basis with the addition of counter-current rinsing and acid 
purification.
    For many of the proposed subcategories, wastewater flow reduction 
steps, in concert with better performance of the blowdown treatment 
systems, provided the primary basis for the proposal limits and 
standards. The subcategorization scheme and technology bases for the 
proposed limits and standards are summarized below:

                                                Proposed Subcategories, Options, and Technical Components
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Subcategory (segment)                      Regulatory level                          Option proposed                Summary of technical basis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart A. Cokemaking:
    (By-Product Recovery).............  BAT/NSPS................................  BAT-3..................................  Tar removal, equalization,
                                                                                                                            free and fixed ammonia
                                                                                                                            stripping, temperature
                                                                                                                            control, equalization,
                                                                                                                            single-stage biological
                                                                                                                            treatment with
                                                                                                                            nitrification, alkaline
                                                                                                                            chlorination, and sludge
                                                                                                                            dewatering.
                                        PSES/PSNS...............................  PSES-3.................................  Tar removal, equalization,
                                                                                                                            free and fixed ammonia
                                                                                                                            stripping, temperature
                                                                                                                            control, equalization, and
                                                                                                                            single-stage biological
                                                                                                                            treatment with
                                                                                                                            nitrification.

[[Page 64221]]

 
                                        Co-proposed PSES........................  PSES-1.................................  Tar removal, equalization,
                                                                                                                            and free and fixed ammonia
                                                                                                                            stripping.
    (Non-Recovery)....................  BAT/NSPS/PSES/PSNS......................  Zero discharge.........................  No wastewater generated.
Subpart B. Ironmaking:
    (Blast Furnaces and Sintering)....  BAT/NSPS................................  BAT-1..................................  Solids removal, high-rate
                                                                                                                            recycle, metals
                                                                                                                            precipitation, alkaline
                                                                                                                            chlorination, and mixed-
                                                                                                                            media filtration of
                                                                                                                            blowdown, and sludge
                                                                                                                            dewatering.
                                        PSES/PSNS...............................  PSES-1.................................  Solids removal, high-rate
                                                                                                                            recycle and metals
                                                                                                                            precipitation of blowdown
                                                                                                                            and sludge dewatering.
Subpart C. Integrated Steelmaking.....  BAT/NSPS/PSES/PSNS......................  BAT-1..................................  Solids removal, high-rate
                                                                                                                            recycle, metals
                                                                                                                            precipitation of blowdown,
                                                                                                                            cooling towers for process
                                                                                                                            wastewaters from vacuum
                                                                                                                            degassing or continuous
                                                                                                                            casting operations, and
                                                                                                                            sludge dewatering.
Subpart D. Integrated and Stand Alone
 Hot Forming:
    (Carbon & Alloy Steel)............  BAT/NSPS................................  BAT-1..................................  Scale pit with oil skimming,
                                                                                                                            roughing clarifier, cooling
                                                                                                                            tower, high rate recycle,
                                                                                                                            mixed-media filtration of
                                                                                                                            blowdown, and sludge
                                                                                                                            dewatering.
                                        PSES/PSNS...............................  N/A....................................  No proposed modification from
                                                                                                                            existing PSES/PSNS.
    (Stainless Steel).................  BAT/NSPS................................  BAT-1..................................  Scale pit with oil skimming,
                                                                                                                            roughing clarifier, cooling
                                                                                                                            tower, high rate recycle,
                                                                                                                            mixed-media filtration of
                                                                                                                            blowdown, and sludge
                                                                                                                            dewatering.
                                        PSES/PSNS...............................  N/A....................................  No proposed modification from
                                                                                                                            existing PSES/PSNS.
Subpart E. Non-Integrated Steelmaking
 and Hot Forming:
    (Carbon & Alloy Steel)............  BAT.....................................  BAT-1..................................  Solids removal, cooling
                                                                                                                            tower, high rate recycle,
                                                                                                                            mixed-media filtration of
                                                                                                                            blowdown or of recycled
                                                                                                                            flow, and sludge dewatering.
                                        PSES....................................  N/A....................................  No proposed modification from
                                                                                                                            existing PSES.
                                        NSPS/PSNS...............................  Zero discharge.........................  Water re-use, evaporation, or
                                                                                                                            contract hauling.
    (Stainless Steel).................  BAT/PSES................................  BAT-1..................................  Solids removal, cooling
                                                                                                                            tower, high rate recycle,
                                                                                                                            mixed-media filtration of
                                                                                                                            blowdown or of recycled
                                                                                                                            flow, and sludge dewatering.
                                        NSPS/PSNS...............................  Zero discharge.........................  Water re-use, evaporation, or
                                                                                                                            contract hauling.
Subpart F. Steel Finishing:
    (Carbon & Alloy Steel)............  BAT/NSPS/PSNS...........................  BAT-1..................................  Recycle of fume scrubber
                                                                                                                            water, diversion tank, oil
                                                                                                                            removal, hexavalent chrome
                                                                                                                            reduction (where
                                                                                                                            applicable), equalization,
                                                                                                                            metals precipitation,
                                                                                                                            sedimentation, sludge
                                                                                                                            dewatering, and counter-
                                                                                                                            current rinses.
                                        PSES....................................  N/A....................................  No proposed modification from
                                                                                                                            existing PSES.
    (Stainless Steel).................  BAT/NSPS/PSNS...........................  BAT-1..................................  Recycle of fume scrubber
                                                                                                                            water, diversion tank, oil
                                                                                                                            removal, hexavalent chrome
                                                                                                                            reduction (where
                                                                                                                            applicable), equalization,
                                                                                                                            metals precipitation,
                                                                                                                            sedimentation, sludge
                                                                                                                            dewatering, counter-current
                                                                                                                            rinses, and acid
                                                                                                                            purification.
                                        PSES....................................  NA.....................................  No proposed modification from
                                                                                                                            existing PSES.
Subpart G. Other Operations:
    (Direct Reduced Ironmaking).......  BPT/BCT/NSPS............................  BPT-1..................................  Solids removal, clarifier,
                                                                                                                            high-rate recycle,
                                                                                                                            filtration of blowdown, and
                                                                                                                            sludge dewatering.
                                        BAT/PSES/PSNS...........................  Reserved...............................  No new facilities expected.
    (Forging).........................  BPT/BCT/NSPS............................  BPT-1..................................  High rate recycle, and oil/
                                                                                                                            water separator for
                                                                                                                            blowdown.
                                        BAT/PSES/PSNS...........................  Reserved...............................  No new facilities expected.
    (Briquetting).....................  BPT/BCT/BAT/............................

[[Page 64222]]

 
                                        NSPS/ PSES/PSNS.........................  zero discharge.........................  No wastewater generated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed regulation is on line at: www.epa.gov/ost/ironsteel/
notices.html.

D. February 2001 Notice of Data Availability

    On February 14, 2001, EPA published a Notice of Data Availability 
(NODA) at 66 FR 10253. This notice provided additional discussion and 
clarification on some of the issues raised in the proposal. For 
example, the notice discussed EPA's new finding that phenol does not 
pass through POTWs, and indicated that EPA was rethinking its proposal 
to establish a nation-wide limit on ammonia from steel finishing 
operations.
    EPA also noticed changes to certain portions of the proposed 
regulation and accompanying preamble to eliminate inconsistencies. 
Finally, it corrected potentially confusing typographical errors and 
extended the proposal's comment period from February 26, 2001 to March 
26, 2001. The complete details of the February NODA are located on line 
at: www.epa.gov/ost/ironsteel/reg.html.

E. April 4, 2001 Notice

    On April 4, 2001, EPA published a notice (66 FR 17842) reopening 
the comment period to April 25, 2001.

IV. Current Economic Condition of the Industry

    The financial situation of the domestic iron and steel industry 
changed dramatically between 1997 and 2001 due to factors including the 
Asian financial crisis, slow economic growth in Eastern Europe, the 
continued strength of the dollar versus other currencies, a period of 
increased prices for natural gas and electricity, and a sharp drop in 
domestic demand as the U.S. economy slowed. The following analysis of 
economic conditions occurring after the 1995-1997 time frame is based 
upon publicly available sources such as trade journal reports, 
Securities and Exchange Commission filings, and trade case filings with 
the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. International Trade 
Commission.
    The relatively high value of the dollar compared to the currencies 
of many steel exporting nations has led to a sharp increase in import 
penetration in the domestic steel market. The U.S. is, and has been, 
the world's largest steel importer (and a net importer for at least the 
last two decades); indeed, the U.S. was nearly the only viable steel 
market to which other countries such as South Korea, Russia and Ukraine 
could export during 1998. U.S. imports of steel mill products jumped by 
10.4 million tons from 31.1 million tons to 41.5 million ton, a 25 
percent increase, from 1997 to 1998. The previous record level of 
imports had been established in 1997. The high levels of imports 
persisted in 1999 and 2000, with 35.7 million tons and 38.0 million 
tons, respectively. The sustained high level of steel imports has been 
associated with a substantial drop in the market value of steel 
products. The prevailing prices for commodities such as hot rolled 
sheet, cold rolled sheet, and many other products have fallen by 20 to 
40 percent since 1996.
    Substantial increases in energy prices, including natural gas and 
electricity, during the last few years have also affected domestic 
producers. Natural gas is used extensively in reheat and annealing 
furnaces, coke oven underfiring and blast furnace injection, as well as 
in direct reduced iron production. Electricity is necessary throughout 
the steel production process, with electric arc furnaces, of course, 
being particularly dependent on electricity costs and availability. 
Finally, in the last year, the domestic market for steel has declined 
as domestic industrial production in the United States has fallen. 
Industries, such as automotive and major appliances, that use 
significant amounts of steel have been particularly impacted.
    The coke industry is comprised of two types of producers: 
Integrated and merchant. Integrated producers typically supply furnace 
coke for their own blast furnace facilities. Merchant producers may 
produce and sell furnace coke (used in blast furnaces), foundry coke 
(used in foundries to make iron castings) and other industrial coke. 
Both integrated and merchant producers of furnace coke have been 
affected by the trends described regarding iron and steel production. 
Foundry coke producers have been affected by falling automotive 
production, the largest consumer sector for iron castings. Foundry coke 
has also been affected by sharply increasing imports from China.
    As a result of the increased imports, declining demand, and falling 
prices, the financial health of the domestic iron and steel industry 
experienced a precipitous decline after 1997. Based upon publicly 
available sources, at least twenty companies, that could be subject to 
the iron and steel effluent guidelines, have filed for bankruptcy since 
1997. The companies are Bethlehem Steel, LTV Steel, National Steel, 
Republic Technologies, Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel, Geneva Steel, Gulf 
States Steel, Acme Metals, Laclede Steel, Qualitech Steel, Northwestern 
Steel and Wire, Erie Forge and Steel, CSC Ltd., Heartland Steel, GS 
Industries, Trico Steel, Freedom Forge, J&L Structural Steel, Empire 
Specialty Steel and Riverview Steel. In aggregate, these companies 
represent more than a third of domestic steelmaking capacity. Of the 
bankrupt firms, Empire Specialty, Acme Steel, Laclede Steel, Qualitech 
Steel, Gulf States Steel, Northwestern Steel and Wire, CSC Ltd., and 
LTV Steel have ceased steelmaking operations, affecting over 15,000 
employees.
    The industry filed numerous countervailing duty and anti-dumping 
cases over the 1998-2001 period with the U.S. Department of Commerce 
and U.S. International Trade Commission (hereafter ``ITC''), charging 
various countries (for example, Japan, Russia, China, and Brazil) with 
unfair trade practices concerning carbon steel products, stainless 
steel products, and foundry coke. The ITC ruled in favor of the U.S. 
industry in many cases (for example, hot rolled carbon sheet and carbon 
plate), meaning that it determined that the domestic industry was 
materially injured or threatened with material injury by the unfairly 
traded imports.
    More significantly, on June 22, 2001, the Office of the United 
States Trade Representative requested the initiation of an 
investigation by the ITC of certain steel imports under the section 201 
of the Trade Act of 1974. A later request from the Senate Finance 
Committee was consolidated under the same investigation. Investigations 
under this law may be requested when increased imports of a product 
from all countries are alleged to be a substantial cause of serious 
injury, or threat of serious injury, to a U.S. industry. The 
investigation does not require the finding of an unfair trade practice. 
The investigation is composed of two phases, the injury phase and, if 
an

[[Page 64223]]

affirmative injury determination is made, the remedy phase. In the 
remedy phase, the ITC recommends a remedy to the President, who decides 
what relief, if any, will be imposed. The remedy may consist of 
tariffs, quantitative restrictions, orderly marketing agreements, and 
trade adjustment assistance. In addition, the ITC may recommend that 
the President initiate international negotiations to address the 
underlying cause of the increase in imports or that he implement any 
other action authorized under the law that is likely to facilitate 
positive adjustment to import competition.
    On October 22, 2001, the ITC affirmatively determined that 12 
products (or product categories) are being imported into the U.S. in 
such increased quantities that they are a substantial cause of serious 
injury or threat of serious injury to the U.S. industry. On an 
additional four products (or product categories), the ITC was evenly 
divided, meaning these products will continue to be included in the 
investigation. The imported products covered by the investigation 
accounted in year 2000 for 27 million tons of steel valued at $10.7 
billion. The products include carbon steel slabs, plate, hot rolled 
sheet, cold rolled sheet, coated sheet, tin mill products, hot rolled 
bar and light structural shapes, cold finished bar, rebar, welded tube, 
stainless bar, stainless rod, tool steel, and stainless wire.
    The next phase of the investigation is the remedy phase. The ITC 
voted on a remedy recommendation on December 7, 2001, and forwarded its 
findings and remedy recommendations to the President on December 20, 
2001. The ITC recommended a four-year program of tariffs and tariff-
rate quotas, with additional ad valorem duties of up to 20 percent in 
the first year and declining thereafter.
    The President announced his decision on March 5, 2002, to impose 
temporary safeguards on key steel products to provide relief to those 
parts of the U.S. steel industry that have been most damaged by import 
surges. The level of relief varies by product with tariffs of 30 
percent imposed on imports of plate, hot-rolled sheet, cold-rolled 
sheet, coated sheet, tin mill products, hot-rolled bar, and cold-
finished bar and tariffs of 15 percent imposed on imports of rebar, 
stainless steel bar, and stainless steel rod. Imports of slab are 
subject to tariff rate quotas. Tariff rate quotas are two-part tariffs, 
with imports up to the quota subject to a lower duty and imports above 
the quota level subject to a higher duty. In the case of slab, the in-
quota volume is set at 5.4 million tons and the out-of-quota (i.e., 
above the quota level) tariff of 30 percent. The level of relief 
described reflects the initial safeguard measures, with periodic 
reductions throughout the three year duration of the measures. Canada 
and Mexico were excluded from the quota and tariff measures on all 
products. Developing countries that export only small quantities of 
steel to the U.S. were also excluded from the quota and tariff 
measures.

