[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 92 (Tuesday, May 13, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25686-25745]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-4258]
[[Page 25685]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 438
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards
for the Metal Products and Machinery Point Source Category; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2003 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 25686]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 438
[FRL-7453-6]
RIN 2040-AB79
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance
Standards for the Metal Products and Machinery Point Source Category
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is publishing final regulations establishing Clean Water
Act (CWA) technology-based effluent limitations guidelines for the
metal products and machinery (MP&M) point source category. The metal
products and machinery point source category includes facilities that
manufacture, rebuild, or maintain metal products, parts, or machines.
EPA is promulgating limitations and standards only for facilities that
directly discharge wastewaters from oily operations in the Oily Wastes
subcategory.
EPA expects compliance with this regulation to reduce the discharge
of conventional pollutants by approximately 500,000 pounds per year.
EPA estimates the annual cost of the rule will be $13.8 million (pre-
tax $2001). EPA estimates that the annual benefits of the rule to be
approximately $1.5 million ($2001).
DATES: This regulation shall become effective June 12, 2003.
ADDRESSES: The administrative record is available for inspection and
copying at the Water Docket, located at the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC)
in the basement of the EPA West Building, Room B-102, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The rule and key supporting materials are
also electronically available via EPA Dockets (Edocket) at http://
www.epa.gov/edocket/ under Edocket number OW-2002-0033 or at http://
www.epa.gov/guide/mpm/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information concerning
today's final rule, contact Mr. Carey A. Johnston at (202) 566-1014 or
Ms. Shari Z. Barash at (202) 566-0996. For economic information contact
Mr. James Covington at (202) 566-1034.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
What Entities Are Potentially Regulated by This Final Rule?
Entities potentially regulated by this action include facilities
that directly discharge wastewaters from oily operations and include
the following types:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..................... Facilities that discharge wastewater from
oily operations and manufacture,
maintain, or rebuild metal parts,
products or machines used in the
following sectors: Aerospace, Aircraft,
Bus & Truck, Electronic Equipment,
Hardware, Household Equipment,
Instruments, Mobile Industrial
Equipment, Motor Vehicles, Office
Machines, Ordnance, Precious Metals and
Jewelry, Railroad, Ships and Boats,
Stationary Industrial Equipment, and
Miscellaneous Metal Products.
Government................... State and local government facilities
that discharge wastewater from oily
operations and manufacture, maintain, or
rebuild metal parts, products or
machines in one of the sectors
previously listed (e.g., a town that
operates its own bus, truck, and/or snow
removal equipment maintenance facility).
Federal facilities that discharge
wastewater from oily operations and
manufacture, maintain, or rebuild metal
parts, products or machines.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The term ``oily operations'' is defined at 40 CFR 438.2(f) and
appendix B of part 438.
Note: See Appendix A of the TDD for a list of example NAICS and SIC
codes that may apply to facilities regulated by MP&M.
EPA does not intend the preceding table to be exhaustive, but
rather it provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be
regulated by this action. This table lists the types of entities that
EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other
types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To
determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should
carefully examine the applicability criteria listed at 40 CFR 438.1 and
438.10 of today's rule. If you still have questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult one of the
persons listed for technical information in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?
EPA has established an official public docket for this action under
Docket ID. No. OW-2002-0033. The official public docket is the
collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the
Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) in the basement of EPA
West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington DC. The EPA
Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number
for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number
for the Water Docket is (202) 566-2426. For access to the docket
materials, please call ahead to schedule an appointment. A reasonable
fee may be charged for photocopying.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may
use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to view public comments,
access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket,
and to access those documents in the public docket that are available
electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available
electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available
docket materials through the docket facility previously identified.
Once in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the appropriate
docket identification number (OW-2002-0033).
Major supporting documents are also available in hard copy from the
National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP), U.S.
EPA/NSCEP, PO Box 42419, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA 45242-2419, (800) 490-
9198, http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom/. You can obtain electronic copies of
this preamble and rule as well as major supporting documents at EPA
Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ and http://www.epa.gov/guide/
mpm. The two major documents supporting the final regulations are:
[sbull] ``Development Document for the Final Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Metal Products & Machinery Point
Source Category'' [EPA-821-B-03-001] referred to in the preamble as the
Technical Development Document (TDD): This document presents the
technical information that formed the basis for EPA's decisions in
today's final rule. The TDD describes, among other things, the data
collection activities, the wastewater treatment
[[Page 25687]]
technology options considered by the Agency as the basis for effluent
limitations guidelines and standards, the pollutants found in MP&M
wastewaters, and the estimation of pollutant removals associated with
certain pollutant control options.
[sbull] ``Economic, Environmental, and Benefits Analysis of the
Final Metal Products & Machinery Rule'' [EPA-821-B-03-002] referred to
in the preamble as the Economic, Environmental, and Benefits Analysis
(EEBA): This document presents the methodology employed to assess
economic impacts and environmental impacts and benefits of the final
rule and the results of the analysis.
What Process Governs Judicial Review for Today's Final Rule?
In accordance with 40 CFR 23.2, today's rule is considered
promulgated for the purposes of judicial review as of 1 p.m. Eastern
Daylight Time, May 27, 2003. Under section 509(b)(1) of the Clean Water
Act (CWA), judicial review of today's effluent limitations guidelines
and standards may be obtained by filing a petition in the United States
Circuit Court of Appeals 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.
What Are the Compliance Dates for Today's Final Rule?
Existing direct dischargers must comply with today's limitations
based on the best practicable control technology currently available
(BPT) and the best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT) as
soon as their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits include such limitations. New direct discharging sources must
comply with applicable new source performance standards (NSPS) on the
date the new sources begin discharging. For purposes of NSPS, a source
is a new source if it commences construction after June 12, 2003.
How Does EPA Protect 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, EPA
has not included these materials 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.
How Is This Preamble Organized?
The following outline is for the preamble to the final rule. It is
written in plain language designed to help the reader understand the
information in the final rule. This preamble contains a short summary
of what was proposed, the key comments that the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) received on the proposed rule, and the
principal bases for EPA's decisions.
I. Legal Authority
II. Legislative Background
A. Clean Water Act
B. Pollution Prevention Act
C. Section 304(m) Requirements
III. Metal Products & Machinery Effluent Guidelines Rulemaking
History
A. 1995 and 2001 Proposed Regulations
B. June 2002 Notice of Data Availability
IV. Summary of Significant Decisions
A. Decisions Regarding the Content of the Regulation
B. Decisions Regarding Methodology
V. Scope/Applicability of the Final Regulation
A. General Overview and Wastewaters Covered
B. Subcategorization
VI. The Final Regulation
A. General Metals Subcategory
B. Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory
C. Printed Wiring Board Subcategory
D. Non-Chromium Anodizing Subcategory
E. Steel Forming & Finishing Subcategory
F. Oily Wastes Subcategory
G. Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory
H. Shipbuilding Dry Dock Subcategory
VII. Pollutant Reduction and Compliance Cost Estimates
A. Pollutant Reductions
B. Regulatory Costs
VIII. Economic Analyses
A. Introduction and Overview
B. Economic Costs of Technology Options by Subcategory
C. Facility Level Economic Impacts of the Final Rule by
Subcategory
D. Firm Level Impacts
E. Impacts on Government-Owned Facilities
F. Community Level Impacts
G. Foreign Trade Impacts
H. Administrative Costs
I. Social Costs
J. Cost and Removal Comparison Analysis
K. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
IX. Water Quality Analysis and Environmental Benefits
A. Introduction and Overview
B. Reduced Human Health Risk
C. Improved Ecological Conditions and Recreational Uses
D. Effect on POTW Operations
E. Summary of Benefits
F. National Cost-Benefit Comparison
G. Ohio Case Study
X. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
A. Air Pollution
B. Solid Waste
C. Energy Requirements
XI. Regulatory Implementation
A. Implementation of the Limitations and Standards for Direct
Dischargers
B. Upset and Bypass Provisions
C. Variances and Modifications
XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health & Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act
Appendix A To The Preamble: Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Other Terms
Used in Today's Final Rule
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 and under authority of the Pollution Prevention
Act of 1990 (PPA), 42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq., Public Law 101-508,
November 5, 1990.
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.
[[Page 25688]]
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 from 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 (see 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 limitations 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 (O&G) as an
additional conventional pollutant on July 30, 1979 (see 44 FR 44501).
EPA has identified 65 pollutants and classes of pollutants as toxic
pollutants, of which 126 specific substances have been designated
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 (see 51 FR 24974).
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 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. Pollution Prevention Act
The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA) (42 U.S.C. 13101 et
seq., Public Law 101-508, November 5, 1990) ``declares it to be the
national policy of the United States that pollution should be prevented
or reduced whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be prevented should
be recycled in an environmentally safe manner, whenever
[[Page 25689]]
feasible; pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled should be
treated in an environmentally safe manner whenever feasible; and
disposal or release into the environment should be employed only as a
last resort * * *'' (Sec. 6602; 42 U.S.C. 13101 (b)). In short,
preventing pollution before it is created is preferable to trying to
manage, treat or dispose of it after it is created. The PPA directs the
Agency to, among other things, ``review regulations of the Agency prior
and subsequent to their proposal to determine their effect on source
reduction'' (Sec. 6604; 42 U.S.C. 13103(b)(2)). EPA reviewed this
effluent guideline for its incorporation of pollution prevention.
According to the PPA, source reduction reduces the generation and
release of hazardous substances, pollutants, wastes, contaminants, or
residuals at the source, usually within a process. The term source
reduction ``include[s] equipment or technology modifications, process
or procedure modifications, reformulation or redesign of products,
substitution of raw materials, and improvements in housekeeping,
maintenance, training or inventory control. The term `source reduction'
does not include any practice which alters the physical, chemical, or
biological characteristics or the volume of a hazardous substance,
pollutant, or contaminant through a process or activity which itself is
not integral to or necessary for the production of a product or the
providing of a service.'' 42 U.S.C. 13102(5). In effect, source
reduction means reducing the amount of a pollutant that enters a waste
stream or that is otherwise released into the environment prior to out-
of-process recycling, treatment, or disposal.
In these final regulations, EPA supports pollution prevention
technology by including pollution prevention in its technology basis
for today's limitations and new source performance standards. This
includes water conservation and re-use of lubricants and solvents.
C. 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; and (2)
promulgating new effluent guidelines. On January 2, 1990, EPA published
an Effluent Guidelines Plan (see 55 FR 80), in which schedules were
established for developing new and revised effluent guidelines for
several industry categories, including the metal products and machinery
industry. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., and Public Citizen,
Inc., challenged the Effluent Guidelines Plan in a suit filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, (NRDC et al., v.
Browner, Civ. No. 89-2980). On January 31, 1992, the Court entered a
consent decree (the ``304(m) Decree''), which establishes schedules
for, among other things, EPA's proposal and promulgation of effluent
guidelines for a number of point source categories. The consent decree,
as amended, requires EPA to take final action on the Metal Products and
Machinery effluent guidelines by February 14, 2003.
III. Metal Products & Machinery Effluent Guidelines Rulemaking History
A. 1995 and 2001 Proposed Regulations
On May 30, 1995, EPA published a proposal entitled, ``Effluent
Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source
Performance Standards: Metal Products and Machinery'' (see 60 FR
28210). Throughout today's preamble, EPA refers to this 1995 proposal
as the ``Phase I'' or the ``1995'' proposal for the Metal Products and
Machinery industry. To make the regulation more manageable, EPA
initially divided the industry into two phases based on industrial
sectors. The Phase I proposal included the following industry sectors:
Aerospace; Aircraft; Electronic Equipment; Hardware; Mobile Industrial
Equipment; Ordnance; and Stationary Industrial Equipment. At that time,
EPA planned to propose a rule for the Phase II sectors approximately
three years after the MP&M Phase I proposal. Phase II sectors included:
Bus & Truck, Household Equipment, Instruments, Job Shops, Motor
Vehicles, Office Machines, Precious Metals and Jewelry, Printed Wiring
Boards, Railroad, Ships and Boats, and Miscellaneous Metal Products.