V. Summary of Significant Decisions

A. Decisions Regarding the Content of the Regulations

1. New or Revised Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
    EPA has decided to revise effluent limitations guidelines and 
standards only for current Subpart A (cokemaking), Subpart B 
(sintering), Subpart C (ironmaking), and Subpart D (steelmaking), and 
to promulgate new effluent limitations guidelines and standards for new 
Subpart M (other operations). Also, as a result of EPA's technical and 
economic review, EPA is promulgating revised BAT limitations, NSPS and 
pretreatment standards for the cokemaking by-product recovery segment 
based on technologies that are different than those proposed. 
Specifically, EPA is promulgating effluent limits based primarily on 
ammonia still and biological treatment with nitrification for direct 
dischargers and pretreatment standards based primarily on ammonia still 
treatment for indirect dischargers. At proposal, EPA had designated the 
technology option as BAT-1, NSPS-1, PSES-1 and PSNS-1. Section VIII.A 
explains why the Agency is promulgating limitations and standards based 
on different model technologies than EPA proposed for the cokemaking 
subcategory.
    For the sintering subcategory, EPA is revising the current 
regulation to add limitations and standards for one additional 
pollutant, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF), while keeping the 
rest of the limits unchanged. The technology basis for new TCDF 
limitations and standards for the sintering subcategory remains 
unchanged from the proposal and is the same as the technology basis for 
the 1982 regulations except for the addition of mixed-media filtration. 
EPA is also establishing limitations of no discharge of process 
wastewater pollutants for new and existing direct dischargers and new 
and existing indirect dischargers for sintering operations with dry air 
pollution control systems.
    As described in Section V.A.8, ammonia-N pretreatment standards do 
not apply to cokemaking, ironmaking, and sintering facilities 
discharging to POTWs with nitrification capability.
    For the steelmaking subcategory, EPA is revising BPT, BCT, BAT, and 
PSES limitations for the semi-wet basic oxygen furnace (BOF) operations 
to allow discharge of process wastewater, when merited by safety 
considerations. As explained in the 2001 Notice of Data Availability 
(NODA) at 66 FR 10253, EPA is allowing discharge of process wastewater 
because certain safety concerns currently preclude some sites from 
balancing the water applied for BOF gas conditioning with evaporative 
losses to achieve zero discharge. Also in the steelmaking subcategory, 
for the semi-wet EAF operations, EPA is establishing limitations of no 
discharge of process wastewater pollutants for new direct dischargers 
and existing and new indirect dischargers, making these limitations 
equivalent to the previously promulgated BPT, BCT, and BAT limitations 
applicable to semi-wet electric arc furnace (EAF) operations. EPA 
received no comments on this proposed change, and identified none of 
the safety or production concerns discussed for semi-wet BOF 
operations.
    The technology bases for the effluent limitations guidelines and 
standards for direct reduced iron segment and the briquetting segment 
of the new subpart M (other operations) are unchanged from proposal. In 
the case of the forging segment of the new subpart M, the technology 
basis at proposal was incorrectly described as high rate recycle and 
oil/water separation. The technology basis should have been described 
as high rate recycle, oil/water separation, and mixed-media filtration. 
Section VIII discusses the technology bases for each of these 
subcategories in more detail.
2. Subcategorization Structure
    In 2000, EPA proposed a subcategorization structure that was 
significantly different from the structure in the 1982 iron and steel 
rule (see 65 FR 81974-81975). Unlike the 1982 rule, EPA proposed to 
consolidate operations such as salt bath descaling, acid pickling, and 
other finishing operations into a single ``Finishing Subcategory.'' 
Similarly, the Agency proposed to consolidate sintering and ironmaking 
into a single ``Ironmaking Subcategory.'' The following table presents 
a comparison of the 1982 subcategorization scheme and the one EPA 
proposed in 2000:

[[Page 64224]]



      Table V.A.1.--Subcategory Comparison of 1982 and the Proposed
                               Regulations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subcategories promulgated in        Subcategories proposed in 2000
            1982
-----------------------------
A. Cokemaking...............  A. Cokemaking.......
B. Sintering................  B. Ironmaking.......
C. Ironmaking
D. Steelmaking..............  C. Integrated         D. Non-Integrated
                               Steelmaking.          Steelmaking and Hot
                                                     Forming.
E. Vacuum Degassing
F. Continuous Casting
G. Hot Forming..............  E. Integrated and     D. Non-Integrated
                               Stand Alone Hot       Steelmaking and Hot
                               Forming.              Forming.
H. Salt Bath Descaling......  F. Steel Finishing..
I. Acid Pickling
J. Cold Forming
K. Alkaline Cleaning
L. Hot Coating
                              G. Other Operations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency proposed a new subcategorization scheme to reflect not 
only the modern state of the industry, in terms of both process and 
wastewater management, but also the experience that the Agency and 
other regulatory entities have gained from implementing the 1982 iron 
and steel effluent limitations guidelines and standards. EPA also 
expected that the revised subcategorization scheme would simplify the 
regulatory structure and reflect co-treatment of compatible 
wastewaters, which is currently practiced by the industry. As a result, 
many of the proposed subcategories would have included various 
operations that are regulated under different segments or subcategories 
in the 1982 rule. EPA also proposed a number of specialized definitions 
to support the subcategorization scheme.
    In addition to the subcategory structure, EPA proposed segmentation 
changes in the proposed cokemaking, integrated and stand alone hot 
forming, non-integrated and stand alone hot forming, finishing, and the 
integrated steelmaking subcategories. First, EPA proposed to combine 
two 1982 segments in the cokemaking subcategory, ``Iron and Steel'' and 
``Merchant,'' into a single ``By-Product Recovery'' segment because 
differences in wastewater flow rates observed in the 1982 rulemaking 
are no longer apparent within the current population of by-product coke 
plants. In addition to combining all by-product cokemaking operations 
into one segment, the Agency also proposed a new ``Non-Recovery'' 
segment to accommodate the two non-recovery coke plants. Second, for 
the proposed integrated steelmaking and hot forming subcategory, the 
non-integrated steelmaking and hot forming subcategory, and the steel 
finishing subcategory, EPA proposed segmenting based on whether 
facilities primarily make stainless or carbon/alloy steels. Finally, 
EPA also proposed to eliminate from the rule references to the 
following obsolete operations: beehive cokemaking in the cokemaking 
subcategory, ferromanganese blast furnaces in the ironmaking 
subcategory, and open hearth furnace operations in the steelmaking 
subcategory.
    While EPA did not receive any comments specific to the proposed 
subcategorization scheme, the Agency did receive a number of comments 
on the change in segmentation for the cokemaking subcategory. The 
commenters opposed EPA's proposal to drop the segmentation on the basis 
of ``iron and steel'' and ``merchant'' coke plants; however, the 
commenters agreed with EPA's assessment that production process and 
wastewaters from merchant coke plants are similar to those from the 
integrated ``iron and steel'' facilities. The Agency also evaluated 
potential economic differences between ``merchant'' and ``iron and 
steel'' facilities, but did not find substantial differences in 
profitability or other factors which might affect economic 
acheivability, although some difference in facility size was observed. 
Some commenters also expressed confusion regarding the segmentation of 
stainless and carbon/alloy steels. No comments were received on 
eliminating provisions for beehive cokemaking, ferromanganese blast 
furnaces, or open hearth furnace operations.
    As explained in Section V.B, based on comments, the Agency re-
evaluated the economic conditions and technology bases of the proposed 
rule. The Agency decided to promulgate new or revised limits for only 
five subcategories: cokemaking, sintering, ironmaking, steelmaking, and 
other operations. Due to the small number of subcategories affected by 
today's rule, the Agency has decided to retain the 1982 subcategory 
structure with the addition of an ``other operations'' subcategory. As 
a result, the final rule covers the following 13 subcategories:

Subcategory A: Cokemaking (includes by-product and non-recovery 
operations)
Subcategory B: Sintering,
Subcategory C: Ironmaking,
Subcategory D: Steelmaking (includes basic oxygen furnace and electric 
arc furnace operations)
Subcategory E: Vacuum degassing,
Subcategory F: Continuous casting,
Subcategory G: Hot forming,
Subcategory H: Salt bath descaling,
Subcategory I: Acid pickling,
Subcategory J: Cold forming,
Subcategory K: Alkaline cleaning,
Subcategory L: Hot coating, and
Subcategory M: Other operations (includes forging, direct-reduced 
ironmaking, and briquetting).
    For the cokemaking subcategory, today's rule combines the ``Iron 
and Steel'' and ``Merchant'' segments into a newly-created ``By-
product'' cokemaking segment for most regulatory purposes, although EPA 
is retaining the ``Iron and Steel'' and ``Merchant'' segments for 
purposes of reflecting the existing BPT limitations. EPA concluded that 
this was appropriate because the production processes, wastewater 
characteristics, and wastewater flow rates from all by-product recovery 
cokemaking operations, including merchant facilities, are similar.
    EPA is also eliminating the segment in BAT for by-product coke 
plants with physical chemical treatment systems. EPA has determined 
that technology basis for BAT limitations promulgated in today's rule 
are technically and economically achievable for all direct discharging 
by-product coke plants.
    EPA is also creating a new cokemaking segment for non-recovery

[[Page 64225]]

operations and a new sintering segment for dry air pollution control 
systems for the reasons stated in the proposal. Because the promulgated 
rule makes no change to the hot forming, vacuum degassing, casting, or 
various finishing operations, the segmentation for these operations in 
the 1982 rule remains applicable. Finally, in today's rule, EPA is 
eliminating segments for the following obsolete operations: beehive 
cokemaking, ferromanganese blast furnaces, and open hearth furnaces.
3. Phenol Pass-Through Analysis for Cokemaking
    Generally, EPA establishes pretreatment standards for pollutants 
regulated under BAT that pass through POTWs to waters of the U.S. or 
interfere with POTW operations or sludge disposal practices. In 
conducting its pass-through analysis, the Agency generally compares the 
median percentage of a pollutant removed by well-operated POTWs 
performing secondary treatment to the median percentage of a pollutant 
removed by BAT treatment. When the median percentage removed nationwide 
by well-operated POTWs is less than the median percentage removed by 
direct dischargers complying with the BAT effluent limits, EPA 
typically determines that the pollutant passes through.
    The February 14, 2001 iron and steel notice explained that EPA 
planned to use an alternate procedure to determine whether or not the 
BAT pollutant phenol would pass through for wastewater from cokemaking 
operations. See 66 FR 10257. This notice explained that EPA planned to 
determine pass-through for phenol for the cokemaking subcategory using 
a methodology previously developed for phenol in the Organic Chemicals, 
Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) guideline. Under this 
methodology, EPA determined in the OCPSF rule that phenol did not pass 
through because phenol is highly biodegradable and is treated by POTWs 
to the same non-detect levels (10 parts per billion (ppb) or 10 [mu]g/
L) that the OCPSF direct dischargers achieve. Additionally, like the 
OCPSF direct dischargers, the cokemaking direct dischargers receive 
significantly higher influent phenol concentrations than the POTWs, 
with the result that the direct dischargers showed higher removals than 
the performance at the POTWs. Therefore, EPA reasoned that application 
of the traditional approach to these facts would reflect the 
significant differences in influent concentrations rather than a real 
difference in the POTWs' ability to treat phenols. As a result, EPA 
selected this alternate methodology because the traditional pass-
through methodology failed to account for special circumstances 
presented by phenol in cokemaking wastewater.
    The notice explained that, using this alternate methodology, phenol 
did not pass through in connection with cokemaking operations. The 
notice further explained that a supplemental analysis using more recent 
data from a well-operated POTW performing secondary treatment on 
process cokemaking wastewater supports this determination.
    EPA did not receive any comments on the alternate methodology and 
continues to believe that this alternate methodology is appropriate for 
determining pass through for phenolic compounds for cokemaking 
operations. Consequently, for this final rule, EPA has determined, with 
respect to by-product cokemaking, that phenolic compounds do not pass 
through. Accordingly, EPA has not established any pretreatment 
standards for phenols (4AAP) for that segment.
4. Regulation of Phenols (4AAP)
    EPA regulated the non-conventional bulk parameter phenol (measured 
as 4 amino-antipyrene (4AAP)) in 1982 for cokemaking, sintering, and 
blast furnace ironmaking. In 2000, EPA proposed regulation of the 
compound phenol (as measured with a gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer 
(GC-MS)) instead of the bulk parameter phenols (4AAP), because, in 
general, it believes that, in effluent limitations guidelines, 
targeting specific pollutants is often more appropriate than regulating 
a parameter that measures a variety of pollutants. For reasons 
presented in comments, EPA has decided to continue to regulate phenol 
(measured as 4AAP) and is not making the change as proposed.
    EPA received one comment supporting the proposed approach on the 
grounds that it would give a much more reliable measure of the actual 
amount of phenol in the discharge. However, several other commenters 
disagreed with EPA's proposal. These comments raised three principal 
objections. First, they expressed concern that changing the regulated 
parameter from 4AAP to phenol would increase costs for both sampling 
and analyses, with no environmental benefit. Based on a survey of three 
labs and assuming two sample events per week, costs at one location 
would likely increase by over $25,000 per year. Second, the comments 
asserted that the proposed changes could present unintended adverse 
environmental effects. One commenter reported that its facility runs 
several operational samples for phenols (4AAP) as part of the daily 
routine, which allows it to identify and respond to potential upset 
conditions. The time required to run the GC-MS analytical method for 
phenol and the instrumentation required, the commenter said, would 
discourage onsite monitoring for wastewater treatment process control 
purposes. Finally, commenters noted that, because phenol is a priority 
pollutant, it is not eligible for CWA Section 301(g) waivers. These 
waivers allow facilities to request a variance from effluent 
limitations for nonconventional bulk pollutants such as phenols (4AAP) 
based upon cost and economic impact considerations, provided that the 
facilities comply with all local water quality-based effluent 
limitations. See Section XIII.C for more information regarding 301(g) 
waivers. Commenters stated that by regulating phenol instead of the 
bulk parameter phenols (4AAP), EPA would eliminate the option of 
obtaining such a waiver. Commenters further stated that because many 
iron and steel facilities are currently regulated under a 301(g) waiver 
for phenols (4AAP), this would substantially increase the costs of the 
proposed rule, and that EPA did not account for these costs at the time 
of its proposal.
    EPA reviewed its record on this issue. The data show that there are 
two primary phenolic compounds present in iron and steel wastewater: 
phenol, and 2,4-dimethylphenol. Furthermore, the data show that by 
controlling the bulk parameter phenols (4AAP), both of these compounds 
are effectively controlled. Therefore, while EPA agrees with the 
comment that regulating phenol would provide a more reliable measure of 
the actual amount of phenol, EPA does not believe that this degree of 
precision is necessary in view of the other considerations identified 
in comments. EPA agrees that compliance monitoring costs are greater 
for phenol than for the bulk parameter phenols (4AAP), and EPA does not 
want to discourage routine monitoring that allows a mill to identify 
and respond quickly to potential upset conditions. Also, in light of 
the current financial conditions of the industry, EPA wants to ensure 
that iron and steel facilities continue to have the option of the 
301(g) waiver. EPA has been unable to find anything in its database to 
suggest that regulating the bulk parameter phenols (4AAP) instead of 
the compound phenol would negatively impact the environment. 
Consequently, after careful review of comments received and its 
database,

[[Page 64226]]

EPA had concluded that it is appropriate to continue to regulate the 
bulk parameter phenols (4AAP) rather than phenol.
5. Retention of the Central Treatment Provision
    Under the applicability Section of the 1982 iron and steel 
regulation, 40 CFR 420.01(b), EPA identified 21 plants that were 
temporarily excluded from the provisions of Part 420 because of 
economic considerations. This exclusion would not be granted unless the 
owner or operator of the facility requested the Agency to consider 
establishing alternative effluent limitations and provided the Agency 
with certain information consistent with 40 CFR 420.01(b)(2) on or 
before July 26, 1982. See 47 FR 23285 (May 27, 1982). At the time of 
the 2000 proposal, EPA believed that none of the facilities currently 
had permits based on the central treatment provision and proposed to 
remove it from Part 420.
    The Agency did not receive any comments supporting the removal of 
the central treatment provision. Rather, commenters asked EPA to expand 
the provision. Commenters requested this expansion because they were 
concerned that the costs of the proposed rule would be too high if the 
limits and standards were made more stringent. Commenters stated that 
economic conditions were similar to those in 1982 and that the central 
treatment provision should remain a viable compliance option in Part 
420.
    EPA disagrees with commenters that it should expand the central 
treatment provision. Because of the prevailing economic situation in 
the iron and steel industry, technological reasons in some 
subcategories, and performance issues in others, EPA has decided to go 
forward with new or revised regulations for only five subcategories 
(cokemaking, sintering, ironmaking, steelmaking, and a subcategory for 
other operations). The five subcategories affected by the final rule 
have minimal impact on the 21 eligible mills. With the substantially 
reduced projected economic burden on the industry, the Agency does not 
believe that expanding Sec.  420.01(b)(2) is necessary.
    EPA also reviewed its database in determining whether it should 
remove the central treatment provision as proposed. EPA confirmed that 
very few of the twenty-one facilities applied for the central treatment 
waiver provision. However, contrary to its belief at the time of the 
proposal, EPA found that, of those that did apply, at least one mill 
currently has a permit based on the central treatment provision for one 
parameter (zinc). Because EPA has decided to leave the ironmaking 
subcategory unchanged from the 1982 regulation, this facility is likely 
to continue to need the central waste treatment provision available in 
Sec.  420.01(b). This particular company is projected to need to spend 
at least two times the model costs to come into compliance with the 
current Part 420 requirements for this one parameter, and would likely 
remain eligible for the central treatment waiver provision. One 
additional facility may also have a current permit based on the central 
treatment provision.
    Based upon EPA's review, today's final rule leaves the central 
treatment provision (Sec.  420.01(b)(2)) unchanged from the 1982 
regulation. This allows any mill whose permit is based on this 
provision to continue to use it, but does not extend the provision to 
any additional mills.
6. Production Basis for Calculating Permit Limits
    The limitations and standards promulgated today are expressed in 
terms of mass (e.g., lbs/day or kg/day). This means that NPDES permit 
limitations derived from today's rule similarly must be expressed in 
terms of mass. See 40 CFR 122.45(f). These requirements are for direct 
discharging facilities. Similar requirements exist for indirect 
discharging facilities and are found in 40 CFR 403.6(c)(3). In order to 
convert effluent limitations guidelines and standards expressed as 
pounds/thousand pounds to a monthly average or daily maximum permit 
limit, the permitting authority would use a production rate with units 
of thousand pounds/day. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 420.04, 
122.45(b)(2), and 403.6(c)(3) require that NPDES permit and 
pretreatment limits be based on a ``reasonable measure of actual 
production,'' but do not define the term. In its 2000 proposal, EPA 
solicited comment on whether to codify a definition of that term in 
part 420 for the iron and steel category. After considering the 
comments and reviewing the rulemaking record, EPA has decided not to 
codify a definition of ``reasonable measure of actual production.''
a. Background
    As explained above, the current iron and steel regulation does not 
define what constitutes a ``reasonable measure of actual production,'' 
although it offers the following examples: ``production during the high 
month of the previous year, or the monthly average for the highest of 
the previous five years.'' See 40 CFR 420.04.
    EPA believes that some NPDES permitting and pretreatment control 
authorities have identified production rates that do not reflect a 
``reasonable measure of actual production'' specified at 
122.45(b)(2)(I), 403.6(c)(3), and 420.04. In some cases, maximum 
production rates for similar process units discharging to one treatment 
system were determined from different years or months, which may 
provide an unrealistically high measure of actual production. In EPA's 
view, this would occur if the different process units could not 
reasonably produce at these high rates simultaneously.
    In addition, industry stakeholders have also noted that permitting 
and pretreatment control authorities interpret the reasonable measure 
of actual production inconsistently. Accordingly, iron and steel 
industry stakeholders requested that EPA publish a consistent policy on 
how to implement this requirement. Industry stakeholders have indicated 
that (1) in order to promote consistency, EPA should codify the method 
used to determine appropriate production rates for calculating 
allowable mass loadings, so that the permit writers can all use the 
same basis; and (2) EPA should use a high production basis, such as 
maximum monthly production over the previous five year period or 
maximum design production, in order to ensure that a facility will not 
be out of compliance during periods of high production.
b. 2000 Proposal
    Because the ``reasonable measure of actual production'' concept is 
inconsistently applied, EPA proposed in 2000 to include in its final 
iron and steel rulemaking specific direction on making this 
determination. EPA solicited comment on four alternative approaches to 
implement the ``reasonable measure of actual production.'' See 65 FR at 
82029-82031. Each alternative excluded, from the calculation of 
operating rates, production from unit operations that do not generate 
or discharge process wastewater. EPA proposed the following four 
alternative definitions of reasonable measure of actual production: (a) 
include production only from units that can operate simultaneously; (b) 
apply multi-tiered permit limits with different limits for different 
rates of production as defined in Chapter 5 of U.S. EPA NPDES Permit 
Writers Manual, EPA 833-B-96-003; (c) use the average daily production 
from the highest production year during the previous five years; and

[[Page 64227]]

(d) use one of the methods for monthly average limits but use 
concentration limits for daily maximum limits.
    Each alternative had its supporters and detractors in comments. 
Several commenters preferred alternative A, but incorrectly described 
the alternative as the high month of production over the past five 
years. No commenters provided data that showed they would be unable to 
meet the proposed limits and standards under any of the four 
alternatives.
c. Final Rule
    At this time, EPA has decided not to revise section 420.04 in any 
respect. EPA has also decided not to codify a definition for the term 
``reasonable measure of actual production'' applicable to part 420. The 
Agency has thoroughly evaluated all comments supporting other 
interpretations and is not convinced that departing from past practices 
is justified here. Consequently, EPA concludes that continuing to allow 
flexibility to permitting and pretreatment control authorities to apply 
site-specific factors in determining a reasonable measure of production 
is appropriate.
7. Applicability of Part 420 to Electroplating and Certain Finishing 
Operations
    At the time of the proposed rulemaking, the Agency determined that 
certain facilities subject to the 1982 iron and steel rule operated 
processes that more closely resemble those in facilities to be covered 
by the Metal Products and Machinery (MP&M) rule than those found in 
iron and steel facilities. So that these facilities might be addressed 
under a regulation that best fits them, EPA proposed to move these 
types of facilities into the MP&M category, which would be regulated 
under the part 438 effluent limitations guidelines and standards, when 
finalized. Specifically, EPA proposed to move the following operations 
from iron and steel to MP&M: surface finishing or cold forming of steel 
bar, rod, wire, pipe or tube; batch electroplating on steel; continuous 
electroplating or hot dip coating of long steel products (e.g.wire, 
rod, bar); batch hot dip coating of steel; and steel wire drawing. 
These operations produce finished products such as bars, wire, pipe and 
tubes, nails, chain link fencing, and steel rope.
    EPA received several comments regarding the proposed transfer. The 
commenters did not support such transfer for two main reasons. First, 
the stand alone wire companies commented that they would be at a 
competitive disadvantage because they believe certain non-integrated 
facilities that also produce and sell wire and wire products would 
continue to be regulated under part 420 alone. EPA disagrees with the 
commenters on this issue because, like stand alone wire facilities, the 
wire operations of the non-integrated steelmaking facilities would be 
subject to the MP&M category, as regulated under the part 438 effluent 
limitations guidelines and standards. EPA expects that the discharge 
permits for these non-integrated facilities would be based on a 
combined waste stream formula approach.
    Additionally, the commenters also claimed that the transferred 
operations are similar to various operations in the proposed iron and 
steel finishing subcategory. Furthermore, the commenters also felt that 
EPA has not demonstrated any significant differences in the wastewater 
characteristics between the proposed to be transferred operations and 
the proposed iron and steel finishing operations. Since proposal, EPA 
revisited the record of the iron and steel finishing operations (all 
operations with available influent data) and compared the associated 
wastewater characteristics to those from the wire facilities that were 
sampled under the MP&M rulemaking effort. EPA confirmed that the 
wastewater characteristics from the operations EPA proposed to transfer 
indeed resemble more closely those from the MP&M operations than those 
from the iron and steel finishing operations. For instance, the average 
lead and zinc concentrations from the wire facilities are one to three 
orders of magnitude higher than those from the iron and steel finishing 
facilities. On the other hand, the concentrations for these pollutants 
are within the range of pollutant concentrations found in similar MP&M 
operations.
    Furthermore, most of the unit operations present in the facilities 
EPA proposed to transfer are the same as those found in the MP&M 
facilities, while only around 30% of these operations are found in the 
iron and steel finishing facilities. Lastly, EPA performed a comparison 
of flow rates between the facilities EPA proposed to transfer and the 
proposed finishing subcategory. The average flow rate from the proposed 
finishing subcategory is approximately half billion gallons per year, 
while the average flow rate from the facilities EPA proposed to 
transfer is less than 30 million gallons per year. EPA also notes that 
the average flow rate from the general metals subcategory of the MP&M 
rule is of the same order of magnitude as that from the facilities EPA 
proposed to transfer. As a result of the above evaluations, EPA 
preliminarily concluded that the operations EPA proposed to transfer 
are more appropriately regulated in part 438, the MP&M effluent 
limitations guidelines and standards.
    EPA also proposed moving certain electroplating operations 
currently subject to the Metal Finishing Part 433 effluent limitations 
guidelines and standards into the revised part 420. Commenters strongly 
opposed the incorporation of the continuous electroplating of flat 
steel products (e.g., sheet, strip, plate) into part 420, indicating 
the preference for electroplating operations of all types to be 
considered as a whole (e.g., under the part 433 regulations or 
eventually the MP&M regulations). For the reasons stated in the 
comments, EPA agrees. Therefore, EPA is not including wastewater 
discharges from continuous electroplating of flat steel products in 
part 420.
    For the reasons set forth above, EPA believes that the following 
operations would be most appropriately regulated as MP&M facilities: 
surface finishing or cold forming of steel bar, rod, wire, pipe or 
tube; batch electroplating on steel; continuous electroplating or hot 
dip coating of long steel products (e.g.wire, rod, bar); batch hot dip 
coating of steel; and steel wire drawing. However, EPA will not decide 
whether to establish an MP&M category in part 438 until December 2002. 
Therefore, it would be premature in today's final rule to change the 
applicability of the existing iron and steel rule to exclude the 
operations and EPA has not done so. If EPA finalizes limitations and 
standards for subcategories of the MP&M regulation (which would 
encompass these operations), EPA will also amend the applicability 
section of the iron and steel rulemaking to reflect this change. Until 
then, these operations continue to be regulated under part 420, 
respectively.
8. Ammonia-N Standard Waiver for Indirect Discharging Cokemaking, 
Ironmaking, and Sintering Operations
    In today's final rule, EPA is setting or retaining pretreatment 
standards for ammonia for the cokemaking and sintering subcategories 
because of the high loads of ammonia in wastewaters from those 
subcategories to POTWs that do not have nitrification capability. 
However, EPA is aware that some POTWs treating iron and steel 
wastewaters from these subcategories have nitrification capability. 
Consequently, in 2000, EPA proposed to waive the ammonia-N pretreatment 
standard for the ironmaking (including

[[Page 64228]]

sintering) subcategory if the receiving POTW's operations included 
effective operation of a nitrification system.
    EPA received several compelling comments supporting this proposal, 
and encouraging EPA to extend this mechanism to the cokemaking 
subcategory also. No commenters opposed this mechanism.
    Upon a final review of its record, EPA continues to believe this 
waiver is appropriate and agrees with commenters that it should apply 
to the cokemaking, sintering, and ironmaking subcategories. EPA 
concludes this waiver will be equally protective of the environment and 
lead to potential cost savings for some iron and steel facilities. 
Thus, ammonia-N pretreatment standards do not apply to cokemaking, 
ironmaking, and sintering facilities discharging to POTWs with 
nitrification capability. As a further point of clarification, EPA is 
defining nitrification capability as described in the following 
paragraph.
    POTWs with nitrification capability oxidize ammonium salts to 
nitrites (via Nitrosomas bacteria) and then further oxidize nitrites to 
nitrates via Nitrobacter bacteria to achieve greater removals of 
ammonia than POTWs without nitrification. Nitrification can be 
accomplished in either a single or two-stage activated sludge system. 
In addition, POTWs that have wetlands which are developed and 
maintained for the express purpose of removing ammonia with a marsh/
pond configuration are also examples of having nitrification 
capability. Indicators of nitrification capability are: (1) biological 
monitoring for ammonia oxidizing bacteria (AOB) and nitrite oxidizing 
bacteria (NOB) to determine if the nitrification is occurring, and (2) 
analysis of the nitrogen balance to determine if nitrifying bacteria 
reduce the amount of ammonia and increase the amount of nitrite and 
nitrate.
9. Nitrates in Acid Pickling Wastewater
    In today's final rule, EPA is not establishing nitrate limits for 
acid pickling operations. The model BAT technology for stainless steel 
finishing operations includes acid purification units for recovery and 
reuse of spent nitric and nitric/hydrofluoric acid pickling solutions. 
This technology comprises removal of dissolved metals (e.g., iron, 
chromium, nickel) from a side stream of the strong acid pickling 
solution and return of the purified acid to the acid pickling bath. 
This essentially extends the life of the pickling acids, thereby 
reducing the consumption of virgin nitric acid. A reject stream 
containing dilute acid and the dissolved metals is periodically sent to 
wastewater treatment.
    Commenters provided information to the Agency on the efficiency and 
performance of acid purification technology, which indicated EPA had 
substantially overestimated the capability of acid purification units 
in the proposed rule. No information on potential alternative pollution 
control equipment was provided in response to the solicitation for cost 
and performance data. The Agency was also unable to acquire sufficient 
information on alterative pollution control technologies to provide a 
best available technology basis for the effluent limitations guidelines 
and standards.
    EPA is aware of a potential problem associated with nitrate 
discharge from one stainless steel finishing operation with combination 
(hydrofluoric and nitric) acid pickling. It may be that similar 
problems are associated with discharges coming from similar operations 
in other parts of the country. Nitrates, when consumed in drinking 
water, can be associated with health problems in humans, particularly 
infants. EPA expects this problem to be addressed through BAT 
limitations established on a site-specific best professional judgment 
basis or through water quality-based effluent limitations. For further 
discussion of the possible technological alternatives for nitrate 
control in site-specific circumstances, please see Chapter 8 of the 
TDD.

B. Decisions Regarding Methodology

1. Economic Analysis Methodology
    This section presents several important adjustments made to the 
methodology since proposal. A more detailed discussion of EPA's 
methodology for analyzing the economic achievability of the candidate 
BAT options is presented in Section X.C of this preamble and in the EA.
    In response to the challenges represented by the significant 
industry downturn described in Section IV, EPA made two revisions to 
the economic analysis methodology it employed at proposal. In the case 
of forecasting future industry cash flows, the Agency added two 
additional forecast methods to the three used in the proposal. Two of 
the models used at proposal explicitly address the sharp downturn in 
the industry after 1997 but differ in reflecting the strength and 
duration of recovery and subsequent downturns. That is, both address 
the cyclicality seen in the iron and steel industry, but with differing 
magnitudes and timing. The third forecasting method used at proposal is 
a three-year average (1995 to 1997) to provide an upper-bound analysis. 
For this final rule, EPA employed two additional forecast methods to 
reflect to the maximum extent possible the effect of the industry 
downturn. The fourth forecasting method is a six-year average covering 
1995 to 2000, with the years 1998 through 2000 scaled by industry level 
performance. The fifth forecasting method uses only the year 2000 as a 
lower-bound analysis.
    The second revision to the economic methodology since proposal is 
modification of the scoring test to evaluate potential economic 
impacts. EPA calculates the baseline status of a site as the present 
value of forecasted earnings. With five forecasting methods, there are 
five ways to evaluate each site. If, using a particular forecast 
method, a site's baseline status is negative (negative present value of 
forecasted earnings), EPA assigned a score of ``1'' for that 
forecasting method. A single site, then, may have a score ranging from 
zero to five (with five indicating negative present value of forecasted 
earnings under all five forecasts). Similar to the methodology at 
proposal, EPA considers any sites with negative present value of 
forecasted earnings in the majority of cases (in this case, a score of 
``3'' or higher) to be a baseline closure.
    Then for all sites considered viable in the baseline, EPA 
calculates the post-regulatory status of a site as the present value of 
forecasted earnings minus the after-tax present value of regulatory 
costs. With five forecasting methods, there are five ways to evaluate 
each site. If, using a particular forecast method, a site's post-
regulatory status is negative (after-tax present value of regulatory 
costs exceeds present value of forecasted earnings), EPA assigned a 
score of ``1'' for that forecasting method. A single site, then, may 
have a score ranging from zero to five (with five indicating that the 
after-tax present value of regulatory costs exceeds present value of 
forecasted earnings under all five forecasts). In an effort to reflect 
the significant industry downturn, the Agency has chosen to reflect any 
incremental change in the score from the baseline condition to the 
post-regulatory condition due to regulatory compliance costs as a 
potential closure.
    One additional item of note was incorporated into the economic 
analysis of the rule since proposal. Two proposed rules being 
undertaken by the Agency's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 
may impact iron and steel facilities potentially subject to the current 
rule: Coke Ovens: Pushing,

[[Page 64229]]