EPA received over 350 public comments on the Phase I proposal. One
area where commentors from all stakeholder groups (i.e., industry,
environmental groups, regulators) were in agreement was that EPA should
not divide the industry into two separate regulations. Commentors
raised concerns regarding the regulation of similar facilities with
different compliance schedules and potentially different limitations
solely based on whether they were in a Phase I or Phase II MP&M
industrial sector. Furthermore, many facilities performed work in
multiple sectors. In such cases, permit writers and control authorities
(e.g., POTWs) would need to decide which MP&M rule (Phase I or II)
applied to a facility. EPA's responses to comments can be found in
section 20.3 of the docket for the rule.
Based on these comments, EPA published a new proposal on January 3,
2001 (see 66 FR 424) which completely replaced the 1995 proposal.
Throughout this preamble, EPA refers to this proposal as the ``2001''
proposal for the Metal Products and Machinery industry. In that notice,
EPA proposed to establish new limitations and standards for
approximately 10,000 facilities in the 18 industrial sectors (without
any designation of ``Phase I'' or ``Phase II''). EPA also divided the
industry into eight regulatory subcategories: General Metals, Metal
Finishing Job Shops, Printed Wiring Board, Non-Chromium Anodizing,
Steel Forming & Finishing, Oily Wastes, Railroad Line Maintenance, and
Shipbuilding Dry Docks (see 66 FR 439 for a discussion on the
development of EPA's proposed subcategorization scheme).
EPA found two basic types of waste streams in the industry: (1)
Wastewater with high metals content (metal-bearing); and (2) wastewater
with low concentration of metals, and high oil and grease content (oil-
bearing). When looking at facilities generating metal-bearing
wastewater (with or without oil-bearing wastewater), EPA identified
five groups of facilities that could potentially be subcategorized by
dominant product, raw materials used, and/or nature of the waste
generated (i.e., General Metals, Metal Finishing Job Shops, Printed
Wiring Board, Non-Chromium Anodizing, and Steel Forming & Finishing).
When evaluating facilities with only oil-bearing wastewater for
potential further subcategorization, EPA identified two types of
facilities (i.e., Railroad Line Maintenance and Shipbuilding Dry Docks)
that were different from the other facilities in the Oily Wastes
subcategory based on size, location, and dominant product or activity.
This subcategorization scheme allowed EPA to more accurately assess
various technology options in terms of compliance costs, pollutant
reductions, benefits, and economic impacts.
EPA proposed new limitations and standards for direct dischargers
in all eight MP&M subcategories and proposed pretreatment standards for
all indirect dischargers in three subcategories (i.e., Metal Finishing
Job Shops, Printed Wiring Board, and Steel Forming & Finishing);
pretreatment standards for facilities above a certain wastewater flow
volume in two subcategories (i.e., General Metals and Oily Wastes); and
no national pretreatment standards for facilities in three
subcategories (i.e., Non-Chromium
[[Page 25690]]
Anodizing, Railroad Line Maintenance, and Shipbuilding Dry Docks). EPA
received over 1500 comment letters on the 2001 proposal. EPA's
responses to the comments can be found in section 20.3 of the
rulemaking.
B. June 2002 Notice of Data Availability
On June 5, 2002, EPA published a Notice of Data Availability (NODA)
at 67 FR 38752. In the NODA, EPA discussed major issues raised in
comments on the 2001 proposal; suggested revisions to the technical and
economic methodologies used to estimate compliance costs, pollutant
loadings, and economic and environmental impacts; presented the results
of these suggested methodology changes and incorporation of new (or
revised) data; and summarized the Agency's thinking on how these
results could affect the Agency's final decisions.
The NODA also included a discussion of possible alternative options
for certain subcategories based on comments, including an Environmental
Management System (EMS) alternative in lieu of part 438 limitations and
standards, and a discussion of ``upgrading'' facilities currently
regulated under the Electroplating regulations (40 CFR part 413) to
meet the Metal Finishing regulations (40 CFR part 433) (see 67 FR
38797). Finally, the NODA included preliminary revised effluent
limitations and pretreatment standards for all eight proposed
subcategories. EPA received over 300 comment letters on the NODA. EPA's
responses to the comments can be found in section 20.3 of the docket
for the rule.
IV. Summary of Significant Decisions
As the previous discussion of the development of this regulation
explains, EPA proposed regulating discharges associated with a number
of different operations in the MP&M industry. Thus, EPA proposed
regulations that would have established new limitations and standards
for approximately 10,000 facilities in 18 industrial sectors that EPA
subcategorized in eight subcategories. Following its consideration of
comments submitted to EPA as well as intensive scrutiny of the data
used to develop the proposal, EPA has determined that it should only
finalize regulations for the Oily Wastes subcategory. These regulations
would affect approximately 2,400 facilities. The following material
explains EPA's decisions underlying today's regulation. It discusses
significant issues considered by EPA or raised by commentors on the May
1995 and January 2001 proposed rules and June 2002 NODA, and how EPA
has resolved these issues in today's final rule.
A. Decisions Regarding the Content of the Regulation
The following discussion describes how EPA has subcategorized this
industry in developing limitations and standards, and EPA's decisions
about whether to subject particular subcategories to limitations and
standards. It also identifies the pollution control technology EPA used
as the basis for establishing limitations and standards. Next, this
section discusses the applicability of the rule to iron and steel
operations and to ``oily operations.'' The section also looks at the
regulated pollutants and describes EPA decisions concerning the use of
a ``pollution prevention'' alternative for complying with the final
rule.
1. Subcategorization Structure
The CWA requires EPA, in developing effluent limitations guidelines
and pretreatment standards that reflect the best available technology
economically achievable to consider a number of different factors.
Among others, these include the age of the equipment and facilities in
the category, manufacturing processes employed, types of treatment
technology to reduce effluent discharges, and the cost of effluent
reductions (section 304(b)(2)(b) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1314(b)(2)(B)).
The statute also authorizes EPA to take into account other factors that
the Administrator deems appropriate.
One way in which the Agency has taken some of these factors into
account is by breaking down categories of industries into separate
classes of similar characteristics. This recognizes the major
differences among companies within an industry that may reflect, for
example, different manufacturing processes or wastewater
characteristics. One result of subdividing an industry by subcategories
is to safeguard against overzealous regulatory standards, increase the
confidence that the regulations are practicable, and diminish the need
to address variations between facilities through a variance process
(Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1053 (D.C. Cir. 1978)).
As discussed in section III.A of today's final rule, in 2001 EPA
proposed to divide the MP&M industry into eight regulatory
subcategories based on the manufacturing, maintenance or rebuilding
operations performed at a facility (called ``unit operations'' in this
preamble): General Metals, Metal Finishing Job Shops, Printed Wiring
Board, Non-Chromium Anodizing, Steel Forming & Finishing, Oily Wastes,
Railroad Line Maintenance, and Shipbuilding Dry Docks. Based on
comments submitted on the proposed rule and NODA, EPA has refined
today's final subcategorization structure for the analyses performed to
support today's final rule. For the purposes of analyzing issues in
developing the final rule, EPA retained the eight subcategory
structure, but altered the placement of some operations within certain
subcategories. For example, the subcategorization approach that EPA has
used for analyses supporting today's final rule incorporates printed
wiring board job shops in the Printed Wiring Board subcategory (as
opposed to the Metal Finishing Job Shop subcategory, as proposed) and
places printed wiring assembly facilities in the General Metals
subcategory (see 67 FR 38756).
As discussed in the NODA, EPA also considered an additional
subcategory for facilities that primarily perform zinc electroplating
(``zinc platers''). Depending on whether or not these facilities
operate as a captive or a job shop, EPA had proposed to include them as
part of the General Metals or Metal Finishing Job Shop subcategories,
respectively. The NODA explained that EPA was also considering: (1)
Creating a separate subcategory for zinc platers; (2) segmenting zinc
platers within the General Metals and Metal Finishing Job Shop
subcategories for zinc platers; or (3) retaining the proposed
subcategory structure and establishing numerical limitations and
standards for zinc that would be achievable by zinc platers (see 67 FR
38756). Commentors on the NODA supported retaining the proposed
subcategories as long as the record demonstrated that zinc platers
could achieve the zinc numerical limitations and standards. They raised
concerns that creating a separate subcategory or segment to address the
limitations for one pollutant would be confusing and difficult to
implement. EPA did not create a separate subcategory or segment for
zinc platers in evaluating the data for the final rule. These zinc
platers remain subject to parts 413 and/or 433.
Also, as discussed in the NODA, EPA considered establishing the
Steel Forming and Finishing subcategory for wastewater discharges
resulting from: (1) Steel forming and finishing operations (e.g., cold
forming on steel wire, rod, bar, pipe, and tube); and (2) continuous
electroplating of flat steel products (e.g., strip, sheet, and plate).
EPA re-examined its database for facilities that perform continuous
steel electroplating, and found that, contrary to its initial finding,
continuous electroplaters do not perform operations similar to other
facilities in this
[[Page 25691]]
subcategory (i.e., steel forming and finishing facilities performing
cold forming on steel wire, rod, bar, pipe, and tube). Thus, EPA
included continuous electroplaters performing electroplating and
coating operations in the General Metals subcategory for analyses
supporting today's final rule.
Finally, as explained in section IV.B, based on comments and
revisions to analytical databases, the Agency re-evaluated its
technical and economic analyses for the final rule. EPA performed its
re-evaluation of all proposed subcategories. As a result of this
assessment, EPA decided to only establish effluent guidelines for the
Oily Wastes subcategory.
2. Summary of Regulatory Decisions
The analyses for today's final rule incorporate database changes,
additional data, and methodological changes as discussed in the NODA
and in section IV.B of today's preamble. Based on EPA's analyses for
today's final rule, EPA is establishing limitations and standards for
one of the subcategories listed in the January 2001 proposed rule. For
others, EPA has concluded that national limitations and standards are
not warranted. In addition, EPA is not establishing pretreatment
standards for existing or new sources for any of the subcategories in
today's rule. Some of today's limitations and standards are based on
the technology options that formed the basis for the proposal while
others are based on modified technology options.
Table IV-1 Summarizes EPA's decisions for each subcategory
considered for today's final rule and each regulatory level. Each of
these decisions is further detailed in section VI of today's final
rule.
Table IV-1.--Summary of Final Regulatory Decisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final regulation
---------------------------------------------------- Section of today's
Subcategory considered Discharger status Selected technology final rule
(regulatory level) option
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals....................... Direct Dischargers (BPT/ No new or revised VI.A.1-4
BCT/BAT/NSPS). limitations or
standards established.
Indirect Dischargers No new or revised VI.A.5-6
(PSES/PSNS). standards established.
Metal Finishing Job Shop............. Direct Dischargers (BPT/ No revised limitations VI.B.1-2
BCT/BAT/NSPS). or standards
established.
Indirect Dischargers No revised standards VI.B.3-4
(PSES/PSNS). established.
Printed Wiring Board................. Direct Dischargers (BPT/ No revised limitations VI.C.1-2
BCT/BAT/NSPS). or standards
established.
Indirect Dischargers No revised standards VI.C.3-4
(PSES/PSNS). established.
Non-Chromium Anodizing............... Direct Dischargers (BPT/ No revised limitations VI.D.1-2
BCT/BAT/NSPS). or standards
established.
Indirect Dischargers No revised standards VI.D.3
(PSES/PSNS). established.
Steel Forming & Finishing............ Direct Dischargers (BPT/ No revised limitations VI.E.1-2
BCT/BAT/NSPS). or standards
established.
Indirect Dischargers No revised standards VI.E.3-4
(PSES/PSNS). established.
Oily Wastes.......................... Direct Dischargers (BPT/ Pollution Prevention + VI.F.1-4
BCT/NSPS). Chemical Emulsion
Breaking + Oil-Water
Separation (Option 6).
Indirect Dischargers No standards established VI.F.5-6
(PSES/PSNS).
Railroad Line Maintenance............ Direct Dischargers (BPT/ No limitations or VI.G.1-4
BCT/BAT/NSPS). standards established.
Indirect Dischargers No standards established VI.G.5
(PSES/PSNS).
Shipbuilding Dry Dock................ Direct Dischargers (BPT/ No limitations or VI.H.1
BCT/BAT/NSPS). standards established.
Indirect Dischargers No standards established VI.H.2
(PSES/PSNS).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Summary of Significant Applicability Decisions
a. Applicability of MP&M to Certain Iron and Steel Operations
EPA received comment regarding the inclusion of certain operations
now subject to the Iron & Steel effluent guidelines (40 CFR part 420)
within the proposed MP&M effluent guidelines. In the proposed MP&M
rule, EPA refers to facilities with these operations as the Steel
Forming & Finishing subcategory. Specifically, EPA proposed to move
operations that produce finished products such as bars, wire, pipe and
tubes, nails, chain link fencing, and steel rope into the MP&M rule (as
the Steel Forming & Finishing subcategory) from stand-alone facilities,
as well as from facilities that also have other operations that are
currently regulated by the Iron & Steel effluent guidelines (i.e.,
facilities that are making steel and producing wire and wire products
and are subject to both ELGs through the combined wastestream formula).
Commentors stated that these operations and resulting wastewaters
are comparable to those at facilities subject to the Iron and Steel
Manufacturing effluent guidelines and that these discharges should
remain subject to part 420 rather than today's rule. In addition,
commentors stated that part 420 adequately protects the environment
from discharges associated with these activities. Based on its analyses
for this final rule, EPA has determined that limitations and standards
for the proposed Steel Forming & Finishing subcategory based on MP&M
Option 2 technology are not economically achievable. Therefore, today's
final rule does not establish a Steel Forming & Finishing subcategory
and accompanying limitations and standards. Thus, wastewaters generated
by these operations remain subject to the Iron & Steel Manufacturing
effluent limitations guidelines and standards (40 CFR part 420). Also,
as discussed in section IV.A.1, EPA included continuous electroplaters
in the General Metals subcategory for analyses supporting today's final
rule.
b. Applicability to Certain Oily Operations
Today's final rule revises the proposed definition of ``oily
operations'' by including additional operations (see 67 FR 38765). EPA
is incorporating into the definition of ``oily operations'' the
following unit operations and any associated rinses:
[sbull] Abrasive blasting;
[sbull] Adhesive bonding;
[sbull] Alkaline treatment without cyanide;
[sbull] Assembly/disassembly;
[[Page 25692]]
[sbull] Burnishing;
[sbull] Calibration;
[sbull] Electrical discharge machining;
[sbull] Iron phosphate conversion coating;
[sbull] Painting-spray or brush (including water curtains);
[sbull] Polishing;
[sbull] Thermal cutting;
[sbull] Tumbling/barrel finishing/mass finishing/vibratory
finishing;
[sbull] Washing (finished products);
[sbull] Welding; and
[sbull] Wet air pollution control for organic constituents
EPA notes that this revision to the oily operations definition has
the effect of moving 1,550 facilities from the General Metals
subcategory to the Oily Wastes subcategory. See section V.B for the
complete list of oily operations subject to regulation in today's final
rule.
In addition, as discussed in the NODA, EPA is removing
``laundering'' from the definition of oily operations (see 67 FR
38766). EPA does not consider wastewater discharges from laundering
(e.g., uniforms) at MP&M facilities to be process wastewater under the
MP&M final rule. The inclusion of laundering in the proposed definition
of oily operations was an oversight which the Agency has now corrected
for the final rule.
At proposal, EPA excluded bilge water (or any other wastewater)
from ships that are afloat from the scope of the rule; however, bilge
water was inadvertently included in the oily operations definition in
the NODA (see 67 FR 38765). Today's final rule corrects this and
removes bilge water from the definition of oily operations. Because EPA
is not promulgating limitations and standards for the Shipbuilding Dry
Dock subcategory, EPA also does not consider bilge water from ships in
a dry dock or similar structure (e.g., graving docks, building ways,
marine railways and lift barges) a MP&M process wastewater.
c. Applicability to Certain Metal Drum Reconditioning and Cleaning
Operations
At proposal EPA considered whether it should include wastewater
generated from unit operations performed by drum reconditioners/
cleaners to prepare metal drums for resale, reuse, or disposal in this
rulemaking. These operations include chaining, caustic washing, acid
cleaning, acid etching, impact deformation, leak testing, corrosion
inhibition, shot blasting, and painting. In EPA's ``Preliminary Data
Summary for Industrial Container and Drum Cleaning Industry'' (EPA-821-
R-02-011), EPA did not identify any metal drum reconditioning or
cleaning facilities that discharge directly to surface waters. The
Agency estimates that the drum reconditioning facilities are either
indirect or zero or alternative dischargers.
EPA solicited comment on whether these facilities would be more
appropriately covered under the MP&M rule or under a new industrial
category of effluent guidelines for drum reconditioners (see 66 FR
434). Commentors stated that these operations should not be subject to
MP&M because drum reconditioning/cleaning wastewaters are more variable
than MP&M wastewaters. EPA reviewed its database on drum reconditioning
operations and wastewater characteristics. EPA found that its database
is insufficient to evaluate the technical and economic achievability of
the options considered for today's final rule. Therefore, EPA is not
including drum reconditioning and cleaning operations as within the
scope of this final rule.
4. Environmental Management Systems and the Pollution Prevention
Alternative
In the proposed rule, EPA discussed the use of a compliance
alternative (i.e., the Pollution Prevention Alternative) for indirect
dischargers in the Metal Finishing Job Shop (MFJS) subcategory (see 66
FR 511). The Pollution Prevention (P2) Alternative would act as a
voluntary incentive for MFJS indirect dischargers that agreed to
perform specific best management/pollution prevention practices. These
MFJS indirect dischargers would be allowed to meet the pretreatment
standards of part 433 in lieu of meeting the more stringent
pretreatment standards of the proposed MP&M rule. Because EPA is not
promulgating pretreatment standards that are more stringent than those
in part 433 or part 413 for those facilities covered by part 413
pretreatment standards, EPA is not promulgating today the use of a
compliance alternative for metal finishing job shops. EPA notes that
many metal finishing jobs shops are currently employing best
management/pollution prevention practices similar to those described in
the proposal as part of the National Metal Finishing Strategic Goals
Program.
As discussed in the NODA (see 67 FR 38798), EPA also considered an
industry suggested alternative for the General Metals subcategory based
on the use of an Environmental Management System (EMS) to mitigate
economic impacts associated with today's rule. Similar in concept to
the Pollution Prevention Alternative previously discussed, the EMS
compliance alternative would act as a voluntary incentive for
facilities that implemented an EMS which would include specific
monitoring, controls, and recordkeeping. These facilities would be
allowed to meet the limitations and standards of part 433 in lieu of
meeting the more stringent limitations and standards of the proposed
MP&M rule.
EPA received several comments on the EMS compliance alternative.
Some commentors were in favor of the EMS compliance alternative and
stated that: (1) The EMS compliance alternative is an innovative tool
for continually enhancing environmental regulation; (2) an EMS does not
replace the need for regulatory enforcement, but can be used as a tool
to enhance a facility's environmental performance; and (3) requiring
ISO 14001 adds another level of compliance assurance due to independent
third party auditing. Other commentors were not in favor of this EMS
compliance alternative and stated that: (1) The administrative and
enforcement burden for pretreatment control authorities would be
excessive as it could result in protracted discussions regarding the
adequacy of the EMS; and (2) the EMS compliance alternative is overly
restrictive and does not allow for variability found among MP&M
industries and the POTWs to which they discharge. In particular,
commentors noted that requiring ISO 14001 certification is extremely
expensive and would have the effect of rendering this option untenable
for any small business and many larger businesses as well.
EPA encourages the wide spread use of EMSs across a range of
organizations and settings, with particular emphasis on adoption of
EMSs to achieve improved environmental performance and compliance,
pollution prevention through source reduction, and continual
improvement (see EPA Position Statement on Environmental Management
Systems, May 15, 2002, DCN 17848, section 24.4). However, EPA is not
promulgating an EMS-based compliance alternative for facilities in the
General Metals subcategory as EPA is not promulgating limitations and
standards for the General Metals subcategory (see section VI.A).
B. Decisions Regarding Methodology
Sections 11 and 12 of the TDD provide detailed description of the
methodologies used to develop compliance cost estimates and pollutant
reductions for this final MP&M regulation. In addition, the EEBA for
the final rule provides a detailed description of the economic impacts
[[Page 25693]]
and environmental benefits analyses and methodologies. This section of
today's final rule summarizes the changes to the EPA Cost & Loadings
Model and the changes in the economic impacts and benefits analyses
methodologies. This section also discusses EPA's decisions regarding
selection of facilities with ``BAT'' treatment technologies.
1. Changes to the EPA Cost & Loadings Methodology for MP&M Options
a. General Methodology Changes
Based on comments to the proposed rule and considerations discussed
in the NODA (see 67 FR 38756), EPA made significant changes to the EPA
Cost & Loadings Model used to estimate compliance costs and pollutant
reductions at the national level for the technology options considered
for today's final rule. EPA included all of the changes identified in
the NODA (e.g., review of survey discharge status and reviewed
additional industry-supplied data) into the analyses for the final
rule. EPA also stated in the NODA that we would also examine other
potential changes in response to comments after publication of the NODA
but before the final rule (see DCN 17804, section 16.0). This section
provides additional information on EPA's final analyses with respect to
these potential changes and any changes identified by NODA comments.
b. Assignment of Treatment-in-Place (TIP) Credit
EPA developed a computerized Cost & Loadings Model to estimate
compliance costs and pollutant loadings for the various technology
options. EPA estimates the baseline pollutant loadings (i.e., pollutant
loading prior to compliance with the MP&M regulations) from model
facilities based on actual TIP at those facilities as determined by the
site's response to EPA's questionnaire. EPA calculates the pollutant
loads removed by the technology option under consideration as the
difference between the pollutant loadings estimated for the option and
the pollutant loadings estimated for the baseline conditions.
In general, commentors stated that EPA failed to extend proper TIP
credit to facilities in the MP&M survey questionnaire database and
overestimated pollutant discharge loadings. Based on comments received
on the proposal and NODA, EPA has re-evaluated its assignment of TIP
credit used for estimating baseline pollutant loadings for the final
rule and has concluded that additional technologies are equivalent (or
better than) the BAT technology options in the proposal and the NODA.
In the NODA, EPA assumed that end-of-pipe ion exchange would
achieve cyanide removals equivalent to alkaline chlorination, a
proposed BAT technology basis. Therefore, EPA set cyanide treatment
credit for process lines with ion exchange as equivalent to alkaline
chlorination. Commentors requested that EPA also provide credit for in-
process ion exchange for cyanide removal and for metals removal. EPA
reviewed the information supporting these comments and concluded that
ion exchange, whether in-process or end-of-pipe would provide pollutant
reductions that are equivalent to the corresponding BAT technology
option. Therefore, for the analyses supporting the final rule, EPA
provided TIP credit for all streams receiving end-of-pipe or in-process
ion exchange treatment for cyanide and metals.
EPA also reviewed its NODA assumptions regarding TIP credit for
gravity thickening and filter presses. In the NODA, EPA assumed that
facilities with sludge thickening or a filter press had both components
in place. Upon closer review of the survey questionnaires, EPA finds
that facilities may pump their sludge directly from a clarifier to a
filter press without using a sludge thickening step. Consequently, EPA
no longer assumes all facilities using filter presses also operate
gravity thickeners. EPA notes that it is equating ``sludge thickening
tanks'' and ``sludge dryers'' with gravity thickening. For facilities
indicating only gravity thickening or filter press, EPA has estimated
costs associated with the addition of the necessary equipment.