Quenching & Battery Stacks (66 FR 35325) and Integrated Iron and Steel 
(66 FR 36835). As a result, the final economic analysis incorporates in 
the economic condition of each potentially affected facility and firm 
the potential regulatory costs projected for the aforementioned 
proposed rules. This approach is consistent with existing Agency and 
OMB guidance on conducting economic analysis. Further, the other 
potential rulemakings represent expenditures which are projected to 
occur during the analytical and compliance time horizon and the costs 
must be reflected to insure the Agency does not underestimate adverse 
economic impacts.
2. Selection of Facilities With Model Treatment and Evaluation of 
Available Data Sets in Establishing Long Term Averages
    EPA uses long term averages (LTAs), which represent the pollutant 
concentrations achievable, and production normalized flows (PNFs), 
which reflect volumes of wastewater generated, by model facilities in 
order to calculate the effluent limitations guidelines and standards in 
today's rule. See the TDD for more details. EPA received a number of 
comments on the ability of existing facilities to achieve both the LTAs 
and the PNFs. This section explains the procedure EPA used to select 
the BAT facilities upon which it based its LTAs and its updated data 
editing procedures for LTA and variability calculations. For a 
discussion of PNFs, see Section V.B.3 and Chapter 13 of the TDD.
    First, EPA evaluated each data set to determine what technology or 
series of technologies the data represented. In this manner, EPA 
eliminated many data sets because they did not represent a technology 
basis considered during development of this rule. In a few instances, 
EPA included data from facilities that employ technologies in addition 
to the technology bases being considered. In these cases, EPA had data 
from intermediate sampling points representing the model technologies; 
in other words, the data EPA employed reflect only the application of 
technologies under consideration. Next, EPA reviewed the remaining data 
sets to ensure that each facility was effectively operating its 
technologies. For example, EPA eliminated facilities that experienced 
repeated operating problems with their treatment systems or have 
discharge points located after addition of significant amounts (i.e., 
greater than 10 percent by volume) of non-process water.
    For the data sets that remained, EPA performed a detailed review of 
the data and all supporting documentation accompanying the data. This 
includes both EPA sampling data and industry-supplied data (often 
referred to as industry self monitoring data (ISMD)). EPA performed 
this review to ensure that the data were obtained during a treatment 
system's normal operating conditions and to ensure that the data 
accurately reflect the performance expected by the BAT treatment 
systems. Thus, EPA excluded data that were collected while a facility 
was experiencing exceptional incidents or upsets.
    After determining the data sets to be included to calculate LTAs 
and variability for each technology option under consideration for the 
final rule, EPA applied further data editing criteria on a pollutant-
by-pollutant basis. For facilities where EPA possessed paired influent 
and effluent data, it performed a long-term average test. The test 
looks at the influent concentrations to ensure a pollutant is present 
at sufficient concentration to evaluate treatment effectiveness. If a 
pollutant failed the test (i.e., was not present at a treatable 
concentration), EPA excluded the data for that pollutant from its LTA 
and variability calculations. In this manner, EPA would ensure that its 
limitations resulted from treatment and not simply the absence of that 
pollutant in the wastestream. In many cases, however, industry supplied 
EPA with effluent data, but not the corresponding influent data. In 
these cases, EPA used the effluent data without performing a long-term 
average test. EPA decided to use these data for two reasons. First, EPA 
wanted to include as much data as possible in its calculations. Second, 
the vast majority of pollutants for which industry supplied self-
monitoring data are pollutants regulated in the existing iron and steel 
regulation; EPA has already established the presence of the regulated 
pollutants in treatable levels in iron and steel wastestreams. 
Therefore, EPA is confident that these effluent data represent 
effective treatment and not the absence of the pollutant in the 
wastestream.
    Lastly, in some cases, EPA also had information that the technology 
at a particular facility, while effective overall, was ineffective for 
individual pollutants. In these instances, EPA excluded the data from 
that facility for that particular pollutant only.
    The Agency then used the remaining data from the facilities with 
the model technology basis to calculate the LTA, the associated daily 
and monthly variability factors, and the limitations. Chapter 14 of the 
Technical Development Document provides more detailed information on 
EPA's data editing criteria and the long-term average test. In 
addition, the final rulemaking record contains supporting documentation 
on all data exclusions.
3. Reassessment of Production-Normalized Flows (PNFs)
    EPA performed a comprehensive review of the data sets used and 
analyses performed to determine the model PNFs. EPA's revised analyses 
are described in Section 13 of the TDD, with additional documentation 
provided in the rulemaking record. The purpose of the review was to 
identify and correct any errors in the data sets and to ensure that the 
resulting model PNFs are technically achievable for all facilities in 
each subcategory and segment. EPA's revised PNF analyses considered age 
of equipment and facilities, type of process employed, products 
produced (incorporates product quality needs), geographic location, 
non-water quality impacts (including air pollution regulations and 
energy), compliance costs, storm water considerations, and seasonal 
variation. EPA also considered combinations of these factors and 
evaluated the pollutant control upgrades considered for each facility 
to ensure the model PNFs and LTAs are technically feasible for all 
facilities in each subcategory and segment. In addition, EPA considered 
whether any individual facilities achieve the model PNFs and LTAs 
simultaneously, but did not include this factor as a requirement in 
determining the model LTAs and PNFs.
    For two subcategories, ironmaking and steel finishing, EPA's 
subsequent analyses concluded that the model PNFs were not technically 
achievable for all facilities, and this was one factor in EPA's 
decision to retain the existing effluent limitations guidelines and 
standards for these subcategories as discussed in Sections VIII.C and 
VIII.H. EPA also made minor adjustments to the model PNFs for some 
other subcategories and segments.
4. Changes in Methodology for Determining the Baseline Loadings and 
Average Baseline Concentrations
    An important factor in calculating current or baseline pollutant 
loadings for a facility is the concentration of each pollutant in a 
facility's discharge. When possible, EPA determined these pollutant 
concentrations based on information reported by that facility. However, 
EPA does not have this information for every pollutant at every iron 
and steel facility. In these

[[Page 64230]]

instances, EPA needed to develop a methodology to estimate these 
concentrations. Consequently, for each subcategory under consideration, 
where site-specific data are available EPA calculated the site-specific 
baseline concentrations for each pollutant before averaging the site-
specific values across the subcategory to obtain the subcategory-
specific average baseline concentrations. These values were then 
applied to facilities and/or pollutants for which EPA lacked specific 
data. For some subcategories, EPA estimated baseline concentrations for 
different technologies, while for others it developed a single set of 
concentration estimates. At the time of the proposal, EPA eliminated 
data from facilities that were used in its LTA calculations (i.e., 
``BAT facilities''). After a review following the proposal, EPA 
realized that this procedure assumed that all facilities for which EPA 
did not have specific pollutant loading calculations were performing at 
a level less than BAT. EPA's database does not support this conclusion. 
Consequently, for the final rule, EPA has included all data, including 
that representing ``BAT facilities,'' in its average pollutant baseline 
calculations.
    In addition, for the proposal, EPA estimated baseline pollutant 
concentrations for indirect and direct dischargers separately. After a 
review of its record, EPA recognized that, except for conventional 
pollutants, effluent pollutant concentrations are largely dependent on 
the treatment technology used rather than a facility's discharge 
status. This is not the case for conventional pollutants, however, 
because most indirect dischargers are not required to control or 
optimize their treatment systems for the removal of conventional 
pollutants because they are treated by the receiving POTW. 
Consequently, for the final rule, except for conventional pollutants, 
EPA has not distinguished between direct and indirect discharging 
facilities in estimating baseline pollutant concentrations. Chapter 11 
in the TDD contains additional information on EPA's pollutant loadings 
and average baseline concentration calculations.
5. Determination of POTW Percent Removal Estimates
    In its analyses at the time of the proposal, EPA used its 
traditional approach to determine POTW performance (percent removal). 
POTW performance is a critical component of the pass-through 
methodology EPA uses to identify pollutants to be regulated for PSES 
and PSNS. In addition, the proposal discussed that EPA was considering 
revising its traditional methodology for determining POTW performance. 
Specifically, it discussed and requested comment on possible revisions 
to the methodology EPA uses to calculate POTW percent removals using 
data from the ``Fate of Priority Pollutants in Publically Owned 
Treatment Works'' (EPA 440/1-82/303, September 1982), commonly referred 
to as the ``50-POTW Study.'' See 65 FR 82012-82013.
    EPA received only one comment on the methodology changes. As these 
changes would affect a wide range of industries, EPA had hoped to 
engage a much broader audience. Consequently, for this final rule, EPA 
continues to use its traditional approach. EPA also performed its 
analyses using the revised methodology. EPA found that its conclusions 
would be the same using either methodology.
    As a further point of clarification, EPA also noticed the possible 
revisions in its POTW performance methodology in its proposed Metal 
Products and Machinery (MP&M) effluent guidelines and standards (66 FR 
424). EPA is currently re-visiting this issue for that rulemaking.

VI. Scope/Applicability of the Regulation

    The universe of facilities that are subject to 40 CFR part 420 
includes facilities engaged in iron and steel making operations using 
blast furnaces, basic oxygen furnaces (BOFs), or electric arc furnaces 
(EAFs). Part 420 also applies to metallurgical cokemaking facilities 
and stand-alone facilities engaged in hot forming and/or finishing of 
steel. In a change from the 1982 regulations, today's rule also applies 
to facilities engaged in other related operations such as direct iron 
reduction, forging, and iron briquetting. On the other hand, today's 
rule no longer applies to obsolete operations such as beehive 
cokemaking, ferromanganese blast furnaces and open hearth furnaces.
    A detailed discussion of iron and steel wastewaters is provided in 
Chapter 7 of the TDD. In summary, all wastewater discharged to a 
receiving stream or introduced to a publicly owned treatment works from 
a facility that is within the scope of one of the subparts is subject 
to the provisions of part 420. See 40 CFR 420.01(a).

VII. Industry Description

    EPA estimates there are 254 facilities owned by 115 companies in 
the iron and steel industry. The iron and steel facilities are located 
throughout the U.S. with a high concentration of integrated steelmaking 
and cokemaking facilities in the midwest and northeast. The smaller 
stand-alone forming and finishing facilities are generally located near 
larger steel manufacturing sites.
    EPA has identified general processes typically found at iron and 
steel facilities. The following is a brief description of these key 
manufacturing processes.

Cokemaking

    This process turns carbon in raw coal into metallurgical coke, 
which is subsequently used in the ironmaking process. There are two 
types of cokemaking operations: By-product and non-recovery. In by-
product coke plants, metallurgical coke is produced by distilling coal 
in refractory-lined, slot-type ovens at high temperatures in the 
absence of air. In non-recovery coke plants, coal is made into coke in 
negative pressure, higher temperature coke ovens.
    In by-product coke operations, the moisture and volatile components 
generated from the coal distillation process are collected and 
processed to recover by-products, such as crude coal tars, light crude 
oil, etc. Another type of cokemaking process is performed in non-
recovery plants. These facilities use higher temperature ovens which 
destroy volatile organics, and they do not recover any by-products. 
Furthermore, their negative pressure coke ovens also ensure no leakage 
of air and smoke to the atmosphere.
    In by-product coke plants, wastewater such as waste ammonia liquor 
is generated from moisture contained in the coal charge to the coke 
ovens, and some wastewater is generated from the by-product recovery 
operations. The non-recovery coke plants, on the other hand, do not 
generate any process wastewater.

Sintering

    Sinter plants upgrade the iron content of ores and recover iron 
from a mixture of wastewater treatment sludges, mill scale from 
integrated steel mills, and fine coke particles (also known as coke 
breeze) from cokemaking operations. In sinter plants, the iron source 
mixture is combined with limestone and charged to a furnace. Sinter of 
suitable size and weight is formed for charging to the blast furnace. 
Wastewaters are generated from wet air pollution control devices on the 
wind box and discharge ends of the sinter furnace. No process 
wastewater is generated from dry air pollution control systems.

Ironmaking

    In ironmaking, blast furnaces are used to produce molten iron, 
which makes

[[Page 64231]]

up about two-thirds of the charge to basic oxygen steelmaking furnaces. 
The raw materials charged to the top of the blast furnace include coke, 
limestone, refined iron ores, and sinter. Preheated air is blown into 
the bottom of the furnace and exits the furnace top as blast furnace 
gas in enclosed piping. The off-gas is cleaned and cooled in a 
combination of dry dust catchers and high-energy venturi scrubbers. 
Direct contact water used in the gas coolers and high-energy scrubbers 
comprises nearly all of the wastewater from ironmaking blast furnace 
operations.

Steelmaking

    Steelmaking in the United States is conducted either in basic 
oxygen furnaces (BOFs) or electric arc furnaces (EAFs). BOFs are 
typically used for high tonnage production of carbon steels at 
integrated mills, while EAFs are used to produce carbon steels and low 
tonnage alloy and specialty steels at non-integrated mills.
    Integrated steel mills use BOFs to refine a metallic charge 
consisting of approximately two-thirds molten iron and one-third steel 
scrap. Off-gases from the furnace are controlled by one of three wet 
air pollution control methods: Semi-wet, wet-open, and wet-suppressed. 
Wastewaters are generated from the wet air pollution control devices. 
On the other hand, non-integrated mills use EAFs to melt and refine a 
metallic charge of scrap steel. In addition, most mills operate EAFs 
with dry air cleaning systems, which produce no process wastewater 
discharges. There are a small number of wet and semi-wet systems.

Vacuum Degassing/Ladle Metallurgy

    Vacuum degassing is a batch process where molten steel is subjected 
to a vacuum for composition control, temperature control, deoxidation, 
degassing, decarburization, and the removal of impurities from the 
steel. Oxygen and hydrogen are the principal gases removed from the 
steel. In most degassing systems, the vacuum is provided by barometric 
condensers; thus, direct contact between the gases and the barometric 
water occurs.
    Likewise, ladle metallurgy is also a batch process where molten 
steel is refined in addition to, or in place of, vacuum degassing. 
These operations include argon bubbling, argon-oxygen decarburization 
(AOD), electroslag remelting (ESR), and lance injection. These 
additional refining operations do not generate any process water.

Casting

    This process continuously casts the molten steel into semi-finished 
shapes after the vacuum degassing and/or ladle metallurgy processes. 
The continuous casting machine includes a receiving vessel for molten 
steel, water-cooled molds, secondary cooling water sprays, containment 
rolls, oxygen-acetylene torches for cutoff, and a runout table. 
Wastewater is generated by a direct contact water system used for spray 
cooling and for flume flushing to transport scale from below the caster 
runout table. The other main casting operation type is ingot casting, 
in which molten steel is poured into ingot molds.

Hot Forming

    In this process, ingots, blooms, billets, slabs, or rounds are 
heated to rolling temperatures so that the products will form under 
mechanical pressure into semi-finished shapes for further hot or cold 
rolling or as finished shapes. Process water is used for scale 
breaking, flume flushing, and direct contact cooling.

Salt Bath Descaling

    Oxidizing and reducing molten salt baths are used to remove heavy 
scale from specialty and high-alloy steels. Process wastewaters 
originate from quenching and rinsing operations conducted after 
processing in the molten salt baths. Electrolytic sodium sulfate 
descaling is performed on stainless steels for essentially the same 
purposes as salt bath descaling.

Acid Pickling

    Solutions of various acids are used to remove oxide scale from the 
surfaces of semi-finished products prior to further processing by cold 
rolling, cold drawing, and subsequent cleaning and coating operations. 
Process wastewaters include spent pickling acids, rinse waters, and 
pickling line fume scrubber water.

Cold Forming

    Cold forming is conducted on hot rolled and pickled steels at 
ambient temperatures to impart desired mechanical and surface 
properties in the steel. Process wastewater characteristics result from 
using synthetic or animal-fat based rolling solutions, many of which 
are proprietary.

Hot Coating

    This process immerses pre-cleaned steel into baths of molten metal. 
Hot coating is typically used to improve resistance to corrosion, and 
for some products, to improve appearance and ability to hold paint. 
Wastewaters result principally from cleaning operations prior to the 
molten bath.

Direct-Reduced Ironmaking (DRI)

    This process produces relatively pure iron by reducing iron ore in 
a furnace below the melting point of the iron produced. DRI is used as 
a substitute for scrap steel in non-integrated steelmaking process to 
minimize contaminant levels in the melted steel and to allow economic 
steel production when market prices for scrap are high. Process 
wastewaters are generated from air pollution control devices.

Briquetting

    This process of agglomeration forms materials into discrete shapes 
of sufficient size, strength, and weight so that the material can serve 
as feed for subsequent processes. Briquetting does not generate process 
wastewater.

Forging

    This is a hot forming operation in which a metal piece is shaped by 
hammering or by processing in a hydraulic press. Process wastewaters 
are generated from direct contact cooling water.
    The data collected for this rulemaking indicate that, in the past 
25 years, much of the steel manufacturing industry has shifted from 
generally larger, older integrated facilities to newer, smaller non-
integrated facilities. In addition, there is a substantial trend toward 
the establishment of specialized, stand-alone finishing facilities that 
process semi-finished sheet, strip, bars, and rods obtained from 
integrated or non-integrated facilities.
    Of the 254 iron and steel manufacturing facilities, approximately 
133 discharge directly to surface waters of the U.S., 70 discharge 
indirectly to POTWs, and 56 facilities achieve zero discharge (either 
because they do not generate process wastewater or because they dispose 
of their process wastewater through underground injection or other 
methods not directly involving waters of the United States). Some 
facilities may discharge both directly to surface waters of the U.S. 
and to POTWs. In 1997, process wastewater discharges ranged from less 
than 200 gallons per day for a stand-alone finisher to more than 50 
million gallons per day for a larger integrated facility.

VIII. The Final Regulation

    For a detailed discussion of all technology options considered in 
the development of today's final rule, see the proposal (65 FR at 
81982-82096) and Chapter 9 of the TDD.