At proposal EPA did not assume that facilities that indicated some
form of oily wastewater treatment (e.g., oil-water separator) would be
performing chemical emulsion breaking (and receive TIP credit for
chemical emulsion breaking) prior to oil water separation if they have
emulsified oils. For the final rule analyses, EPA reviewed all
questionnaires to ensure that the same TIP assignments were given to
Phase I and Phase II questionnaire facilities. Based on this review,
EPA is assuming for the final rule that facilities that indicated some
form of oily wastewater treatment (e.g., oil-water separator) are
performing chemical emulsion breaking prior to oil-water separation if
they have emulsified oils.
c. Pollutant Loadings Baseline for MP&M Options for Metal-Bearing
Wastewater Subcategories
EPA received many comments on its estimation of baseline pollutant
loadings and reductions for the various options. For treated streams,
EPA estimated zero pollutant removals for pollutants that are already
present in low concentrations (i.e., are present at a concentration
below the technology option long term average (LTA). For untreated
streams, EPA estimated baseline loadings and pollutant removals based
on unit operation pollutant concentrations, and did not adjust for
local or Federal regulatory limits on the facility. Many commentors
were concerned that EPA's use of unit operation-specific average
concentrations to model the concentration of untreated wastewater
streams would overestimate current pollutant loadings at facilities,
particularly those currently regulated by parts 413 or 433 and at
facilities that do not treat their wastewaters due to low initial
concentrations. In the NODA, EPA presented information on corrections
and other revisions made to the costs and pollutant loadings model, and
solicited comment on a sensitivity analysis which assumed at baseline
that all MP&M facilities currently regulated by existing effluent
guidelines (i.e., 40 CFR parts 413 and 433) are not discharging
pollutant concentrations above their applicable effluent limitations
guidelines and standards (see 67 FR 38762).
For the final rule, EPA implemented two strategies to estimate
baseline loadings and removals more accurately for untreated, low
concentration streams at model facilities. First, EPA evaluated
discharge monitoring report (DMR) data available for direct discharger
model facilities. If all pollutant concentrations measured, as
indicated from the DMR data, were below the technology option limits,
EPA estimated zero pollutant removals for the model facility. Second,
EPA considered regulatory limits on the model facility. EPA assumed the
pollutant concentrations discharged from each stream at sites regulated
under part 433 were at least meeting the monthly average limits set by
part 433.
Table IV-2 summarizes the new method and how EPA estimated baseline
pollutant concentrations for its pollutant reduction estimates
associated with the final rule MP&M technology options.
[[Page 25694]]
Table IV-2.--Current Pollutant Concentrations Used To Estimate Pollutant
Reductions Associated With the MP&M Technology Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
433 regulated 433 unregulated
parameters parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treated Wastewater Streams.. LTAs from part 433.. LTAs from Technology
Option 2 of Today's
rule.
Untreated Wastewater Streams Monthly Average Concentrations from
Regulated by 413 or 433. Limitations from Subcategory-
part 433. Specific Unit
Operations Data.
Untreated Wastewater Not Concentrations from Concentrations from
Regulated by 413 or 433. Subcategory- Subcategory-
Specific Unit Specific Unit
Operations Data. Operations Data.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: See Section VI and Section 9 of the TDD for further discussion of
Technology Option 2.
Note: EPA assigns Option 2 LTAs to all wastewater streams for all
pollutant to model facilities TIP equal to or greater than BAT
treatment
For the final rule, EPA assumed that facilities currently treating
their wastewater discharges (regardless of their regulatory status)
operate their wastewater treatment systems to achieve the long-term
average concentrations of the part 433 regulations. Furthermore, in the
case of pollutants of concern not regulated in part 433, EPA made the
conservative assumption that facilities with wastewater treatment
operate their wastewater treatment systems to achieve the long-term
average concentrations for such pollutants from MP&M Option 2 (see
section VI and section 9 of the TDD for further discussion of
Technology Option 2).
For untreated streams at facilities currently regulated by parts
413 or 433 for the parameters regulated by part 433, EPA assumed for
its evaluations for the final rule that facilities achieve the monthly
average limitation of part 433. As discussed in the NODA, EPA concluded
it is appropriate to use the monthly average limitation, as opposed to
the long-term average concentration, for streams that are not being
treated or for parameters that are not being targeted for treatment.
Finally, for untreated streams (regardless of regulatory status) for
the parameters not regulated by part 433, and for regulated parameters
for untreated streams at facilities not subject to parts 413 or 433,
EPA has assumed the baseline concentrations are equivalent to the raw
waste load using subcategory-specific unit operations data.
For all direct discharging facilities in the General Metals
subcategory, EPA has assumed the facilities achieve permit limits for
non-conventional pollutants Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), Total
Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), and Ammonia as Nitrogen (NH3-N).
EPA received several comments that the Agency overestimated
concentrations of COD. While this parameter is not regulated by Parts
413 or 433, comments stated that it is typically regulated in National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. Additionally,
EPA notes that COD removals had a significant impact on the cost and
removal comparison ratio ($/lb-removed) for the General Metals
subcategory. While these parameters are also not regulated by Parts 413
or 433, limits for these parameters are found in EPA's Permit
Compliance System (PCS). To reduce overestimation of pollutant removals
for COD, TKN, and NH3-N, EPA did not allow the pollutant
concentrations discharged from the facility to exceed permit limits.
EPA modeled the limits based on data from EPA's Permit Compliance
System (PCS) for these types of facilities. Because EPA could not
determine which sites in PCS were MP&M sites, for the purposes of this
analysis, EPA calculated the average permit limit concentrations for
process wastewater discharged from each facility in the 3000 series of
SIC codes. Based on these data, EPA set the maximum concentration for
the commingled MP&M wastewater discharged from each model site at 175,
35.67, and 19.3 milligrams per liter (mg/L) for COD, TKN, and
NH3-N, respectively (see DCN 17846, section 24.7).
d. Unit Operations Data
EPA used unit operations data from the questionnaires, sampling
episodes, and commentors data, to estimate baseline pollutant loading
for some untreated wastewaters at certain facilities. As described in
section IV.B.1, and as discussed in the NODA (see 67 FR 38756), in
response to proposal commentors, EPA changed its proposal methodology
to account for subcategory-specific differences in pollutant
concentrations for the same unit operations. EPA received additional
comments on the unit operations data from commentors on the NODA. In
particular, comments on the NODA focused on three specific areas: (1)
Requests to subdivide the ``testing'' unit operation to better reflect
various types of testing wastewaters; (2) requests to remove additional
``outliers'' from the data set used to estimate the average pollutant
concentrations for certain unit operation; and (3) requests to re-
evaluate the ratio of pollutant concentrations in unit operation baths
and the corresponding rinse. For direct dischargers, EPA also compared
the baseline pollutant loadings from the pollutant loading model to
available Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) data (see section
IV.B.2.b).
For the proposed rule, EPA combined testing unit operations from
wastewater sampling of hydraulic testing, hydrostatic testing, dye
penetrant testing, and alpha-case detection into a single pollutant
concentration set for the ``testing'' unit operation (UP-42).
Commentors explained that EPA should not group all testing operations
together because these operations produce non-similar wastewaters. For
example, commentors noted that dye penetrant testing produces
wastewater with high pollutant concentrations while hydrostatic testing
produces wastewater with low pollutant concentrations, but very large
flows.
For today's final rule, EPA re-evaluated its data sets. EPA has
concluded that it should divide the testing unit operations into
subcategory-specific unit operations. Furthermore, EPA found no clear
indication that facilities continue to perform alpha-case detection.
Consequently, EPA's final database included separate, subcategory-
specific data for two testing operations: Hydrostatic and dye
penetrant. EPA reviewed each survey questionnaire and made a case-by-
case determination of which of the two types of testing is being
performed at a site (if any). See section 12 of the TDD for more
information.
EPA has also addressed commentors concerns regarding the ratio of
pollutant concentrations in unit operation baths (e.g., electroplating
baths) and their corresponding rinses. EPA has reviewed all bath-rinse
pairs and ensured for the final analysis that the data used do not
include any cases where a rinse is more concentrated than its bath.
[[Page 25695]]
e. Site-Specific Data Revisions for Survey Facilities
EPA revised its questionnaire database to reflect detailed comments
provided about specific facilities in EPA's questionnaire database. EPA
uses information about facilities in the questionnaire database to
estimate various costs and benefits (e.g., compliance costs, pollutant
reductions, economic impacts, non-water quality environmental impacts).
For example, in some cases facilities that did not provide flow or
production data for certain wastestreams at the time they submitted
their questionnaire provided such information in their comments on the
proposal or NODA. In other cases, facilities provided updated
information about their: (1) Unit operations (e.g., whether they
currently have these UPs); (2) regulatory status (e.g., whether they
were currently covered by parts 413 or 433 regulations); (3) wastewater
discharge status (i.e., direct, indirect, or zero discharger); and (4)
wastewater treatment technology.
As noted in section 3 of the TDD, EPA conducted several surveys,
with the two major surveys occurring in 1990 and 1996. For proposal and
NODA analyses EPA used both 1990 and 1996 as reference years to
estimate costs and benefits associated with the various regulatory
options. These two survey efforts provided information about the MP&M
industry at two different times (i.e., 1990 and 1996). Commentors
suggested that EPA rely on more recent information and gave specific
comments updating information concerning some facilities surveyed in
the Phase I survey effort. EPA is using the later survey year, 1996, as
the base year for the questionnaire database to more accurately reflect
current conditions in the MP&M industry. EPA incorporated information
about specific facilities from commentors into the questionnaire
database when the information reflected facility conditions at or prior
to 1996.
EPA did not incorporate information from commentors into its
questionnaire database when the information reflected facility
conditions post-1996. When commentors provided post-1996 information,
EPA did, however, use this information for a sensitivity analysis for
all subcategories where it is promulgating limitations or new source
standards to assess recent trends in the industry. See DCN 17843,
section 24.6.2, of the record for results and discussion of this
sensitivity analysis.
f. Site Discharge Destination
EPA solicited comment in the NODA on its methodology for
categorizing a facility as either a direct discharger (to surface
water), an indirect discharger (to a POTW), or a zero or alternative
discharger (no wastewater is discharged) based on its questionnaire
database. Facilities that are zero or alternative dischargers do not
incur costs to comply with the regulation. For the January 2001
proposal and NODA, EPA identified direct dischargers as facilities that
discharge any MP&M process wastewater to surface waters and calculated
compliance costs and pollutant loadings and reductions for all MP&M
process wastewaters as direct discharges. Commentors said that EPA
should alter its methodology to allow facilities multiple discharge
destinations rather than only assign a facility to a single category or
discharge destination (i.e., allow facilities with some streams
discharging to a POTW and other streams to surface waters). Commentors
also noted that EPA had misclassified some indirect dischargers as
direct dischargers and provided examples.
EPA agrees with commentors that its methodology should address
facilities with multiple wastewater discharge destinations.
Consequently, EPA revised its methodology for the final rule to allow
facilities that have multiple discharge destinations to be ``split.''
For the purposes of estimating compliance costs and pollutant
reductions, ``splitting'' a site means that EPA runs only those process
wastewater streams that are discharged to the POTW through the EPA Cost
& Loadings Model for indirect dischargers and runs only those process
wastewater (not stormwater) streams that are discharged directly to
surface waters through the model for direct dischargers. In addition to
those facilities identified by commentors, EPA reviewed survey
questionnaires for all facilities with multiple discharge destinations
to determine if they should be designated as direct, indirect, or split
(see DCN 17825, section 24.6.2).
In addition, in response to the comments that EPA incorrectly
classified some facilities as direct dischargers, EPA also reviewed
survey questionnaires for all facilities it had previously designated
as direct to confirm their discharge status (see DCN 17826, section
24.6.2). This review altered the discharge status of a number of
facilities (see section 11 of the final TDD for additional discussion
of EPA's review). EPA's databases for the final rule reflects these
changes. EPA also reviewed all direct discharges to ensure that EPA did
not consider stormwater as a MP&M process wastewater in its analysis of
compliance costs and pollutant loadings.
g. Monitoring Costs
EPA revised its monitoring cost estimate for today's final rule to
reflect the final list of regulated pollutants and monitoring
frequencies. For example, as discussed in section IV.B of the NODA (see
67 FR 38767) and section 7 of the TDD, EPA is not regulating total
sulfide, molybdenum, manganese, tin, or toxic organics. See section 11
of the TDD for today's final rule for a detailed discussion of EPA's
monitoring cost estimates for each subcategory.
2. Methodology for Determining Cost & Loadings for the 433 Upgrade
Options
In the NODA, EPA also discussed alternative options, ``413 to 433
Upgrade Option'' and ``All to 433 Upgrade Option,'' and an associated
simplified cost and loadings analysis for these upgrade options. EPA
provided estimates of compliance costs, pollutant reductions, economic
impacts and cost-effectiveness based on this simplified analysis. For
today's final rule, EPA revised its upgrade option methodology and
performed a more detailed analysis of compliance costs and pollutant
reductions, incorporating many of the comments received on the NODA as
previously discussed.
a. Determining Regulatory Status
EPA reviewed the regulatory status for each survey questionnaire
(i.e., to confirm whether a given facility was currently regulated by
part 413, part 433, both, or neither). Based on the applicability
section of part 413 and 433 (see 40 CFR 413.01 and 433.11(c) and (d)),
EPA concluded that currently all surveyed facilities included in the
database for the proposed Metal Finishing Job Shop and Printed Wiring
Board subcategories are regulated by part 413 and/or part 433. EPA
first used the date operations began at the facility (as reported in
the survey questionnaire) to identify the appropriate regulation. EPA
assumed a facility was subject to part 433 if it began operations after
1982 because part 413 only applies to indirect discharging facilities
operating before 1982. Next, EPA reviewed effluent discharge data from
the remaining facilities to determine if the facility was discharging
MP&M process wastewater. Finally, for facilities for which EPA does not
have effluent discharge data, EPA called the site or its control
authority to determine the regulatory status.
[[Page 25696]]
b. Revised Methodology for Estimating Pollutant Loadings and
Reductions: Upgrade Options
EPA developed a methodology to estimate the baseline pollutant
loadings at facilities that would be affected by the upgrade: (1)
facilities currently regulated by 413 only; and (2) facilities
regulated by local limits or general pretreatment standards only (i.e.,
``local limits'' facilities). EPA also performed a sensitivity analyses
on facilities regulated by both parts 413 and 433. Facilities
``regulated by local limits and general pretreatment standards only''
also include facilities regulated by other effluent guidelines except
parts 413 or 433. EPA notes that facilities currently regulated by only
part 433 would not be affected by the upgrade and EPA did not project
pollutant removals or compliance costs for them.
EPA's pollutant loadings methodology also distinguishes between
``small'' and ``large'' platers currently regulated by part 413. Part
413 defines small platers as facilities discharging less than 10,000
gallons/day of process wastewater. When the part 413 regulations were
promulgated, EPA made provisions to accommodate the economic condition
of ``small'' platers by reducing the numbers of regulated metals and
allowing an alternative requirements for cyanide, as amenable to
alkaline chlorination instead of total cyanide. Consequently, EPA
adjusted its pollutant loadings methodology for the upgrade options to
account for the additional parameters that small platers would need to
treat (see section 9 of the final TDD for details on EPA's methodology
for small platers).
For treated streams at affected facilities, EPA revised methodology
assumes the facilities operate their wastewater treatment systems to
achieve the LTAs from part 413. This is consistent with EPA's guidance
that facilities use LTAs (rather than limitations or standards) as a
``target'' to design their treatment systems. For untreated streams at
affected facilities, EPA used the 4-day average limit for part 413. As
discussed in the NODA, EPA concludes this is appropriate because these
facilities are complying with existing standards at the end-of-pipe. In
estimating toxic pollutant reductions for the upgrade options, EPA
compared the baseline loadings for affected facilities to the resulting
loadings if these affected facilities treated their wastewater to
achieve the long-term average concentrations (for existing sources) for
part 433.
For facilities in the General Metals subcategory that are not
regulated by either part 413 or part 433 (i.e., ``local limits
facilities''), EPA altered its NODA methodology to incorporate actual
local limits data and to include analysis of other pollutant parameters
(e.g., COD). Although EPA could not obtain actual local limits for all
facilities, EPA gathered local limits data from 213 POTWs in 7 EPA
Regions to develop national median local limit values. See DCN 17844,
section 24.7, of the record for a listing of the data and the median
value for each parameter. EPA used half the national median local limit
values to approximate long-term average concentrations for all treated
streams. EPA used the national median for all parameters regulated by
part 413 in untreated streams. EPA applied the raw waste load based on
the subcategory-specific unit operations data for all other parameters
in untreated streams. EPA then estimated the pollutant loading
reductions as described in the previous paragraph.
In the NODA, EPA considered two different upgrade options for
indirect dischargers in the General Metals, Printed Wiring Boards, and
Metal Finishing Job Shop subcategories. The first option upgrades all
facilities regulated by part 413 (including both large and small
platers) to meet part 433 standards. The second option upgrades only
large platers regulated by part 413 and facilities not regulated by
parts 413 or 433 (regulated by local limits) to meet part 433
standards. EPA rejected these upgrade options for existing indirect
dischargers as: (1) Greater than 10% of existing indirect dischargers
not covered by part 433 are projected to close at the upgrade option;
or (2) the incremental compliance costs of the upgrade options were too
great in terms of toxic removals (cost-effectiveness values (in 1981$)
in excess of $420/PE). See section VI for further discussion on these
upgrade options for the General Metals, Printed Wiring Boards, and
Metal Finishing Job Shop subcategories.
For direct dischargers, EPA also compared the baseline pollutant
loadings from the pollutant loading model to available Discharge
Monitoring Report (DMR) data reflecting the measured values for the
permitted parameters. EPA obtained DMR data for eighteen surveyed
direct discharging facilities in EPA's questionnaire database for the
General Metals subcategory. The MP&M model approach utilizing the
revised baseline method used for the final rule, calculates lower
baseline loadings for twelve of these eighteen direct discharging
facilities than the loadings reported in DMR data (see DCN 17851,
section 24.7). Based on this analysis, EPA has concluded that the MP&M
model approach utilizing the revised baseline method used for the final
rule does not excessively over- or underestimate baseline pollutant
loadings and EPA's use of this model approach for today's final rule is
a reasonable and appropriate basis for today's regulatory
determinations.
c. TIP Changes for Upgrade
In evaluating the upgrade options analyzed for the final rule, EPA
also provided TIP credit for hydroxide precipitation and clarification
treatments for metal-bearing facilities that use dissolved air
flotation (DAF) for metals removal (e.g., settling). However, EPA notes
that TIP credit for hydroxide precipitation and clarification credit to
metal-bearing facilities using DAF for metals removal was not provided
in evaluating options to achieve the more stringent proposed MP&M
limits. EPA is concerned that DAF alone would not achieve the long-term
average concentrations associated with the limitations and standards
considered for the subcategories discharging metal-bearing wastewaters.
Therefore, EPA included costs associated with installing hydroxide
precipitation and clarification at these facilities for the final rule.
d. Revised Compliance Cost Estimates for Upgrade Analyses
Based on comments to the NODA and subsequent discussions with
industry representatives, EPA revised its analysis for estimating the
cost of compliance for upgrading facilities to meet the part 433
existing source limitations and standards. Section 11 of the final TDD
describes EPA's final methodology in detail. In addition to the costs
included in the NODA analysis, EPA's final methodology also includes
costs to:
[sbull] Increase the size of the treatment train (e.g., holding
tanks, clarifier, gravity thickening, filter press) to treat additional
wastewater (which had pollutant concentrations below the part 413
standards but not low enough to meet the option limits without
treatment);
[sbull] Increase the amount of treatment chemicals to account for
treating additional wastewaters and more stringent LTAs;
[sbull] Increase sludge handling and disposal costs due to the
treatment of additional streams as well as the more stringent long-term
averages in part 433;
[sbull] Install and operate additional automated controls such as
ORP meters and pH meters;
[sbull] Provide additional operator training; and
[[Page 25697]]
[sbull] Increase analytical monitoring costs for small platers to
monitor for the additional pollutants covered by part 433.
3. Revisions to Economic & Benefits Methodologies
For the final rule, EPA incorporated several important revisions to
the economic impact and benefits methodologies from the NODA. Section V
of the NODA provides a detailed discussion of all changes incorporated
in the economic impact and benefits analyses after publication of the
proposed MP&M rule (see 67 FR 38752). In addition, based on NODA
comments the Agency further refined the moderate impact analysis. As
previously discussed, the Economic, Environmental, and Benefits
Analysis (EEBA) for the final rule provides a complete discussion of
economic impact and benefits methodologies used in the final rule
analyses.
a. Revisions Incorporated in the Economic Impact Methodology From the
NODA
The major changes to the economic impact analyses incorporated from
the NODA include: (1) Use of sector-specific thresholds for the
moderate impact analysis tests (redefined in part c of this section);
(2) use of a single test, based on net present value, to assess the
potential for closures (this test excludes consideration of liquidation
values for all MP&M facilities, including the 219 facilities that
reported them in their response to the MP&M survey); and (3) use of
estimated baseline capital outlays in the calculation of cash flow for
the net present value test. Other changes to the economic impact
methodology include: (1) Use of revised cost pass-through coefficients;
(2) use of sector-specific price indices in updating survey data; (3)
adjusting labor costs for facilities that report abnormally high labor
costs; and (4) limiting post-compliance tax shields to no greater than
reported baseline taxes.
b. Using Multiple Years of Data To Estimate Sector-Specific Moderate
Impact Threshold Values
As part of its facility impact analysis, the Agency assesses
whether facilities may incur moderate financial impacts--financial
stress short of closure--from regulatory compliance. To assess the
occurrence of moderate impacts, the Agency analyzes the change in two
financial measures--(1) Pre-Tax Return on Assets (PTRA); and (2)
Interest Coverage Ratio (ICR)--against threshold values (e.g., after-
tax compliance costs as a percentage of annual revenues) indicating
weak, but still viable, financial performance.
At proposal, EPA used single threshold values of the financial
measures for all MP&M sectors. Commentors argued that EPA used
thresholds without providing any supporting information regarding their
predictive value, the threshold values chosen, or their applicability.
EPA finds that using threshold values that vary by industry better
reflects the differences in business risks and operating circumstances
by industry, and will provide more robust analysis of moderate impacts.
In response to comments, EPA revised this approach for the NODA to use
threshold values that varied by MP&M sector. For the NODA, EPA also
considered using an alternative financial measure--Pre-Tax Operating
Margin--instead of PTRA for the moderate impact analysis. Since the
NODA, EPA continued to review its moderate impact analysis methodology,
and for the final rule analysis, decided to retain the financial impact
measures used at proposal: PTRA and ICR. Pre-tax return on assets
provides stronger insight into operating financial performance and is a
better indicator of a business' ability to attract capital and remain
viable than operating margin. However, in contrast to the NODA, EPA
decided to use multiple years of data for developing the threshold
values for the final rule. Using multiple years of data increases the
number of observations on which the moderate impact thresholds are
based and reduces the likelihood that threshold values will reflect
anomalous conditions that could arise from using only a single year of
data.