[[Page 64232]]

    Based on the record before it, EPA has determined that each model 
technology EPA has chosen as a basis for today's revised BAT and PSES 
limitations is technically available. EPA has also determined that each 
is economically achievable for the segment to which it applies. 
Further, EPA has determined, for the reasons set forth in this section, 
that none of the chosen technologies has unacceptable adverse non-water 
quality environmental impacts. Finally, EPA has determined that each 
chosen technology achieves greater pollutant removals than any other 
economically achievable technology considered by EPA and, for that 
reason, also represents the best technology among those considered for 
the particular segment. EPA also considered the age, size, processes, 
and other engineering factors pertinent to facilities in the proposed 
segments for the purpose of evaluating the technology options. None of 
these factors provides a basis for selecting different technologies 
than those EPA has selected as its model BAT and PSES technologies for 
today's rule.
    In selecting its NSPS technologies for the segments and 
subcategories being revised today, EPA considered all of the factors 
specified in CWA Section 306, including the cost of achieving effluent 
reductions. The NSPS technologies for these segments are presently 
being employed at facilities in each segment of these subcategories. 
Therefore, EPA has concluded that such costs do not present a barrier 
to entry. The Agency also considered energy requirements and other non-
water quality environmental impacts for the NSPS options and concluded 
that these impacts are acceptable. EPA therefore concluded that the 
NSPS technology bases chosen for these segments constitute the best 
available demonstrated control technology for those segments. (These 
findings also apply to the PSNS for these segments.)
    EPA is making no changes to the BPT and BCT limitations previously 
promulgated for part 420, except for revisions to BPT and BCT 
limitations for semi-wet BOF operations and the deletion of limitations 
for obsolete operations (beehive cokemaking in the cokemaking 
subcategory, ferromanganese blast furnaces in the ironmaking 
subcategory, and open hearth furnace operations in the steelmaking 
subcategory). Similarly, EPA is retaining, by cross reference to title 
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, revised as of July 1, 2001, the 
NSPS promulgated in 1982 in Subparts A and B for new sources that 
commenced discharge after November 19, 2012 but before November 18, 
2002, provided that the new source was constructed to meet those new 
standards. EPA is also retaining by cross reference, the pretreatment 
standards for new sources previously promulgated for Subparts A and B 
for facilities constructed between November 19, 2012 and November 18, 
2002, except that EPA is rescinding the pretreatment standards for 
phenols for Subpart A because EPA has determined in this rulemaking 
that phenol (measured as 4AAP) does not pass through with respect to 
the cokemaking subcategory.
    This implements the provisions of CWA Section 306(d), which 
provides that new sources may not be regulated to achieve more 
stringent technology-based limitations (e.g., revised BAT) for 
pollutants regulated by NSPS for approximately ten years following 
completion of construction. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 122.29(d)(1) 
specify the precise duration of this grace period. Thereafter, the 
discharger is subject to any more stringent applicable BPT/BCT/BAT 
limitations. This means that facilities currently subject to the 1982 
NSPS or PSNS remain subject to those standards during a ten-year period 
beginning on the date of completion of the new source or during the 
period of depreciation or amortization of such facility, whichever 
period ends first. After such time, the BAT and PSES limitations 
promulgated today apply to those dischargers for toxic and 
nonconventional pollutants. For direct dischargers, limitations on 
conventional pollutants will be based on the formerly promulgated BPT/
BCT limitations corresponding to the BPT/BCT segment applicable to the 
discharger or on the 1982 NSPS for conventional pollutants, whichever 
is more stringent.

A. Cokemaking Subcategory

    EPA is promulgating limits and standards for two segments within 
the cokemaking subcategory: by-products recovery cokemaking, and non-
recovery cokemaking. EPA is also removing the beehive cokemaking 
segment from the cokemaking subcategory because the beehive process of 
cokemaking is obsolete and has not been used in the United States for 
over 25 years.
1. Best Practicable Control Technology (BPT)
    EPA is not revising any existing BPT limitations for the by-
products recovery segment of this subcategory (which in the 1982 
regulation was divided between ``iron and steel'' and ``merchant'' coke 
plants). EPA did not propose such revisions, but did solicit comment on 
the issue in the notice. EPA received no comment on the issue, so EPA 
is not revising the existing BPT limitations.
    EPA is establishing BPT limitations for the non-recovery segment of 
the cokemaking subcategory. These limitations are: no discharge of 
process wastewater pollutants. See Chapter 7.1.1 of the TDD for more 
information about what constitutes process wastewater for this segment. 
Because non-recovery cokemaking operations do not generate any process 
wastewater, the Agency concludes that non-recovery cokemaking operation 
itself represents the best practicable technology currently available 
and that no discharge of process wastewater pollutants is a reasonable 
BPT limitation. For the same reason, the Agency concludes that there 
are no costs associated with achieving this limitation, and expects 
that no additional pollutant removals attributable to this segment will 
occur.
2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)
    In deciding whether to adopt different BCT limits, EPA considered 
whether there are technologies that achieve greater removals of 
conventional pollutants than adopted for BPT, and whether those 
technologies are cost-reasonable under the standards established by the 
CWA, and implemented through regulation. EPA generally refers to the 
decision criteria as the ``BCT cost test.'' EPA is not revising any 
existing BCT limitations for the by-products recovery segment of this 
subcategory (which in the 1982 regulation was divided between ``iron 
and steel'' and ``merchant'' coke plants) because there are no 
technologies that achieve greater removals of conventional pollutants 
than the technology basis for the current BPT and pass the BCT cost 
test.
    For the non-recovery segment of this subcategory, EPA identified no 
technologies that can achieve greater removals of conventional 
pollutants than those that are the basis for BPT (i.e., the non-
recovery cokemaking operations resulting in no discharge) and, 
therefore, it cannot perform the BCT cost test. Accordingly, EPA is 
adopting BCT effluent limitations equal to the BPT effluent limitations 
for the non-recovery segment of this subcategory.
3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
    EPA is establishing BAT limits for both the by-products recovery 
and for the non-recovery segments of the cokemaking subcategory.
    a. By-products recovery segment.

[[Page 64233]]

    For this segment, EPA is today establishing BAT limits for five 
pollutants: ammonia-N, benzo(a)pyrene, cyanide, naphthalene, and 
phenols (4AAP). EPA is eliminating the 1982 BAT limitations for benzene 
because control of naphthalene and benzo(a)pyrene should ensure 
adequate removal of benzene. EPA is promulgating revised BAT 
limitations for phenols (4AAP), rather than establishing BAT 
limitations for phenol (GC/MS), as described in Section V.A.4. In 
addition, in a change from proposal, EPA is not promulgating BAT 
limitations for this segment for thiocyanate, mercury, or selenium 
because information in the record shows that the technology basis for 
this segment would not result in consistent removal of these 
pollutants, and EPA has identified no other available and economically 
achievable technology that will do so. Therefore, at this time, these 
pollutants are not amenable to categorical regulations. Also, EPA is 
not promulgating BAT limitations for this segment for total recoverable 
chlorine (TRC). EPA had proposed to regulate this parameter because TRC 
monitoring can ensure correct operation of alkaline chlorination 
systems. However, alkaline chlorination is not a component of the 
technology basis for the limits of this segment; therefore, limitations 
on TRC are no longer necessary to reflect the application of the model 
technology.
    The technology basis for these BAT limits is cokemaking option 
BAT1: oil and tar removal, equalization, fixed and free ammonia 
stripping, heat exchanger, equalization tank, biological treatment with 
nitrification followed by secondary clarification, and sludge 
dewatering. (In the proposal, EPA described the heat exchanger 
component of this treatment train as temperature control. Similarly, 
EPA had described today's biological treatment component as single-
stage biological treatment with nitrification followed by secondary 
clarification. In each instance, only the names are different; these 
technologies at proposal and final are substantially identical.)
    The BAT technology chosen for this rule is a different technology 
from the technology for this segment proposed in 2000. In 2000, the 
proposed technology basis for the BAT limits was BAT3, and consisted of 
the BAT1 technology plus breakpoint chlorination (EPA erroneously 
referred to this technology component as alkaline chlorination in the 
proposal) prior to biological treatment with nitrification. (Prior to 
proposal, EPA had also considered two other technology options--BAT2 
and BAT4--but rejected them for reasons set forth in the proposal 
preamble at 65 FR at 82016-82017.) EPA has rejected BAT3 because it is 
not economically achievable. EPA projects that two closures and 500 job 
losses would result.
    The Agency has now concluded that the BAT1 treatment system 
represents the best available technology economically achievable for 
this segment of this subcategory. There are several reasons supporting 
this conclusion. First, the BAT1 technology is readily available to all 
cokemaking facilities. Approximately 75% of the facilities in this 
segment currently use it. Second, the BAT1 technology will ensure a 
high level of removal of all cokemaking pollutants of concern. Well-
operated free and fixed ammonia stills will remove gross amounts of 
ammonia-N, cyanide, and many organic pollutants while biological 
treatment with nitrification followed by secondary clarification will 
remove more ammonia-N, phenols (4AAP), and other organic constituents 
of the wastewater to low levels. Third, adoption of this level of 
control would represent a significant reduction in conventional, 
nonconventional, and toxic pollutants discharged into the environment 
by facilities in this subcategory. Even though 75% of the facilities 
currently employ this technology, EPA predicts significant removals 
attributable to this rule because today's limitations reflect 
substantial improvements in how these technology components are 
designed and operated. Finally, EPA has evaluated the economic impacts 
associated with this technology and found it to be economically 
achievable.
    b. Non-recovery cokemaking.
    EPA is adopting BAT limitations for the non-recovery segment of the 
cokemaking subcategory based on the same technologies selected as the 
basis for BPT for this segment. These limitations are: no discharge of 
process wastewater pollutants. See Chapter 7.1.1 of the TDD for more 
information about what constitutes process wastewater for this segment. 
EPA identified no technologies that can achieve greater removals of 
toxic and non-conventional pollutants than those that are the basis for 
BPT (i.e., the non-recovery cokemaking operations resulting in no 
discharge.) EPA has also determined that this basis is economically 
achievable, because no facilities currently discharge process 
wastewater pollutants. Therefore, EPA is promulgating BAT limitations 
equal to BPT.
4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
    a. By-products recovery segment.
    For the by-products recovery segment of the cokemaking subcategory, 
EPA is promulgating NSPS that would control the same conventional, 
priority, and non-conventional pollutants controlled at the BPT, BCT, 
and BAT levels. The technology basis for NSPS for this segment is BAT1: 
oil and tar removal, equalization, fixed and free ammonia stripping, 
heat exchanger, equalization tank, biological treatment with 
nitrification followed by secondary clarification, and sludge 
dewatering. The technologies available to control pollutants at 
existing facilities are also available to new facilities. EPA rejected 
BAT3 as a basis for NSPS because it determined that the costs 
associated with this technology were not reasonable. EPA considers BAT1 
as the ``best'' demonstrated technology for new sources in the by-
product segment of the subcategory. EPA concluded that the chosen 
technology does not present a barrier to entry because 75% of existing 
facilities currently employ the technology. The Agency considered 
energy requirements and other non-water quality environmental impacts 
and found no basis for any different standards than the selected NSPS. 
Therefore, EPA is promulgating NSPS for the by-products recovery 
cokemaking segment that are identical to BAT for toxic and non-
conventional pollutants, while also promulgating TSS, oil and grease 
(measured as HEM), and pH limitations, using the same technology basis.
    b. Non-recovery segment.
    EPA is promulgating NSPS limitations for the non-recovery segment 
of the cokemaking subcategory based on the same technologies selected 
as the basis for BPT for this segment. These limitations are: no 
discharge of process wastewater pollutants. See Chapter 7.1.1 of the 
TDD for more information about what constitutes process wastewater for 
this segment. Because non-recovery cokemaking operations do not 
generate any process wastewater, EPA has determined that the technology 
basis for today's NSPS does not present a barrier to entry, and that 
there will be no additional energy requirements or non-water quality 
environmental impacts.
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
    a. By-products recovery segment.
    Based on EPA's evaluation of pass-through potential, EPA is 
promulgating PSES for three pollutants: ammonia-N, cyanide, and 
naphthalene. EPA has determined that each of these pollutants would 
pass through. EPA had proposed to establish PSES for this segment for 
thiocyanate, selenium, and phenol. The

[[Page 64234]]

Agency is not promulgating PSES limits for thiocyanate or selenium for 
the reasons discussed in connection with BAT. EPA is not establishing 
PSES for phenol in this segment because, upon re-evaluating the data, 
EPA concluded that phenolic compounds in cokemaking wastewaters do not 
pass through. For additional discussion on phenol, see 66 FR 10257 and 
Section V.A.3.
    For naphthalene, EPA has selected 100 [mu]g/L and 83.1 [mu]g/L as 
the concentration-based values used for today's production-normalized 
daily maximum standard and monthly average standard, respectively. EPA 
has determined that well-operated facilities should be capable of 
operating well below these levels based on the data EPA obtained from 
mills employing the model technology. When naphthalene was detected, 
all samples were at or below 33 [mu]g/L. However, naphthalene was not 
detected in all samples. This is because of analytical difficulties 
caused by interferences from high levels of phenol in the samples. 
Although the laboratory overcame the interferences in the five samples 
for one episode and succeeded in achieving values close to the minimum 
level of 10 [mu]g/L specified in the analytical method, for the other 
EPA sampling episode, it could not do so for two samples. Rather, in 
order to overcome the interferences, the laboratory diluted two of the 
five samples for analysis; this resulted in a sample-specific minimum 
level of 100 [mu]g/L for each diluted sample. While there was no 
evidence of any chromatographic peaks for naphthalene in the 
chromatograms associated with the two diluted samples, the best that 
EPA can say with a high degree of confidence is that the naphthalene 
concentrations were between zero (i.e., not present) and 100 [mu]g/L 
for these two samples. In order to demonstrate compliance with the 
naphthalene standard, a sample would have to be analyzed with a sample-
specific minimum level of at or below the standard. Because EPA could 
not overcome the phenol interferences without diluting the two samples, 
EPA cannot say with confidence that naphthalene samples can be analyzed 
with a sample-specific minimum level of less than 100 [mu]g/L in every 
case. For this reason, EPA has determined that 100 [mu]g/L should be 
the concentration-basis of today's daily maximum standard. EPA also has 
determined that the concentration-based monthly average standard could 
be less than 100 [mu]g/L, because EPA assumes that the facilities will 
monitor for naphthalene more than once a month. (In fact, EPA has 
assumed that facilities will monitor four times a month and has 
accounted for those costs in this rule.) EPA expects that laboratories 
will usually be able to measure at levels lower than 100 [mu]g/L, 
because most of the data supporting the standards demonstrated that 
laboratories could overcome interferences in the samples. Thus, it has 
established a value at 83.1 [mu]g/L as the concentration-basis for the 
monthly average standard. Section 14 of the TDD describes the 
derivation of the concentration-based monthly average standard from the 
daily maximum standard. See Section 4 of the TDD for a discussion of 
reducing interferences.
    EPA recognizes that today's value of 100 [mu]g/L for the daily 
maximum standard for naphthalene is considerably less than the 
concentration-basis for the proposed standard of 2030 [mu]g/L. Upon 
review of the proposed standards, EPA determined that some data should 
be excluded for various reasons (see DCN IS10816 in section 14.10 of 
the record) including data that were in excess of the facility's permit 
and therefore would be inappropriate to use in developing national 
standards.
    EPA is promulgating PSES for by-products recovery cokemaking based 
on option PSES1: tar/oil removal, equalization, free and fixed ammonia 
stripping. This is one of two options EPA co-proposed in 2000. The 
other co-proposed option, PSES3, consisted of PSES1 plus an 
equalization tank, biological treatment with nitrification followed by 
secondary clarification, and sludge dewatering. Option PSES3 is 
identical to option BAT1 that serves as the basis for the BAT 
limitations adopted today. While PSES3/BAT1 would achieve greater 
removals than PSES1, EPA has rejected it as the basis for PSES because 
it is not economically achievable. EPA estimated that costs associated 
with PSES3 would cause an adverse economic impact on two facilities, 
resulting in closures and/or job losses. Because there are only eight 
indirectly discharging by-products recovery cokemaking facilities in 
the nation, EPA determined that this predicted closure--representing 
25% of the related universe--was significant in this case. See Section 
X for more detail on the economic analysis.
    Today, the Agency concludes that PSES1 represents the most 
appropriate basis for pretreatment standards for the following reasons. 
First, option PSES1, in combination with treatment occurring at the 
receiving POTWs, will substantially reduce the levels of all cokemaking 
pollutants of concern. Well-operated free and fixed ammonia stills will 
remove gross amounts of ammonia-N, cyanide, and some organic pollutants 
such as the volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, while the 
activated sludge biological treatment at the POTWs will remove 
additional ammonia-N, cyanide, naphthalene, and the other organic 
constituents of the wastewater to low levels. Second, EPA has 
considered the compliance costs associated with this option and 
determined they are economically achievable.
    In today's action, EPA is also establishing a mechanism by which 
by-product cokemaking facilities discharging to POTWs with 
nitrification capability would not be subject to the pretreatment 
standard for ammonia-N. This is because EPA has determined that 
ammonia-N does not pass through such POTWs. See Section V.A.8 for more 
details.
    b. Non-recovery segment.
    Based on EPA's evaluation of pass-through and EPA's recognition 
that no process wastewater is generated in connection with non-recovery 
cokemaking, EPA is today promulgating PSES limitations for the non-
recovery segment of the cokemaking subcategory based on the same 
technologies selected as the basis for BPT/BAT for this segment. These 
standards are: No discharge of process wastewater pollutants. There are 
no incremental costs associated with compliance, and therefore, no 
economic impacts. Consequently, EPA has determined the technologies are 
economically achievable.
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)
    a. By-products Recovery Segment.
    EPA is today establishing pretreatment standards for new sources 
for four pollutants: Ammonia-N, cyanide, naphthalene, and 
benzo(a)pyrene. The technology basis for these standards is PSES3. EPA 
considered the cost of PSES3 technology for new facilities in this 
segment. EPA concluded that such costs are not so great as to 
constitute a barrier to entry, as demonstrated by the fact that three 
of the eight currently operating indirect discharging facilities are 
using these technologies. The Agency considered energy requirements and 
other non-water quality environmental impacts and found no basis for 
any different standards than the selected PSNS.
    In today's action, EPA is also establishing a mechanism by which 
by-product cokemaking facilities discharging to POTWs with 
nitrification capability would not be subject to the

[[Page 64235]]

pretreatment standard for ammonia-N. This is because EPA has determined 
that ammonia-N does not pass through such POTWs. See Section V.A.8 for 
more details.
    b. Non-recovery segment.
    Based on EPA's evaluation of pass-through and EPA's recognition 
that no process wastewater is generated in connection with non-recovery 
cokemaking, EPA is today promulgating PSNS for the non-recovery segment 
of the cokemaking subcategory based on the same technologies selected 
as the basis for PSES for this segment. These standards are: No 
discharge of process wastewater pollutants. Because non-recovery 
cokemaking operations do not generate any process wastewater, EPA has 
determined that the technology basis for today's PSNS does not present 
a barrier to entry, and that there will be no additional energy 
requirements or non-water quality environmental impacts.