EPA calculated the thresholds using income and financial structure
information by 4-digit SIC code from the Risk Management Association
(RMA) Annual Statement Studies for eight years from 1994 to 2001. The
RMA data set provides quartile values derived from statements of
commercial bank borrowers and loan applicants for firms having less
than $250 million in total assets. EPA used the lowest 25 percentile
values, by industry, from the RMA data set as the basis for the
moderate impact thresholds. The RMA data set captures a limited
industry segment, because the data set likely omits firms with too weak
financial performance to seek bank loans and also omits firms that use
the public securities markets or other non-bank sources to obtain
capital. However, it is difficult to know what kind of bias, if any, is
introduced into the analysis by these limitations. On balance, because
EPA used impact thresholds based on the 25th percentile of values
reported for borrowers and loan applicants, EPA estimates that the
basis for the moderate impact thresholds is conservative--i.e., we are
more likely to err in finding that a business is in moderate financial
stress than in finding that a facility is not in moderate financial
stress.
EPA notes that RMA did not provide data for all 4-digit SIC codes
associated with an MP&M sector. Therefore, for sectors with missing
data for some 4-digit SIC codes, EPA calculated the weighted average of
threshold values based only on those 4-digit SIC codes for which data
were provided. This treatment assumes that the financial
characteristics of the omitted SIC code segments are the same as the
weighted average of SIC code segments that were included in the
analysis for a given MP&M sector. See Chapter 5 of the EEBA for the
final rule for a detailed discussion of the analysis of moderate
impacts.
c. Revisions Incorporated in the Benefits Methodology from the NODA
Major revisions to the benefits methodology incorporated from the
NODA include: (1) Changes to the human health methodology; (2) use of a
weight-of-evidence approach in evaluating national benefit estimates;
and (3) use of revised models in the Ohio case study analysis. EPA also
uses revised data on characteristics of POTWs receiving discharges from
the sample MP&M facilities, as discussed in the NODA.
Two revisions to the human health benefits methodology incorporated
from the NODA include: (1) Use of revised assumptions and updated model
parameters in the analysis of neurological effects from lead exposure
in preschool children; and (2) use of a revised drinking water intake
database for estimating human health effects from consumption of
contaminated drinking water. The Agency did not incorporate cancer
effects from exposure to lead in the final rule analysis because these
effects appeared negligible.
The use of the weight-of-evidence approach for estimating national
benefits is one of the most important revisions to the benefits
methodology incorporated from the NODA. As discussed in the NODA, EPA
traditionally estimates national level costs and benefits by
extrapolating analytic results from sample facilities to the national
level using sample facility survey weights. These sample facility
weights are based on sample facility characteristics only and do not
account for characteristics of water bodies receiving discharges from
the sample MP&M facilities or for the size of the
[[Page 25698]]
population residing in the vicinity of the sample MP&M facilities.
These additional variables, however, are likely to affect the
occurrence and size of benefits associated with reduced discharges from
MP&M facilities. Omission of benefit-related characteristics in
designing the original sample frame may lead to conditional bias in
benefit estimates. To validate the general conclusions that EPA draws
from its main analysis based on the traditional benefit estimation
method, EPA also estimated national level benefits for the final rule
using two alternative extrapolation methods. Detailed discussion of the
alternative extrapolation methods can be found in the NODA (see 67 FR
38752), section IX.E and F of this preamble, and in the EEBA for the
final rule.
As discussed in the NODA, EPA submitted its case study analysis of
recreational benefits for an official peer review. The peer review was
favorable and concluded that EPA had done a competent job. Peer
reviewers, however, provided several suggestions for further
improvements in the analysis. The Agency made most of the recommended
changes to the Ohio model, as discussed in the NODA (see 67 FR 38752).
This revised model is used in the analysis supporting today's final
rule.
However, EPA did not include multiple day trips in the benefit
estimates from improvements in recreational opportunities due to
reduced MP&M discharges, as it was suggested by the peer reviewers. The
Ohio case study focuses on single day trips because data for single day
trips are more complete and because the majority of recreational trips
are single day trips. Thus, EPA estimated changes in per trip values
from improved water quality for single day trips only. The Agency
decided not to approximate welfare gain to participants in multi-day
recreational trips based on the single-day trip values because multi-
day recreational trips are likely to differ from single day trips for a
number of reasons: overnight trips may include multiple purposes and
destinations; the individual chooses not only to take a trip and the
trip's destination, but the length of the trip; and the length of stay
has costs that are not connected to travel costs. The Agency
acknowledges that excluding multiple day trips from this analysis is
likely to result in understatement of benefits from water quality
improvements. Detailed discussion of the Ohio case study can be found
in the EEBA for the final rule.
EPA did not incorporate changes to the recreational benefits
methodology used in the national-level analysis from the NODA. In
estimating benefits from improved boating and wildlife viewing
opportunities for the final rule, EPA considers only individuals taking
single day trips due to insufficient data on per multi-day trip
benefits from water quality improvements. Both individuals taking
single day trips and those who take multiple day trips to local water
bodies were considered in the NODA analysis of recreational benefits.
Similarly to the Ohio case study, excluding multiple day trips from the
national analysis is likely to result in understatement of recreational
benefits from water quality improvements.
d. POTW Administrative Cost and POTW Benefits Analyses
EPA received several comments to the proposal on the use of EPA's
1997 POTW survey in the analysis of POTW administrative costs and
benefits from improved quality of sewage sludge. Commentors stated that
EPA overestimated pollutant loadings, economic benefits, and
environmental benefits associated with improved sludge quality.
Commentors also stated that EPA underestimated the administrative costs
associated with implementing the rule. They provided new information on
POTW characteristics which EPA used to revise assumptions and its
analysis of POTW administrative costs and benefits for the final rule.
Specifically, the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA)
provided EPA with comments on the proposed MP&M rule and supplemented
these comments with a spreadsheet database. The database contains data
from an AMSA formulated survey and covers responses from 176 POTWs,
representing 66 pretreatment programs. The AMSA survey was conducted to
verify data from EPA's survey of POTWs, and therefore, included
similar, although fewer, variables compared to EPA's survey.
EPA used some of the data provided in AMSA's survey to revise its
own analyses of POTW administrative costs of the proposed MP&M rule.
Elements of the administrative cost analysis include: (1) The estimated
number of indirect dischargers; and (2) the unit costs of certain
permitting activities, including permit implementation, sampling, and
sample analysis. EPA found that although AMSA estimates of the number
of indirect dischargers and the unit costs of permitting activities are
consistent with the EPA's estimates used for the proposed rule
analysis, their estimate neglected to take into account that not all
MP&M indirect discharging facilities would have been required to meet
the proposed standards. DCN 37500, section 25.4.1, provides comparisons
between AMSA's and EPA's estimates. EPA added to its analysis using the
AMSA data include: (1) Screening costs for POTWs that do not currently
operate under a pretreatment program; and (2) oversight costs
associated with implementing various regulatory options. The revised
methodology for POTW administrative costs analysis is presented in EEBA
Appendix F.
EPA also used the AMSA data to revise the POTW benefits
methodology. Elements of the POTW benefits analysis EPA verified using
the AMSA survey include: (1) Percentage of metal loadings contributed
by MP&M facilities; and (2) the number of MP&M facilities served by
POTWs.
AMSA also provided additional information on the number of POTWs
(and percentage of total annual dry metric tons of POTW biosolids)
currently meeting metals limitations in the ``Standards for the Use or
Disposal of Sewage Sludge,'' (40 CFR part 503), and reasons why POTWs
may choose to not land apply biosolids. These nationally-applicable
standards set the general requirements, management practices,
operational standards and monitoring and reporting requirements for the
final use and disposal of biosolids. AMSA's survey data includes the
following reasons for not land applying qualifying biosolids: (1) Land
was not available for application of sewage biosolids; (2) other
biosolids use/disposal practices were less expensive than land
application; (3) pathogen/vector reduction requirements could not be
met at an acceptable cost; and (4) local regulations or opposition to
land application. EPA revised the POTW benefits methodology according
to the results of the joint analysis of the EPA and AMSA surveys. The
revised methodology for POTW benefits analyses is presented in EEBA
Chapter 16.
4. Determining POTW Percent Removal Estimates
As discussed in the proposed rule, EPA solicited comment on
potential changes to the methodology for estimating the pollutant
reduction (i.e., percent removal) used in EPA's pass through analysis
for identifying pollutants requiring pretreatment standards (see 66 FR
476). For today's final rule, EPA has not changed the POTW pass-through
analysis because EPA is not promulgating any new pretreatment standards
for indirect dischargers.
[[Page 25699]]
V. Scope/Applicability of the Final Regulation
A. General Overview and Wastewaters Covered
As previously explained, today's final rule only applies to
directly discharged wastewaters generated from oily operations at
existing or new industrial facilities (including Federal, State and
local government facilities). These facilities are engaged in
manufacturing, rebuilding, or maintenance of metal parts, products or
machines to be used in one of the following industrial sectors:
[sbull] Aerospace;
[sbull] Aircraft;
[sbull] Bus and Truck;
[sbull] Electronic Equipment;
[sbull] Hardware;
[sbull] Household Equipment;
[sbull] Instruments;
[sbull] Miscellaneous Metal Products;
[sbull] Mobile Industrial Equipment;
[sbull] Motor Vehicle;
[sbull] Office Machine;
[sbull] Ordnance;
[sbull] Precious Metals and Jewelry;
[sbull] Railroad;
[sbull] Ships and Boats; and
[sbull] Stationary Industrial Equipment.
EPA identified sixteen industrial sectors as comprising the MP&M
category. These sectors manufacture, maintain and rebuild metal
products under more than 200 different SIC codes (see the TDD for a
listing of typical SIC codes and NAICs codes). EPA is not revising
limitations and standards for three proposed industrial sectors (e.g.,
Job Shops, Printed Wiring Board, and Steel Forming & Finishing).
Facilities in any one of the sixteen industrial sectors in the MP&M
category are subject to this rule only if they directly discharge
process wastewaters resulting from one or more of the following oily
operations: Abrasive blasting; adhesive bonding; alkaline cleaning for
oil removal; alkaline treatment without cyanide; aqueous degreasing;
assembly/disassembly; burnishing; calibration; corrosion preventive
coating (as specified at 40 CFR 438.2(c) and appendix B of part 438);
electrical discharge machining; floor cleaning (in process area);
grinding; heat treating; impact deformation; iron phosphate conversion
coating; machining; painting-spray or brush (including water curtains);
polishing; pressure deformation; solvent degreasing; steam cleaning;
testing (e.g., hydrostatic, dye penetrant, ultrasonic, magnetic flux);
thermal cutting; tumbling/barrel finishing/mass finishing/vibratory
finishing; washing (finished products); welding; wet air pollution
control for organic constituents; and numerous sub-operations within
those listed in this paragraph. In addition, process wastewater also
results from associated rinses that remove materials that the preceding
processes deposit on the surface of the workpiece. These oily
operations are defined in section 4 of the TDD and appendix B of
today's final rule. In addition, today's final rule does not apply to
direct discharges of wastewaters that are otherwise covered by other
effluent limitations guidelines.
As was the case at proposal, EPA defines process wastewater for the
final rule to include wastewater discharges from the following
activities: (1) Wastewater from air pollution control devices; and (2)
washing vehicles only when it is a preparatory step prior to performing
an oily operation (e.g., prior to disassembly to perform engine
maintenance or rebuilding). EPA has adopted this approach for the final
rule due to the potential of these unit operations to produce
significant quantities of pollutants in wastewaters (see 66 FR 433 to
434).
Not subject to this final rule are non-process wastewater
discharges which include the following: Sanitary wastewater, non-
contact cooling wastewater, laundering wastewater, and non-contact
storm water. In addition, non-process wastewater also includes
wastewater discharges from non-industrial sources such as residential
housing, schools, churches, recreational parks, shopping centers, and
wastewater discharges from gas stations, utility plants, and hospitals.
In addition to non-process wastewater, the final rule does not
apply to wastewater generated from: (1) Gravure cylinder and metallic
platemaking conducted within or for printing and publishing facilities;
(2) bilge water on ships afloat; (3) electroplating-type operations
during semiconductor wafer manufacturing or wafer fabrication processes
occurring in a ``clean room'' environment; (4) the washing of cars,
aircraft or other vehicles when it is performed only for aesthetic/
cosmetic purposes; (5) MP&M operations at gasoline stations (SIC code
5541) or vehicle rental facilities (SIC code 7514 or 7519); or (6) unit
operations performed by drum reconditioners/refurbishers to prepare
metal drums for reuse. The final rule does not include these non-
process wastewaters within the scope of the rule for the reasons
explained in the preamble to the proposed rule (see 66 FR 433). EPA
received no comments on the proposal or NODA that have caused the
Agency to change its mind about the approach it proposed and has now
adopted.
EPA is also not promulgating limitations and standards for
facilities in the Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategory. Today's final rule
does not cover wastewater generated on-board ships and boats when they
are afloat (that is, not in dry docks or similar structures), flooding
water, and dry dock ballast water (see 66 FR 445). For U.S. military
ships, EPA is in the process of establishing standards to regulate
discharges of wastewater generated on-board these ships when they are
in U.S. waters and are afloat under the Uniform National Discharge
Standards (UNDS) pursuant to section 312(n) of the CWA (see 64 FR
25125, May 10, 1999).
Finally, today's rule does not apply to maintenance or repair of
metal parts, products, or machines that takes place only as ancillary
activities at facilities not included in the sixteen MP&M industrial
sectors. EPA estimates that these ancillary repair and maintenance
activities would typically discharge de minimis quantities of process
wastewater. For example, wastewater discharges from repair of metal
parts at oil and gas extraction facilities are not subject to today's
final rule. The Agency finds that permit writers will establish limits
using best professional judgment (BPJ) to regulate wastewater
discharges from ancillary waste streams for direct dischargers (see 66
FR 433). EPA has not received any information during the rulemaking
that would contradict this conclusion.
B. Subcategorization
For today's final rule, EPA is subcategorizing the MP&M point
source category based on the unit operations described in more detail
in section 4 of the TDD, and is establishing limitations and standards
for direct dischargers in the Oily Wastes subcategory (subpart A).
The Oily Wastes subcategory applies to wastewaters generated from
``oily operations'' that are not otherwise covered by other effluent
limitations guidelines. EPA has previously defined ``oily operations''
in section V.A and at 40 CFR 438.2(f) and appendix B of today's final
rule.
Facilities engaged in the manufacture, overhaul or heavy
maintenance of railroad engines, cars, car-wheel trucks, or similar
parts or machines (``railroad overhaul or heavy maintenance
facilities'') typically perform different unit operations than railroad
line maintenance facilities. Railroad line maintenance facilities only
perform one or more of the following unit operations including;
Assembly/disassembly, floor
[[Page 25700]]
cleaning, maintenance machining (wheel truing), touch-up painting, and
washing. Railroad overhaul or heavy maintenance facilities typically
perform the following unit operations: Assembly/disassembly, floor
cleaning, maintenance machining (wheel truing), touch-up painting,
washing, abrasive blasting, alkaline cleaning, aqueous degreasing,
corrosion preventive coating, electrical discharge machining, grinding,
heat treating, impact deformation, painting, plasma arc machining,
polishing, pressure deformation, soldering/brazing, stripping (paint),
testing, thermal cutting, and welding. Wastewater discharges from
railroad line maintenance facilities (as defined at 40 CFR 438.2(h))
are not subject to today's final rule. Wastewater discharges from
railroad overhaul or heavy maintenance facilities (as defined at 40 CFR
438.2(i)) may be covered by subpart A of this part, the Metal Finishing
Point Source Category (40 CFR part 433), or by other effluent
limitations guidelines, as applicable.
VI. The Final Regulation
This section describes, by subcategory, the option(s) considered
and selected for today's final rule. For each subcategory, EPA provides
a discussion, as applicable, for the regulatory levels that EPA
considered for regulation (i.e., BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS). For
a detailed discussion of all technology options considered in the
development of today's final rule, see the proposal (see 66 FR 447),
the NODA (see 67 FR 38797) or section 9 of the TDD for today's final
rule.
Based on the record of information supporting the final MP&M rule,
EPA has determined that the selected technology for the Oily Wastes
subcategory is technically available. EPA used the appropriate
technologies for developing today's limitations for existing direct
dischargers (BPT and BCT) in one MP&M subcategory listed in the January
2001 proposal (Oily Wastes). EPA has also determined that each
technology it selected as the basis for the final limitations or
standards has effluent reductions commensurate with compliance costs
and is economically achievable for the applicable subcategory. EPA also
considered the age, size, processes, and other engineering factors
pertinent to facilities in the scope of the final regulation for the
purpose of evaluating the technology options. None of these factors
provides a basis for selecting different technologies from those EPA
has selected as its technology options for today's rule (see section 6
of the TDD for the final rule for further discussion of EPA's analyses
of these factors).
EPA considered the use of a low-flow cutoff as the principal means
for reducing economic impacts on small businesses and administrative
burden for control authorities associated with certain treatment
technologies it considered. EPA did not identify any regulatory scheme
incorporating a low-flow cutoff for direct dischargers that would
assist EPA in meeting these objectives. EPA notes that all direct
dischargers require a NPDES discharge permit regardless of wastewater
discharge flow volume.
The new source performance standards (NSPS) EPA is today
establishing represent the greatest degree of effluent reduction
achievable through the best available technology. In selecting its
technology basis for today's new source standards (NSPS) for the Oily
Wastes subcategory being promulgated today, EPA considered all of the
factors specified in CWA section 306, including the cost of achieving
effluent reductions. EPA used the appropriate technology option for
developing today's standards for new direct dischargers in the Oily
Wastes subcategory. The new source technology basis for the Oily Wastes
subcategory is equivalent to the technology bases upon which EPA is
setting BPT and BCT (see Chapter 9 of the EEBA). EPA has thoroughly
reviewed the costs of such technologies and 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 new source technology basis and found no basis for any
different standards from those selected for NSPS. Therefore, EPA
concluded that the NSPS technology basis chosen for the Oily Wastes
subcategory constitute the best available demonstrated control
technology. For a discussion on the compliance date for new sources,
see section XI of today's final rule.
EPA decided not to establish limitations for existing sources for
seven subcategories listed in the January 2001 proposal (General
Metals, Metal Finishing Job Shops, Printed Wiring Boards, Non-Chromium
Anodizers, Steel Forming & Finishing, Railroad Line Maintenance, and
Shipbuilding Dry Dock). EPA also decided not to establish standards for
new sources for the same seven subcategories. Finally, EPA decided not
to establish standards for new and existing indirect dischargers (PSES
and PSNS) for all eight subcategories listed in the January 2001
proposal. EPA's bases for not promulgating revised limitations and
standards for these subcategories are explained in the following
sections.
A. General Metals Subcategory
EPA is not revising or establishing any limitations or standards
for facilities that would have been subject to this subcategory. Such
facilities will continue to be regulated by the General Pretreatment
Standards (part 403), local limits, permit limits, and parts 413 and/or
433, as applicable.
1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)
EPA proposed to establish BPT limitations for existing direct
dischargers in the General Metals subcategory based on the Option 2
technology. EPA evaluated the cost of achieving effluent reductions,
pollutant reductions, and the economic achievability of compliance with
BPT limitations based on the Option 2 technology and the level of the
pollutant reductions resulting from compliance with such limitations.
EPA has decided not to establish BPT limitations for existing direct
dischargers in the proposed General Metals subcategory. The 2001
proposal also contains detailed discussions on why EPA rejected BPT
limitations based on other BPT technology options (see 66 FR 452). The
information in the record for today's final rule provides no basis for
EPA to change this conclusion.
EPA proposed Option 2 as a basis for establishing BPT limitations
for the General Metals subcategory. Option 2 technology includes the
following: (1) In-process flow control and pollution prevention; (2)
segregation of wastewater streams; (3) preliminary treatment steps as
necessary (including oils removal using chemical emulsion breaking and
oil-water separation, alkaline chlorination for cyanide destruction,
reduction of hexavalent chromium, and chelation breaking); (4) chemical
precipitation using sodium hydroxide; (5) sedimentation using a
clarifier; and (6) sludge removal (i.e., gravity thickening and filter
press). See section 9 of the TDD for today's final rule for additional
technical details on the Option 2 technology.
Those facilities potentially regulated in the General Metals
subcategory include facilities that are currently subject to effluent
limitations guideline regulation under part 433 as well as facilities
not currently subject to national regulation. Approximately 263 of the
266 existing General Metals direct dischargers (estimated from survey
weights for 31 surveyed facilities) are currently covered by the Metal
[[Page 25701]]
Finishing effluent guidelines at part 433. The remaining three
facilities (estimated from a survey weight for one surveyed facility)
are currently directly discharging metal-bearing wastewaters (e.g.,
salt bath descaling, UP-37) but are not covered by existing Metal
Finishing effluent guidelines. EPA's review of discharge monitoring
data and unit operations for this surveyed non-433 General Metals
facility (with a survey weight of approximately three) indicates that
this facility is already achieving part 433 limitations because this
facility has discharges that closely mirror those required by part 433.
The facilities that are currently subject to part 433 regulations
and those facilities achieving part 433 discharge levels, in most
cases, have already installed effective pollution control technology
that includes many of the components of the Option 2 technology.
Approximately 30 percent of the direct discharging facilities in the
General Metals subcategory currently employ chemical precipitation
followed by a clarifier. Further, EPA estimates that compliance with
BPT limitations based on the Option 2 technology would result in no
closures of the existing direct dischargers in the General Metals
subcategory. EPA also notes that the adoption of this level of control
would also represent a further reduction in pollutants discharged into
the environment by facilities in this subcategory. For facilities in
the General Metals subcategory at Option 2, EPA estimates an annual
compliance cost of $23.7 million (2001$). Using the method described in
Table IV-2 to estimate baseline pollutant loadings, EPA estimates
Option 2 pollutant removals of 417,477 pounds of conventional
pollutants and 33,716 pounds of priority metal and organic pollutants
from current discharges into the Nation's waters.
Evaluated under its traditional yardstick, EPA calculated that the
effluent reductions are achieved at a cost of $18.1/pound-pollutant
removed (2001$) for the General Metals subcategory at Option 2. To
estimate all pounds of pollutant removed by Option 2 technology for
direct dischargers in the General Metals subcategory, EPA used the
method described in Table IV-2 to estimate baseline pollutant loadings,
and the sum of Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) pounds removed plus the sum
of all metals pounds removed to measure the pollutant removal as
compared to compliance costs. EPA used the combination of COD pounds
removed plus the sum of all metals pounds removed to avoid any
significant double counting of pollutants.
As previously stated, EPA received many comments on its estimation
of baseline pollutant loadings and reductions for the various options
presented in the January 2001 proposal. In response to these comments,
EPA solicited comment in the June 2002 NODA on alternative methods to
estimate baseline pollutant loadings. Commentors on the NODA were
generally supportive of EPA's alternative methods to estimate baseline
pollutant loadings. In particular, commentors noted that more accurate
estimates of baseline pollutant loadings could be achieved by using DMR
data. In response to these NODA comments, EPA combined the alternative
methods in the NODA into the EPA Cost & Loadings Model for the final
rule (see Table IV-2).
EPA also received comment on the parameter or parameters it should
use for estimating total pounds removed by the selected technology
option. EPA selected the sum of COD and all metals pounds removed for
the final rule to compare effluent reductions and compliance costs.