B. Sintering Subcategory

    Today, EPA is promulgating an effluent limitations guideline and 
standard for one parameter, 2,3,7,8-TCDF, for sintering operations with 
wet air pollution control systems in this subcategory, establishing a 
mechanism by which sintering facilities discharging to POTWs with 
nitrification capability would not be subject to the pretreatment 
standard for ammonia-N, and otherwise leaving unchanged existing limits 
and standards for all other parameters. This is a change from what was 
proposed in October 2000.
    In October 2000, EPA proposed combining the sintering and 
ironmaking subcategories from the 1982 regulation into a single 
subcategory to be known as ironmaking, with a single treatment 
technology basis. EPA proposed these changes because survey responses 
indicated that facilities with both operations on site tended to 
commingle their wastewaters before treatment. EPA also judged at that 
time that because wastewater characteristics of the two subcategories 
were similar, further subcategorization was unnecessary. The 
subcategory, however, was divided into ``blast furnace'' and ``sinter'' 
segments to take into account differences in the production-normalized 
flow rates used to develop the proposed effluent limitations guidelines 
and standards. With the exception of cooling towers, which apply to 
blast furnace operations only, EPA considered the same technologies for 
both segments. The basis for the proposed ironmaking limits and 
standards for the sintering segment with wet air pollution control 
system was: Solids removal with high-rate recycle and metals 
precipitation, alkaline chlorination, and mixed-media filtration of 
blowdown wastewater. This was known as Ironmaking BAT1. At the time, 
EPA determined that the option was technically and economically 
achievable.
    In addition, EPA had proposed to regulate phenol instead of the 
group parameter phenol (measured at 4AAP). EPA had also proposed to add 
2,3,7,8-TCDF to the list of regulated parameters for sintering 
operations with wet air pollution control systems and for blast furnace 
segment where the wastewater is co-treated with sintering wastewater. 
Finally, EPA had proposed that sintering facilities would need to meet 
the proposed total residual chlorine (TRC) limitation only if they 
employ chlorination in their wastewater treatment.
    EPA revisited its proposal for several reasons. First, commenters 
noted that, by regulating the compound phenol instead of the bulk 
parameter phenols (4AAP), facilities would not be able to qualify for 
the CWA Section 301(g) variances that are currently an important part 
of their compliance strategy. See Section V.A.4 for further details 
about this issue. Second, the increased rate of recycle is the 
principal difference between the proposed BAT1 technology basis and the 
1982 technology basis, and commenters raised achievability concerns 
with the increased recycle rates. For these reasons, EPA has determined 
that BAT1 as proposed (with the increased rate of high rate recycle) is 
not the best achievable technology for sintering operations. Nor is it 
the best available demonstrated technology for these operations. EPA 
has also concluded that it is unnecessary to combine the two 1982 
subcategories into a single subcategory as proposed, because today's 
rule is not changing the 1982 limits and standards except as noted 
below. EPA is therefore leaving unchanged all limitations and standards 
currently in effect for the sintering subcategory.
    EPA is creating two new segments for the sintering subcategory. The 
segment, sintering operations with wet air pollution control, is a 
recodification of what were formerly subcategory-wide limitations. The 
second segment, sintering operations with dry air pollution control, is 
new. It applies to sinter operations that do not generate process 
wastewater. However, as proposed, EPA is promulgating a new limitation 
for 2,3,7,8-TCDF for sintering operations with wet air pollution 
control systems segment in the sintering subcategory. The technology 
basis for this segment reflects the 1982 technology basis of the 
existing limitations with the addition of mixed-media filtration. 
2,3,7,8-TCDF is one of a number of extremely toxic congeners of the 
dioxin/furan family of compounds. During four EPA sampling episodes, 
several of these congeners were found in both the raw and treated 
wastewater from sinter plants operating wet air pollution control 
technologies. EPA chose to use 2,3,7,8-TCDF as an indicator parameter 
for the whole family of dioxin/furan congeners for several reasons. 
First, 2,3,7,8-TCDF is the most toxic of the congeners found in treated 
sintering wastewater. Second, 2,3,7,8-TCDF was the most prevalent of 
the dioxin/furan congeners in these wastewaters. Finally, 2,3,7,8-TCDF 
is chemically similar to the other dioxin/furan congeners and its 
removal will similarly indicate removal of the other congeners.
    The TCDF limit is expressed as ``5 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.

F. Summary of Benefits

    EPA estimates that the annual monetized benefits, at the national 
level, resulting from this final rule range from $1.4 million to $7.3 
million ($2001). Table XI.F.1 summarizes these benefits, by category. 
The range reflects the uncertainty in evaluating the effects of this 
final rule and in placing a dollar value on these effects. As indicated 
in Table XI.F.1, these monetized benefits ranges do not reflect some 
benefit categories, including improved ecological conditions from 
improvements in water quality, improvements to recreational activities 
(other than fishing), and reduced discharges of conventional 
pollutants. Therefore, the reported benefit estimate may understate the 
total benefits of this final rule.

       Table XI.F.1--Potential Economic Benefits (National Level)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Millions of  2001 dollars  per
            Benefit category                           year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced Cancer Risk.....................  1.3-6.9
Reduced Noncarcinogenic Hazard..........  Unquantified
Improved Ecological Conditions..........  Unquantified
Improved Recreational Value.............  0.08-0.29
Improved Intrinsic Value................  0.04-0.15
 
                                         -------------------------------
    Total Monetized Benefits............  1.4-7.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

XII. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts

    Sections 304(b) and 306 of the Act require EPA to consider non-
water quality environmental impacts associated with effluent 
limitations guidelines and standards. In accordance with these 
requirements, EPA has considered the potential impact of today's 
technical options on air emissions, 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 final effluent limitations 
guidelines and standards.

A. Air Pollution

    Various subcategories within the iron and steel industry generate 
process waters that contain significant concentrations of organic and 
inorganic compounds, some of which are listed as Hazardous Air 
Pollutants (HAPs) in Title III of the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 
1990. The Agency has developed National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) under section 112 of the Clean Air 
Act (CAA) that address air emissions of HAPs for certain manufacturing 
operations. Subcategories within the iron and steel industry where 
NESHAPs are applicable include cokemaking (58 FR 57898, October 1993) 
and steel finishing with chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing 
(60 FR 4948, January 1995).
    For the cokemaking subcategory, maximum achievable control 
technology (MACT) standards were proposed by EPA on July 3, 2001 (66 FR 
35326) for pushing, quenching, and battery stacks at cokemaking plants. 
These regulations are currently scheduled for promulgation in December 
2002. Like effluent guidelines, MACT standards are technology based. 
The CAA sets maximum control requirements on which MACT can be based 
for new and existing sources. By-products recovery operations in the 
cokemaking subcategory remove the majority of HAPs through processes 
that collect tar, heavy and light oils, ammonium sulfate and elemental 
sulfur. Ammonia removal by steam stripping could generate a potential 
air quality issue if uncontrolled; however, ammonia stripping 
operations at cokemaking facilities capture vapors and convert ammonia 
to either an inorganic salt or anhydrous ammonia, or destroy the 
ammonia.
    Biological treatment of cokemaking wastewater can potentially emit 
hazardous air pollutants if significant concentrations of volatile 
organic compounds (VOCs) are present. To estimate the maximum annual 
air emissions from biological treatment, EPA multiplied the individual 
concentrations of all VOCs in cokemaking wastewater entering the 
biological treatment system by the maximum design flow and the 
operational period reported in the U.S. EPA Collection of 1997 Iron and 
Steel Industry Data. EPA determined the concentrations of the 
individual VOCs entering the biological treatment systems from the 
sampling episode data. Assuming all the VOCs entering the biological 
treatment systems are emitted to the atmosphere (no biological 
degradation), the maximum VOC emission rate would be approximately 
1,800 pounds per year for all facilities. EPA believes that this is an 
overestimate, because VOCs can be degraded through biological 
treatment. EPA concludes that, even if this likely overestimate of VOC 
emission rate were accurate, this would be an acceptable rate of 
emissions that would not have a significant impact on the environment. 
See TDD, Chapter 15.
    For the subcategories for which EPA is not revising effluent 
limitations guidelines and standards today, EPA does not project any 
change in air emissions. For the mills without cokemaking operations 
that are affected by revisions to part 420 (sintering, steelmaking, 
forging, direct reduced iron (DRI) manufacturing, and briquetting), EPA 
anticipates that facilities that employ the model technologies will 
experience no increase in air emissions. As such, no adverse air 
impacts are expected to occur as a result of the revised regulations.

[[Page 64253]]

B. Solid Waste

    Solid waste, including hazardous and nonhazardous sludge and waste 
oil, will be generated from a number of the model treatment 
technologies used to develop today's effluent limitations guidelines 
and standards. These solids will need to be disposed of and may be 
subject to RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions if they are 
characteristically hazardous. Solid wastes include sludge from 
biological treatment systems, clarification systems, gravity 
separation, mixed-media filtration, and oil/water separation systems. 
EPA accounted for the associated costs related to on-site recovery and 
off-site treatment and disposal of the solid wastes generated due to 
the implementation of the various technology options. These costs were 
included in the economic evaluation for the part 420 regulation.
    Biological nitrification included in the technology basis for 
cokemaking by-product segment will produce a biological treatment 
sludge that facilities would need to dispose. EPA estimates that 
approximately 190 tons (dry wt.) per year of additional biological 
treatment sludge will be generated by the cokemaking subcategory as a 
result of today's rule. These non-hazardous biological treatment sludge 
can be disposed in a Subtitle D landfill, recycled to the coke ovens 
for incineration, or land applied.
    Additional solids captured by roughing clarifiers and sand or 
mixed-media filters for sintering and forging operations will account 
for less than an additional 0.08 percent of the solids currently being 
collected.
    Data provided in the industry surveys indicate the total annual 
sludge and scale production from all iron and steel facilities to be 
3,522,500 tons/year (dry weight). Solids removal equipment associated 
with the promulgated options for this rule is expected to generate less 
than 277 tons per year of additional dry wastewater treatment sludge. 
Consequently, EPA has concluded no adverse solid waste impacts are 
expected to occur as a result of today's regulation.

C. Energy Requirements

    EPA estimates that compliance with this regulation will result in a 
net increase in energy consumption at iron and steel facilities. The 
maximum estimated increased energy use by listed subcategories is 
presented in Table XII.1. The costs associated with these energy 
requirements are included in EPA's estimated operating costs for 
compliance with today's rule. The projected increase in energy 
consumption is primarily due to the incorporation of components such as 
pumps, mixers, blowers, and fans.

       Table XII.1--Additional Energy Requirements by Subcategory
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Energy
                                                              required
                        Subcategory                           (million
                                                              kilowatt
                                                             hours/year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cokemaking \1\............................................         17
Sintering \2\.............................................          4
Other Operations \3\......................................          0.01
                                                           -------------
  Total...................................................         21.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ BAT-1 and PSES-1
\2\ BAT-1 and PSES-1
\3\ Other operations include DRI, briquetting, and forging

    Approximately 3,100,000 million kilowatt hours of electric power 
were generated in the United States in 1997 (Energy Information 
Administration, Electric Power Annual 1998 Volume 1, Table A1). Total 
additional energy needs for all cokemaking, sintering, DRI, 
briquetting, and forging facilities to comply with this rule correspond 
to less than 0.001 percent of the national energy demand. The increase 
in energy demand due to the implementation of this rule will in turn 
cause an air emission impact from the electric power generation 
facilities. The increase in air emissions is expected to be 
proportional to the increase in energy requirements. Consequently, EPA 
has concluded no adverse energy impacts are expected to occur as a 
result of today's regulation.

XIII. Regulatory Implementation

A. Implementation of the Limitations and Standards

1. Introduction
    Effluent limitations and pretreatment standards act as a primary 
mechanism to control the discharges of pollutants to waters of the 
United States. These limitations and standards are applied to 
individual facilities through NPDES permits issued by the EPA or 
authorized States under Section 402 of the Act and through local 
pretreatment programs under Section 307 of the Act.
    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 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. See CWA Section 301(b)(1)(C).
2. Compliance Dates
    New and reissued Federal and State NPDES permits to direct 
dischargers must include the effluent limitations promulgated today. 
The permits must require immediate compliance with such limitations. If 
the permitting authority wishes to provide a compliance schedule, it 
must do so through an enforcement mechanism. Existing indirect 
dischargers must comply with today's pretreatment standards no later 
than October 17, 2005. New direct and indirect discharging sources must 
comply with applicable limitations and standards on the date the new 
sources begin operations. New direct and indirect sources are those 
that began construction of iron and steel operations affected by 
today's rule after November 18, 2002. See 65 FR at 82027.
3. Applicability
    In Section VI, EPA provided detailed information on the 
applicability of this rule to various operations. Permit writers and 
pretreatment authorities should closely examine all iron and steel 
operations to determine if they are subject to the provisions of this 
rule. Also see 40 CFR 420.01.
4. Production Basis for Calculation of Permit Limitations
    The NPDES permit regulations at Sec.  122.45(f) require that NPDES 
permit effluent limitations be specified as mass effluent limitations 
(e.g., lbs/day or kg/day), except under certain enumerated 
circumstances that do not apply here. In order to convert the final 
effluent limitations expressed as pounds/thousand pounds to a monthly 
average or daily maximum permit limit, the permitting authority would 
use a production rate with units of thousand pounds/day. The current 
part 420 and Sec.  122.45(b)(2) NPDES permit regulations require that 
pretreatment requirements and NPDES permit limits, respectively, be 
based on a ``* * * reasonable measure of actual production.''
    The 1982 iron and steel regulation at 40 CFR 420.04 sets out the 
basis for calculating mass-based pretreatment requirements and requires 
that they be based on a reasonable measure of actual production. That 
regulation provides the following examples of what may constitute a 
reasonable measure of actual production: the monthly average for the 
highest of the previous five years, or the high month of the previous 
year. Similar provisions exist in the

[[Page 64254]]

national pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR 403.6(c)(3) for deriving 
mass-based pretreatment requirements. Specifically, 40 CFR 403.6(c)(3) 
states that the same production of flow figure shall be used in 
calculating limitations based on pretreatment standards. These values 
are converted to a daily basis (e.g., tons/day) for purposes of 
calculating mass-based pretreatment requirements. EPA is making no 
revision to 420.04.
5. Water Bubble
    The ``water bubble'' is a regulatory flexibility mechanism 
described in the current regulation at 40 CFR 420.03 to allow for 
trading of identical pollutants at any single steel facility with 
multiple compliance points. The bubble has been used at some facilities 
to realize cost savings and/or to facilitate compliance. The 
restrictions on use of the water bubble are described in the proposal 
preamble. See 65 FR at 82031-32.
    While at present NPDES permits for only nine facilities have 
alternative effluent limitations derived from the water bubble, there 
may be increased interest in the water bubble with the promulgation of 
today's rule. EPA proposed some changes to the water bubble, but 
invited comment on all aspects of the provision. These changes EPA 
proposed and EPA's rationale are discussed at 65 FR at 82031-32. EPA 
received some comments opposing some of the proposed revisions 
(generally industry commenters were supportive of expansions of the 
water bubble and environmental group commenters were supportive of 
restrictions on the water bubble). EPA also received comments urging 
the elimination of the provision codified in the 1984 amendment to part 
420 that required a minimum net reduction of the amount of the 
pollutant otherwise authorized by the regulation. Under this provision, 
the amount of the pollutant discharges authorized by the bubble must be 
10% to 15% less than the discharges otherwise authorized by the rule 
without the bubble. These comments argued that the water bubble should 
be used, first and foremost, as a tool to achieve the pollutant 
reductions required by the guideline at the least cost.
    After considering the public comments, EPA makes the following 
changes to the water bubble:

--Allow trades for cokemaking operations but only if the cokemaking 
alternative limitations are more stringent than the limitations in 
Subpart A. See 40 CFR 420.03(f)(1).
--Allow trades for new Subpart M operations. See 40 CFR 420.03(a) and 
(e).
--Allow trades involving cold rolling operations. See 40 CFR 420.03(a).
--Allow trades for new, as well as existing, sources. See 40 CFR 
420.03(a).
--Eliminate the minimum net reduction provision (formerly codified at 
40 CFR 420.03(b)).
--Prohibit trades of oil and grease. See 40 CFR 420.03(c).
--Prohibit trades of 2,3,7,8-TCDF in sintering operations. See 40 CFR 
420.03(f)(2).

    The first change reflects EPA's concern about co-occurring 
contaminants in cokemaking wastewater (e.g., benzo(a)anthracene, 
chrysene, fluoranthene for cokemaking). Allowing a relaxation of the 
limits for cokemaking wastewater could allow undetected increases in 
discharges of these co-occurring contaminants that would not 
necessarily be offset by tighter limits on the regulated pollutants in 
another waste stream. As was the case in the 1982 regulation, EPA is 
promulgating effluent limitations for certain ``indicator'' pollutants, 
including phenols (4AAP), naphthalene, and benzo(a)pyrene for 
cokemaking. The data available to EPA generally show that control of 
the selected ``indicator'' pollutants will result in comparable control 
of other toxic pollutants found in cokemaking wastewaters but not 
specifically limited. A trade of phenols (4AAP) enacted between 
cokemaking and ironmaking wastewaters would not be environmentally 
protective if the increased limitation for phenols (4AAP) occurred in 
the cokemaking wastewater, due to the co-occuring contaminants. EPA 
also notes that trades involving cokemaking operations were previously 
precluded, so this change is an expansion in the water bubble.
    EPA is allowing trades involving cold rolling operations which were 
previously precluded. In the 1982 rulemaking, tetrachloroethlylene was 
a pollutant of concern in cold rolling wastewaters, thus leading to the 
preclusion of trades. However, this is not the case today, based on 
information in the Agency's rulemaking record and Chapter 7 of the TDD. 
EPA likewise is allowing trades involving Subcategory M operations, 
since no toxic pollutants were identified as pollutants of concern.
    EPA is eliminating the requirement that all alternative effluent 
limitations based on the water bubble must achieve a minimum net 
reduction (depending on the pollutant) of at least 10-15% of the 
discharges that would otherwise have been allowable under the 
regulation. EPA is eliminating the requirement in order to allow the 
water bubble provision to be used as a tool to achieve the pollutant 
reductions required by Part 420 at the least cost. This new flexibility 
is especially important in view of the economic condition of the 
industry at this time. EPA notes that nothing in the regulation 
prevents the permitting authority from imposing minimum net reductions 
on a case-by-case basis when appropriate. EPA also notes that the water 
bubble still retains the provision that a discharger cannot qualify for 
alternative effluent limitations if the application of such alternative 
effluent limitations would cause or contribute to an exceedance of any 
applicable water quality standards.
    EPA is prohibiting trades involving oil and grease because of 
differences in the types of oil and grease used among the I&S 
operations. Finishing operations tend to use and discharge synthetic 
and animal fats and oils used to lubricate metal materials, the hot-end 
operations tend to discharge petroleum-based oil and grease used to 
lubricate machinery, and cokemaking operations tend to discharge oil 
and grease containing polynuclear aromatics generated by the combustion 
of coal. EPA is similarly prohibiting trades involving 2,3,7,8-TCDF due 
to the internal monitoring requirements and the associated ML 
limitation.
    EPA concludes that these changes will give added compliance 
flexibility to facilities that choose to take advantage of the water 
bubble provision, while still providing for a high level of 
environmental protection.
6. Compliance With Limitations and Standards
    The same basic procedures apply to the calculation of all effluent 
limitations guidelines and standards for this industry, regardless of 
whether the technology is BPT, BCT, BAT, PSES, PSNS, or NSPS. For 
simplicity, the following discussion refers only to effluent 
limitations guidelines; however, the discussion also applies to 
pretreatment and new source standards.
a. Definitions
    The limitations for pollutants for each option, as presented in 
today's notice, are provided as maximum daily discharge limitations and 
maximum monthly average discharge limitations. Definitions provided in 
40 CFR 122.2 state that the ``maximum daily discharge limitation'' is 
the ``highest allowable ``daily discharge'' `` and the `` maximum 
average for monthly discharge limitation'' is the ``highest allowable 
average of ``daily discharges'' over a calendar month, calculated as 
the sum

[[Page 64255]]

of all ``daily discharges'' measured during a calendar month divided by 
the number of ``daily discharges'' measured during that month.'' Daily 
discharge is defined as 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.''
b. Percentile Basis for Limits, Not Compliance
    EPA promulgates limitations that facilities are capable of 
complying with at all times by properly operating and maintaining their 
processes and treatment technologies. EPA established these limitations 
on the basis of percentiles estimated using data from facilities with 
well-operated and controlled processes and treatment systems. However, 
because EPA uses a percentile basis, the issue of exceedances (i.e., 
values that exceed the limitations) or excursions is often raised in 
public comments on limitations. For example, comments often suggest 
that EPA include a provision that allows a facility to be considered in 
compliance with permit limitations if its discharge exceeds the 
specified monthly average limitations one month out of 20 and the daily 
average limitations one day out of 100. As explained in Section 14.6 of 
the TDD, these limitations were never intended to have the rigid 
probabilistic interpretation implied by such comments. The following 
discussion provides a brief overview of EPA's position on this issue.
    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. Facilities that are designed and operated to achieve 
the long-term average effluent levels used in developing the 
limitations should be capable of compliance with the limitations at all 
times, because the limitations incorporate an allowance for variability 
in effluent levels about the long-term average. The allowance for 
variability is based on control of treatment variability demonstrated 
in normal operations.
    EPA recognizes that, as a result of modifications to 40 CFR part 
420, some dischargers may need to improve treatment systems, process 
controls, and/or treatment system operations in order to consistently 
meet effluent limitations based on revised effluent limitations 
guidelines and standards. EPA believes that this consequence is 
consistent with the Clean Water Act statutory framework, which requires 
that discharge limitations reflect the best available technology.
c. Requirements of Laboratory Analysis
    The permittee is responsible for communicating the requirements of 
the analysis to the laboratory, including the sensitivity required to 
meet the regulatory limits associated with each analyte of interest. In 
turn, the laboratory is responsible for employing the appropriate set 
of method options and a calibration range in which the concentration of 
the lowest non-zero standard represents a sample concentration lower 
than the regulatory limit for each analyte. For example, EPA Methods 
420.1 and 420.2 provide several options for sample preparation and 
analysis, including a preliminary distillation designed to remove 
interferences and a chloroform extraction procedure (Method 420.1) 
designed to improve the sensitivity of the method. Both methods also 
provide information on the concentrations of the calibration standards 
that may be prepared for a given set of procedural options. Each of 
these methods contains at least one set of options that will provide 
sufficient sensitivity to meet the effluent guideline limitations for 
phenols (4AAP). Thus, it is the responsibility of the permittee to 
convey to the laboratory the required sensitivity to comply with the 
limitations. (See Sierra Club v. Union Oil, 813 F.2d 1480, page 1492 
(9th Cir. 1987).) For organic compounds, such as 2,3,7,8-TCDF, 
naphthalene, and benzo(a)pyrene, it may be necessary for laboratories 
to overcome interferences using procedures such as those suggested in 
Guidance on the Evaluation, Resolution, and Documentation of Analytical 
Problems Associated with Compliance Monitoring (EPA 821-B-93-001).
7. Internal Monitoring Requirements and Compliance With ML Limitations 
for Sintering Subcategory
    Working in conjunction with the effluent guidelines and 
pretreatment standards are the monitoring conditions set out in the 
NPDES or POTW discharge permit. An integral part of monitoring 
conditions is the point at which a facility must demonstrate 
compliance. The point at which a sample is collected can have a 
dramatic effect on the monitoring results for that facility. In some 
cases, EPA determines that internal monitoring points are necessary to 
afford the environmental protection projected from a rule, and to 
reflect the reductions achievable by application of the best available 
technology. Authority to address internal waste streams is provided in 
40 CFR 122.44(i)(1)(iii), 122.45(h), and 40 CFR 403.6(e)(2) and (4). 
Permit writers or local pretreatment control authorities may establish 
additional internal monitoring points to the extent consistent with 
EPA's regulations.
    As explained in Section VIII.B, iron and steel dischargers subject 
to the sintering subcategory must demonstrate compliance with the 
effluent limitations and standards for 2,3,7,8-TCDF at the point after 
treatment of sinter plant wastewater separately or in combination with 
blast furnace wastewater, but prior to mixing with process wastewaters 
from processes other than sintering and ironmaking, non-process 
wastewaters and non-contact cooling water in an amount greater than 5 
percent by volume of the sintering process wastewaters. See 40 CFR 
420.29.
    In today's rulemaking for the sintering subcategory, EPA is 
establishing limitation and standard for 2,3,7,8-TCDF that is expressed 
as less than the Minimum Level (``farmer.sandy@epa.gov. A copy may also be downloaded off the internet at 
http://www.epa.gov/icr. Include the ICR and/or OMB number in any 
correspondence.
    Burden means the total time, effort or financial resources expended 
by persons to generate, maintain, retain or disclose or provide 
information to or for a Federal Agency. This includes the time needed 
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a current 
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations 
are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    As noted in the proposed rule, Section 12(d) of the National 
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), (Public Law 
104-113, section 12(d) 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA 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, and business 
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), explanations when the Agency 
decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus 
standards.
    Today's rule does not establish any technical standards. Thus, 
NTTAA does not apply to this rule. It should be noted, however, that 
dischargers complying with this rule may need to use previously 
approved technical standards to analyze for some or all of the 
following pollutants: benzo(a)pyrene, naphthalene, phenols (4AAP), TSS, 
Oil and Grease (HEM), total cyanide, ammonia as Nitrogen, 2,3,7,8-TCDF, 
and pH. Consensus

[[Page 64260]]

standards have already been promulgated in tables at 40 CFR 136.3 for 
measurement of all of the analytes.

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

    The Executive Order ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (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 or safety risk that EPA 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 Executive Order 13045 because it is neither 
``economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866. 
Further, it does not concern an environmental health or safety risk 
that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on 
children.

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    This final rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship 
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. EPA determined no facilities in the scope of the 
final rule are owned by Indian tribes nor are any facilities located in 
tribal lands. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

H. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999) requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This rule only directly affects 
the private sector. It establishes effluent limitations for iron and 
steel facilities. The rule does not apply directly to States and 
localities and will only affect State and local governments when they 
are administering CWA permitting programs. The rule, at most, imposes 
minimal administrative costs on States that have an authorized NPDES 
program. (These States must incorporate the new limitations and 
standards in new and reissued NPDES permits.) Thus, Executive Order 
13132 does not apply to this rule.

I. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects

    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The 
maximum estimated additional energy needs associated with today's rule 
represents less than 0.001 percent of national energy demand, which is 
not considered significant.

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States.
    EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required 
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and 
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of 
the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 
60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is 
not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be 
effective November 18, 2002.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 420



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

    Dated: April 30, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 420--IRON AND STEEL MANUFACTURING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY

    1. The authority citation for part 420 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Secs. 301; 304(b), (c), (e), and (g); 306(b) and (c); 
307; 308 and 501 of the Clean Water Act (the Federal Water Pollution 
Control Act Amendments of 1972., as amended by the Clean Water Act 
of 1977) (the ``Act''); 33 U.S.C. 1311; 1314(b), (c), (e), and (g); 
1316(b) and (c); 1317; 1318, 1361; 86 Stat. 816, Pub. L. 92-500; 91 
Stat. 1567; Pub. L. 95-217.

General Provisions

    2. Section 420.02 is amended by adding paragraphs (r), (s), (t) and 
(u) to read as follows:


Sec.  420.02  General definitions.

* * * * *
    (r) The term Non-process wastewaters means utility wastewaters (for 
example, water treatment residuals, boiler blowdown, and air pollution 
control wastewaters from heat recovery equipment); treated or untreated 
wastewaters from groundwater remediation systems; dewatering water for 
building foundations; and other wastewater streams not associated with 
a production process.
    (s) The term Nitrification means oxidation of ammonium salts to 
nitrites (via Nitrosomas bacteria) and the further oxidation of nitrite 
to nitrate via Nitrobacter bacteria. Nitrification can be accomplished 
in either:
    (1) A single or two-stage activated sludge wastewater treatment 
system; or

[[Page 64261]]

    (2) Wetlands specifically developed with a marsh/pond configuration 
and maintained for the express purpose of removing ammonia-N.
    Indicators of nitrification capability are:
    (1) Biological monitoring for ammonia oxidizing bacteria (AOB) and 
nitrite oxidizing bacteria (NOB) to determine if the nitrification is 
occurring; and
    (2) Analysis of the nitrogen balance to determine if nitrifying 
bacteria reduce the amount of ammonia and increase the amount of 
nitrite and nitrate.
    (t) The term storm water from the immediate process area means 
storm water that comes into contact with process equipment located 
outdoors, storm water collected in process area and bulk storage tank 
secondary containment structures, and storm water from wastewater 
treatment systems located outdoors, provided that it has the potential 
to become contaminated with process wastewater pollutants for the 
particular subcategory. Storm water from building roofs, plant 
roadways, and other storm waters that do not have the potential to 
become contaminated with process wastewater pollutants are not storm 
water from the immediate process area.
    (u) The term 2,3,7,8-TCDF means 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran.

    3. Revise Sec.  420.03 to read as follows:


Sec.  420.03  Alternative effluent limitations representing the degree 
of effluent reduction attainable by the application of best practicable 
control technology currently available, best available technology 
economically achievable, best available demonstrated control 
technology, and best conventional pollutant control technology (the 
``water bubble'').

    (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (c) through (f) of this 
section, any existing or new direct discharging point source subject to 
this part may qualify for alternative effluent limitations to those 
specified in subparts A through M of this part, representing the degree 
of effluent reduction attainable by the application of best practicable 
control technology currently available (BPT), best available technology 
economically achievable (BAT), best conventional pollutant control 
technology (BCT), and best available demonstrated control technology 
(NSPS). The alternative effluent limitations for each pollutant are 
determined for a combination of outfalls by totaling the mass 
limitations allowed under subparts A through M of this part for each 
pollutant.
    (b) The water bubble may be used to calculate alternative effluent 
limitations only for identical pollutants (e.g., lead for lead, not 
lead for zinc).
    (c) Use of the water bubble to develop alternate effluent 
limitations for oil & grease is prohibited.
    (d) A discharger cannot qualify for alternative effluent 
limitations if the application of such alternative effluent limitations 
would cause or contribute to an exceedance of any applicable water 
quality standards.
    (e) Each outfall from which process wastewaters are discharged must 
have specific, fixed effluent limitations for each pollutant limited by 
the applicable subparts A through M of this part.
    (f) Subcategory-Specific Restrictions:
    (1) There shall be no alternate effluent limitations for cokemaking 
process wastewater unless the alternative limitations are more 
stringent than the limitations in Subpart A of this part; and
    (2) There shall be no alternate effluent limitations for 2,3,7,8-
TCDF in sintering process wastewater.

    4. Add Sec.  420.07 to General Provision to read as follows:


Sec.  420.07  Effluent limitations guidelines and standards for pH.

    (a) The pH level in process wastewaters subject to a subpart within 
this part shall be within the range of 6.0 to 9.0.
    (b) The pH level shall be monitored at the point of discharge to 
the receiving water or at the point at which the wastewater leaves the 
wastewater treatment facility operated to treat effluent subject to 
that subpart.

    5. Add Sec.  420.08 to General Provisions to read as follows:


Sec.  420.08  Non-process wastewater and storm water.

    Permit and pretreatment control authorities may provide for 
increased loadings for non-process wastewaters defined at Sec.  420.02 
and for storm water from the immediate process area in NPDES permits 
and pretreatment control mechanisms using best professional judgment, 
but only to the extent such non-process wastewaters result in an 
increased flow.

Subpart A--Cokemaking Subcategory

    6. Section 420.10 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  420.10  Applicability.

    The provisions of this subpart are applicable to discharges and the 
introduction of pollutants into publicly owned treatment works 
resulting from by-product and other cokemaking operations.

    7. Section 420.11 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  420.11  Specialized definitions.

    (a) For the cokemaking subcategory, the term product means the 
production of coke plus coke breeze.
    (b) The term by-product cokemaking means operations in which coal 
is heated in the absence of air to produce metallurgical coke (furnace 
coke and foundry coke), and the recovery of by-products derived from 
the gases and liquids that are driven from the coal during cokemaking.
    (c) The term cokemaking--non-recovery means cokemaking operations 
for production of metallurgical coke (furnace coke and foundry coke) 
without recovery of by-products. Does not include co-generation 
facilities located at non-recovery coke facilities.
    (d) The term coke means a processed form of coal that serves as the 
basic fuel for the smelting of iron ore.
    (1) The term foundry coke means coke produced for foundry 
operations.
    (2) The term furnace coke means coke produced for blast furnace 
operations
    (e) The term merchant coke plant means by-product cokemaking 
operations that provide more than fifty percent of the coke produced to 
operations, industries, or processes other than ironmaking blast 
furnaces associated with steel production.
    (f) The term iron and steel coke plant means by-product cokemaking 
operations other than those at merchant coke plants.
    (g) The term coke oven gas wet desulfurization system means those 
systems that remove sulfur and sulfur compounds from coke oven gas and 
generate process wastewater.
    (h) The term coke breeze means fine coke particles.
    (i) The term indirect ammonia recovery system means those systems 
that recover ammonium hydroxide as a by-product from coke oven gases 
and waste ammonia liquors.
    (j) The term iron and steel means those by-product cokemaking 
operations other than merchant cokemaking operations.
    (k) The term merchant means those by-product cokemaking operations 
that provide more than fifty percent of the coke produced to 
operations, industries, or processes other than ironmaking blast 
furnaces associated with steel production.
    (l) The term O&G (as HEM) means total recoverable oil and grease 
measured as n-hexane extractable material.
    (m) The term wet desulfurization system means those systems that 
remove sulfur compounds from coke oven gases and produce a contaminated 
process wastewater.

[[Page 64262]]


    8. Section 420.12 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  420.12  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable 
technology currently available (BPT).

* * * * *
    (c) Cokemaking--non-recovery. Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 
through 125.32, any existing point source subject to this segment 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): There shall 
be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to waters of the U.S.

    9. Section 420.13 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  420.13  Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree 
of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the 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):
    (a) By-product cokemaking.

                 Subpart A.--Effluent Limitations (BAT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
             Regulated parameter                  Maximum      monthly
                                                 daily \1\     avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia-N....................................     0.00293     0.00202
Benzo(a)pyrene...............................     0.0000110   0.00000612
Cyanide......................................     0.00297     0.00208
Naphthalene..................................     0.0000111   0.00000616
Phenols (4AAP)...............................     0.0000381   0.0000238
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per thousand lb of product.

    (1) Increased loadings, not to exceed 13.3 per cent of the above 
limitations, shall be provided for process wastewaters from coke oven 
gas wet desulfurization systems, but only to the extent such systems 
generate process wastewaters.
    (2) Increased loadings shall be provided for process wastewaters 
from other wet air pollution control systems (except those from coal 
charging and coke pushing emission controls), coal tar processing 
operations and coke plant groundwater remediation systems, but only to 
the extent such systems generate process wastewaters and those 
wastewaters are co-treated with process wastewaters from by-product 
cokemaking wastewaters.
    (3) Increased loadings, not to exceed 44.2 percent of the above 
limitations, shall be provided for water used for the optimization of 
coke plant biological treatment systems.
    (b) Cokemaking--non-recovery. There shall be no discharge of 
process wastewater pollutants to waters of the U.S.

    10. Section 420.14 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  420.14  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    New sources subject to this subpart must achieve the following new 
source performance standards (NSPS), as applicable.
    (a) By-product cokemaking.
    (1) Any new source subject to the provisions of this section that 
commenced discharging after November 19, 2012, and before November 18, 
2002, must continue to achieve the standards specified in Sec.  420.14 
of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, revised as of July 1, 
2001, except as provided below. For toxic and nonconventional 
pollutants, those standards shall apply until the expiration of the 
applicable time period specified in 40 CFR 122.29(d)(1); thereafter, 
the source must achieve the effluent limitations specified in Sec.  
420.13(a).
    (2) The following standards apply with respect to each new source 
that commences construction after November 18, 2002:

           Subpart A.--New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
             Regulated parameter                  Maximum      monthly
                                                 daily \1\     avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia-N....................................     0.00293     0.00202
Benzo(a)pyrene...............................     0.0000110   0.00000612
Cyanide......................................     0.00297     0.00208
Naphthalene..................................     0.0000111   0.00000616
O&G (as HEM).................................     0.00676     0.0037
pH \2\.......................................  (\2\)         (\2\)
Phenols (4AAP)...............................     0.0000381   0.0000238
TSS..........................................     0.0343      0.0140
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per thousand lb of product.
\2\ Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0.

    (A) Increased loadings, not to exceed 13.3 per cent of the above 
limitations, shall be provided for process wastewaters from coke oven 
gas wet desulfurization systems, but only to the extent such systems 
generate process wastewaters.
    (B) Increased loadings shall be provided for process wastewaters 
from other wet air pollution control systems (except those from coal 
charging and

[[Page 64263]]

coke pushing emission controls), coal tar processing operations and 
coke plant groundwater remediation systems, but only to the extent such 
systems generate process wastewaters and those wastewaters are co-
treated with process wastewaters from by-product cokemaking 
wastewaters.
    (C) Increased loadings, not to exceed 44.2 percent of the above 
limitations, shall be provided for water used for the optimization of 
coke plant biological treatment systems.
    (b) Cokemaking--non-recovery. There shall be no discharge of 
process wastewater pollutants to waters of the U.S.
    11. Section 420.15 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  420.15  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source 
subject to this subpart that introduces pollutants into a publicly 
owned treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve 
the following pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES):
    (a) By-product cokemaking.

     Subpart A.--Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
             Regulated parameter                  Maximum      monthly
                                                 daily \1\     avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia-N \2\................................     0.0333      0.0200
Cyanide......................................     0.00724     0.00506
Naphthalene..................................     0.0000472   0.0000392
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per thousand lb of product.
\2\ The pretreatment standards for ammonia are not applicable to sources
  that discharge to a POTW with nitrification capability (defined at
  Sec.   420.02(s)).

    (1) Increased loadings, not to exceed 13.3 per cent of the above 
limitations, shall be provided for process wastewaters from wet coke 
oven gas desulfurization systems, but only to the extent such systems 
generate process wastewaters.
    (2) Increased loadings shall be provided for process wastewaters 
from other wet air pollution control systems (except those from coal 
charging and coke pushing emission controls), coal tar processing 
operations and coke plant groundwater remediation systems, but only to 
the extent such systems generate process wastewaters and those 
wastewaters are co-treated with process wastewaters from by-product 
cokemaking wastewaters.
    (3) Increased loadings, not to exceed 44.2 percent of the above 
limitations, shall be provided for water used for the optimization of 
coke plant biological treatment systems.
    (b) Cokemaking--non-recovery. There shall be no discharge of 
process wastewater pollutants to POTWs.
    12. Section 420.16 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  420.16  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new source subject to this 
subpart that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment 
works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve the following 
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS), as applicable.
    (a) By-product cokemaking.
    (1) Any new source subject to the provisions of this section that 
commenced discharging after November 19, 2012 and before November 18, 
2002 must continue to achieve the standards specified in Sec.  420.16 
of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, revised as of July 1, 
2001, (except for the standards for phenols 4AAP) for ten years 
beginning on the date the source commenced discharge or during the 
period of depreciation or amortization of the facility, whichever comes 
first, after which the source must achieve the standards specified in 
Sec.  420.15(a).
    (2) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, the following standards 
apply with respect to each new source that commences construction after 
November 18, 2002:

        Subpart A.--Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
             Regulated parameter                  Maximum      monthly
                                                 daily \1\     avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia-N\2\.................................     0.00293     0.00202
Benzo(a)pyrene...............................     0.0000110   0.00000612
Cyanide......................................     0.00297     0.00208
Naphthalene..................................     0.0000111   0.00000616
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per thousand lb of product.
\2\ The pretreatment standards for ammonia are not applicable to sources
  that discharge to a POTW with nitrification capability (defined at
  Sec.   420.02(s)).

    (A) Increased loadings, not to exceed 13.3 percent of the above 
limitations, shall be provided for process wastewaters from coke oven 
gas wet desulfurization systems, but only to the extent such systems 
generate process wastewaters.
    (B) Increased loadings shall be provided for process wastewaters 
from other wet air pollution control systems (except those from coal 
charging and coke pushing emission controls), coal tar processing 
operations and coke plant groundwater remediation systems, but only to 
the extent such systems generate process wastewaters and those 
wastewaters are co-treated with process wastewaters from by-product 
cokemaking wastewaters.
    (C) Increased loadings, not to exceed 44.2 percent of the above 
limitations, shall be provided for water used for the optimization of 
coke plant biological treatment systems.
    (b) Cokemaking--non-recovery. Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, 
the following standards apply with respect to each new source that 
commences construction after November 18, 2002:

[[Page 64264]]

There shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to POTWs.

    13. Section 420.17 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  420.17  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional 
pollutant control technology (BCT).

* * * * *
    (c) Cokemaking--non-recovery. Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 
through 125.32, any existing point source subject to this segment must 
achieve the following effluent limitations representing the degree of 
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best 
conventional pollutant control technology (BCT): There shall be no 
discharge of process wastewater pollutants to waters of the U.S.

    14. Section 420.18 is added to Subpart A to read as follows:


Sec.  420.18  Pretreatment standards compliance dates.

    Compliance with the pretreatment standards for existing sources set 
forth in Sec.  420.15 of this subpart is required not later than 
October 17, 2005 whether or not the pretreatment authority issues or 
amends a pretreatment permit requiring such compliance. Until that 
date, the pretreatment standards for existing sources set forth in 
Subpart A of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, revised as of 
July 1, 2001, shall continue to apply.

Subpart B--Sintering Subcategory

    15. Section 420.21 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  420.21  Specialized definitions.

    As used in this subpart:
    (a) For the sintering subcategory, the term product means sinter 
agglomerated from iron-bearing materials.
    (b) The term dry air pollution control system means an emission 
control system that utilizes filters to remove iron-bearing particles 
(fines) from blast furnace or sintering off-gases.
    (c) The term minimum level (ML) means the level at which the 
analytical system gives recognizable signals and an acceptable 
calibration point. For 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran, the minimum 
level is 10 pg/L per EPA Method 1613B for water and wastewater samples.
    (d) The term pg/L means picograms per liter (ppt = 1.0x10-12 gm/L).
    (e) The term sintering means a process for agglomerating iron-
bearing materials into small pellets (sinter) that can be charged to a 
blast furnace.
    (f) The term wet air pollution control system means an emission 
control system that utilizes water to clean process or furnace off-
gases.

    16. Section 420.22 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  420.22  Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree 
of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best 
practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction 
attainable by the application of the best practicable control 
technology currently available (BPT).
    (a) Sintering operations with wet air pollution control system. The 
following table presents BPT limitations for sintering operations with 
wet air pollution control systems:

                                     Subpart B.--Effluent Limitations (BPT)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 BPT effluent limitations
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pollutants or pollutant property                                            Average of daily values for 30
                                                 Maximum for any 1 day                 consecutive days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Kg/kkg (pounds per 1000 lb) of product
-----------------------------------------
TSS.....................................  0.0751                              0.0250
O&G.....................................  0.0150                              0.00501
pH......................................  (1)                                 (1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0.

    (b) Sintering operations with dry air pollution control system. 
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to waters 
of the U.S.

    17. Section 420.23 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  420.23  Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree 
of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the 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 control technology 
economically achievable (BAT).
    (a) Sintering operations with wet air pollution control system. The 
following table presents BAT limitations for sintering operations with 
wet air pollution control systems:

                                     Subpart B.--Effluent Limitations (BAT)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Regulated parameter                      Maximum daily1                   Maximum monthly avg.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia-N2..............................  0.0150                              0.00501
Cyanide2................................  0.00300                             0.00150
Lead....................................  0.000451                            0.000150
Phenols (4AAP)2.........................  0.000100                            0.0000501
2,3,7,8-TCDF............................  3....................................  0.000250                            ..................................

[[Page 64265]]

 
Zinc....................................  0.000676                            0.000225
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Pounds per thousand lb of product.
2 Limits for these parameters apply only when sintering waste water is co-treated with ironmaking wastewater.
3 Applicable only when sintering process wastewater is chlorinated.

    (b) Sintering operations with dry air pollution control system. 
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to waters 
of the U.S.

    18. Section 420.24 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  420.24  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    New sources subject to this subpart must achieve the following new 
source performance standards (NSPS), as applicable.
    (a) Any new source subject to the provisions of this section that 
commenced discharging after November 19, 2012 and before November 18, 
2002 must continue to achieve the applicable standards specified in 
Sec.  420.24 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, revised as 
of July 1, 2001, except that after the expiration of the applicable 
time period specified in 40 CFR 122.29(d)(1), the source must also 
achieve the effluent limitations specified in Sec.  420.23 for 2,3,7,8-
TCDF.
    (b) The following standards apply with respect to each new source 
that commences construction after November 18, 2002.
    (1) Sintering operations with wet air pollution control system. The 
following table presents NSPS for sintering operations with wet air 
pollution control systems:

                               Subpart B.--New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Regulated parameter                      Maximum daily1                   Maximum monthly avg.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSS.....................................  0.0200                              0.00751
O&G.....................................  0.00501                             ..................................
Ammonia-N2..............................  0.0150                              0.00501
Cyanide2................................  0.00100                             0.000501
Phenols (4AAP)2.........................  0.000100                            0.0000501
TRC3....................................  0.000250                            ..................................
Lead....................................  0.000451                            0.000150
Zinc....................................  0.000676                            0.000225
pH......................................  (4)                                 (4)
2,3,7,8-TCDF............................  1 Pounds per thousand lb of product.
2 Limits for these parameters apply only when sintering wastewater is co-treated with ironmaking wastewater.
3 Applicable only when sintering process wastewater is chlorinated.
4 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0.

    (2) Sintering operations with dry air pollution control system. 
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to waters 
of the U.S.

    19. Section 420.25 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  420.25  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source 
subject to this subpart that introduces pollutants into a publicly 
owned treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve 
the following pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES):
    (a) Sintering operations with wet air pollution control system. The 
following table presents PSES for sintering operations with wet air 
pollution control systems:

                         Subpart B.--Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Regulated parameter                      Maximum daily1                   Maximum monthly avg.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia-N2,3............................  0.0150                              0.00501
Cyanide2................................  0.00300                             0.00150
Phenols (4AAP)2.........................  0.000100                            0.0000501
Lead....................................  0.000451                            0.000150
Zinc....................................  0.000676                            0.000225
2,3,7,8-TCDF............................  1 Pounds per thousand lb of product.
2 The pretreatment standards for these parameters apply only when sintering wastewater is co-treated with
  ironmaking wastewater.
3 The pretreatment standards for ammonia are not applicable to sources that discharge to a POTW with
  nitrification capability (defined at Sec.   420.02(s)).


[[Page 64266]]

    (b) Sintering operations with dry air pollution control system. 
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to POTWs.

    20. Section 420.26 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  420.26  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new source subject to this 
subpart that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment 
works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve the following 
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS), as applicable.
    (a) Sintering operations with wet air pollution control system.
    (1) Any new source subject to the provisions of this section that 
commenced discharging after November 19, 2012 and before November 18, 
2002 must continue to achieve the standards specified in Sec.  420.26 
of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, revised as of July 1, 
2001, for ten years beginning on the date the source commenced 
discharge or during the period of depreciation or amortization of the 
facility, whichever comes first, after which the source must also 
achieve the pretreatment standard for 2,3,7,8-TCDF specified in Sec.  
420.25.
    (2) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, the following standards 
apply with respect to each new source that commences construction after 
November 18, 2002: The following table presents PSNS for sintering 
operations with wet air pollution control systems:

                            Subpart B.--Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Regulated parameter                     Maximum daily \1\                Maximum monthly avg.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia-N 2,3...........................  0.0150                              0.00501
Cyanide \2\.............................  0.00100                             0.000501
Phenols (4AAP) \2\......................  0.000100                            0.0000501
Lead....................................  0.000451                            0.000150
Zinc....................................  0.000676                            0.000225
2,3,7,8-TCDF............................