This approach avoided any significant double counting of pollutants and
also provided a reasonable estimate of total pounds removed by Option 2
for the General Metals subcategory. As more fully described in the TDD,
Option 2 technology segregates wastewaters into at least five different
waste streams, each of which have one or two treatment steps. For
example, segregated oily wastewaters have two treatment steps under
Option 2 technology as they are first treated by chemical emulsion
breaking/oil water separation and then by chemical precipitation and
sedimentation. These segregated wastestreams can be loosely grouped
together as either oily wastewaters or metal-bearing wastewaters. EPA
use of COD pounds removed for Option 2 technology generally represents
the removal of pollutants from the segregated oily wastewaters. EPA use
of total metals pounds removed for Option 2 technology generally
represents the removal of pollutants from the segregated metal-bearing
wastewaters.
EPA also considered alternative parameters for calculating total
pounds removed by Option 2 for the comparison of effluent reductions
and compliance costs for the General Metals subcategory. In particular,
EPA calculated a ratio of less than $14/pound-pollutant removed (2001$)
for the General Metals subcategory at Option 2 when EPA used the
highest set of pollutants removed per facility with no significant
double counting of pollutants (i.e., highest per facility pollutant
removals of: (1) COD plus total metals; (2) oil and grease (as HEM)
plus total metals; or (3) oil and grease (as HEM) plus TSS). EPA used
the highest per facility pollutant removals as a confirmation of its
primary method for calculating baseline pollutant loadings (see Table
IV-2) and Option 2 for General Metals subcategory.
Based on the revisions and corrections to the EPA Cost & Loadings
Model discussed in the NODA and in section IV.B.1 of today's final
rule, EPA has decided not to adopt BPT limitations based on Option 2
technology. A number of factors supports EPA's conclusion that BPT
limitations based on Option 2 technology do not represent effluent
reduction levels attainable by the best practicable technology
currently available. As previously noted, a substantial number of
facilities that would be subject to limitations as General Metals
facilities are already regulated by BPT/BAT part 433 limitations and
other facilities are de facto part 433 facilities if characterized by
their discharges. Thus, establishing BPT limitations for a new General
Metals subcategory would effectively revise existing BPT/BAT
limitations with respect to those facilities. In the circumstances
presented here where EPA, for a significant portion of an industry, is
revising existing BPT/BAT limitations, further review of the character
and cost of the effluent reductions achieved by Option 2 is warranted
in deciding what is BPT technology. Such an examination shows that,
while the Option 2 technology would remove additional pollutants at
costs in the middle of the range EPA has traditionally determined are
reasonable, the costs of the additional removals of toxic pollutants
are substantially greater. EPA has now determined that, in the
circumstances of this rulemaking, where a substantial portion of a
subcategory is already subject to effluent limitations guidelines that
achieve significant removal, it should not promulgate BPT limitations
under consideration here because the limitations would achieve
additional toxic removals at a cost ($1,000/PE in 1981$) substantially
greater than that EPA has typically imposed for BAT technology in other
industries (generally less than $200/PE in 1981$).
EPA also considered transferring limitations from existing Metal
Finishing effluent guidelines (40 CFR part 433) to the General Metals
subcategory. The technology basis for part 433 includes the following:
(1)
[[Page 25702]]
Segregation of wastewater streams; (2) preliminary treatment steps as
necessary (including oils removal using chemical emulsion breaking and
oil-water separation, alkaline chlorination for cyanide destruction,
reduction of hexavalent chromium, and chelation breaking); (3) chemical
precipitation using sodium hydroxide; (4) sedimentation using a
clarifier; and (5) sludge removal (i.e., gravity thickening and filter
press). See section 9 of the TDD for today's final rule for additional
technical details on the part 433 technology basis.
Approximately 99% of the existing direct dischargers in the General
Metals subcategory are currently covered by existing Metal Finishing
effluent guidelines. The remaining 1% (an estimated three facilities
nationwide based on the survey weight associated with one surveyed
facility) are currently permitted to discharge metal-bearing
wastewaters but are not covered by existing Metal Finishing effluent
guidelines. EPA's review of discharge monitoring data and unit
operations for this surveyed non-433 General Metals facility (with a
survey weight of approximately three) indicates that this facility is
subject to permit limitations established on a BPJ basis that are
equivalent or more stringent than part 433 limitations. Transferring
limitations from existing Metal Finishing effluent guidelines would
likely result in no additional pollutant load reductions. Therefore,
based on the lack of additional pollutant removals that are estimated,
EPA is not promulgating BPT limitations transferred from existing Metal
Finishing effluent limitations guidelines for the General Metals
subcategory.
EPA is not revising or establishing BPT limitations for any
facilities in this subcategory. Direct dischargers in the General
Metals subcategory will remain regulated by permit limits and part 433,
as applicable.
2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)
In deciding whether to adopt more stringent limitations for BCT
than BPT, EPA considers 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. EPA generally refers to the decision criteria
as the ``BCT cost test.'' For a more detailed description of the BCT
cost test and details of EPA's analysis, see Chapter 4 of the EEBA.
As EPA is not establishing any BPT limitations for the General
Metals subcategory, EPA did not evaluate any technologies for the final
rule that can achieve greater removals of conventional pollutants.
Consequently, EPA is not establishing BCT limitations for the General
Metals subcategory.
3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
EPA proposed to establish BAT limitations for existing direct
dischargers in the General Metals subcategory based on the Option 2
technology. As previously noted, EPA has decided not to establish BPT
limitations based on Option 2 technology. The same reasons support not
establishing BAT limitations based on the same technology. EPA
evaluated the cost of effluent reductions, pollutant reductions, and
the economic achievability of compliance with BAT limitations based on
the Option 2 technology.
Based on the revisions and corrections to the EPA Cost & Loadings
Model discussed in the NODA and in section IV.B.1 of today's final
rule, EPA determined that the costs of Option 2 are disproportionate to
the toxic pollutant reductions (measured in pound-equivalents (PE)).
The cost of achieving the effluent reduction (in 1981$) for Option 2
for direct dischargers in the General Metals subcategory is over
$1,000/PE removed (see the EEBA and DCN 37900, section 26.0, for a
discussion of the cost-effectiveness analysis). The costs associated
with this technology are, as previously noted, substantially greater
than the level EPA has traditionally determined are associated with
available toxic pollutant control technology. EPA has determined that
Option 2 technology is not the best available technology economically
achievable for existing direct dischargers in the General Metals
subcategory. EPA is not revising or establishing BAT limitations for
this subcategory based Option 2 technology.
EPA also considered transferring BAT limitations from existing
Metal Finishing effluent guidelines (40 CFR 433.14) to the General
Metals subcategory. EPA's reviewed existing General Metals facilities
and found that all are currently achieving part 433 BAT limitations.
Transferring BAT limitations from existing Metal Finishing effluent
guidelines would likely result in no additional pollutant load
reductions and minimal incremental compliance costs (see section
VI.A.1). Therefore, based on the lack of additional pollutant removals
that are estimated, EPA is not promulgating BAT limitations transferred
from existing Metal Finishing effluent limitations guidelines for the
General Metals subcategory.
EPA is not revising or establishing BAT limitations for any
facilities in this subcategory. Direct dischargers in the General
Metals subcategory will remain regulated by permit limits and part 433,
as applicable.
4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
EPA proposed NSPS for the General Metals subcategory based on
Option 4 technology. Option 4 technology is similar to Option 2
(including Option 2 flow control and pollution prevention) but includes
oils removal using ultrafiltration and solids separation by a
microfilter (instead of a clarifier). Commentors stated that EPA had
under-costed the Option 4 technology and that the compliance costs
would be a barrier to entry for new facilities. In addition, commentors
questioned the completeness of EPA's database on microfiltration,
noting that EPA transferred standards for several pollutants from the
Option 2 technology, based on lack of data. EPA reviewed its database
for the Option 4 technology and agrees that its microfiltration
database is insufficient to support a determination that the Option 4
limitations are technically achievable.
EPA also evaluated setting General Metals NSPS based on the Option
2 technology and assessed the financial burden to new General Metals
direct dischargers. Specifically, EPA's ``barrier to entry'' analysis
identified whether General Metals NSPS based on the Option 2 technology
would pose sufficient financial burden as to constitute a material
barrier to entry of new General Metals establishments into the MP&M
point source category. Additionally, EPA reviewed its database for
establishing General Metals NSPS based on the Option 2 technology as
commentors indicated the proposed standards were not technically
achievable.
In response to these comments, EPA reviewed all the information
currently available on General Metals facilities employing the Option 2
technology basis. This review demonstrated that process wastewaters at
General Metals facilities contain a wide variety of metals in
significant concentrations. Commentors stated that single stage
precipitation and solids separation step may not achieve sufficient
removals for wastewaters that contain significant concentrations of a
wide variety of metals--especially if the metals preferentially
precipitate at disparate
[[Page 25703]]
pH ranges. Consequently, to address concerns raised by commentors, EPA
also costed new sources to operate two separate chemical precipitation
and solids separation steps in series. Two-stage chemical precipitation
and solids separation allows General Metals facilities with multiple
metals to control metal discharges to concentrations lower than single-
stage chemical precipitation and solids separation over a wider pH
range.
Applying this revised costing approach, EPA projects a barrier to
entry for General Metals NSPS based on the Option 2 technology as 14%
of General Metals direct dischargers have after-tax compliance costs
between 1 to 3% of revenue, 22% have after-tax compliance costs between
3 to 5% of revenue, and 2% have after-tax compliance costs greater than
5% of revenue. Consequently, based on the compliance costs of the
modified Option 2 technology EPA is today rejecting Option 2 technology
as the basis for NSPS in the General Metals subcategory. See section 11
of the TDD for a description of how these new source compliance costs
were developed and Chapter 9 of the EEBA for a description of the
framework EPA used for the barrier to entry analysis and general
discussion of the results.
EPA also considered transferring NSPS from existing Metal Finishing
effluent guidelines (40 CFR 433.16) to the General Metals subcategory.
EPA reviewed existing General Metals direct dischargers and found that
all are currently either covered by or have permits based on the Metal
Finishing limitations at 40 CFR part 433. EPA has no basis to conclude
that new General Metals facilities would have less stringent
requirements than existing facilities, particularly since, in the
absence of promulgated NSPS, it is likely that permit writers would
consult the part 433 requirements to establish BPJ limits. In addition,
those new facilities which meet the applicability criteria for part 433
will be subject to the NSPS for that category. Therefore, transferring
standards from these existing Metal Finishing effluent limitations
guidelines would likely result in no additional pollutant load
reductions.
Therefore, based on the lack of additional pollutant removals that
are estimated, EPA is not promulgating NSPS for the General Metals
subcategory. EPA is not revising or establishing NSPS for any
facilities in this subcategory. Direct dischargers in the General
Metals subcategory will remain regulated by permit limits and part 433,
as applicable.
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
EPA proposed to establish PSES for existing indirect dischargers in
the General Metals subcategory based on the Option 2 technology (i.e.,
the same technology basis that EPA considered for BPT/BCT/BAT for this
subcategory) with a ``low-flow'' exclusion of 1 million gallons per
year (MGY) to reduce economic impacts on small businesses and
administrative burden for control authorities. Based on the revisions
and corrections to the EPA Cost & Loadings Model discussed in the NODA
and in section IV.B.1 of today's final rule, EPA rejected promulgating
PSES for existing indirect dischargers in the General Metals
subcategory based on the Option 2 technology for the following reasons:
(1) Many General Metals indirect dischargers are currently regulated by
existing effluent guidelines (parts 413 or 433 or both, as applicable);
(2) EPA estimates that compliance with PSES based on the Option 2
technology will result in the closure of approximately 4% of the
existing indirect dischargers in this subcategory; and (3) EPA
determined that the incremental toxic pollutant reductions are very
expensive per pound removed (the cost-effectiveness value (in 1981$)
for Option 2 for indirect dischargers in the General Metals subcategory
is $432/PE).
This suggests to EPA that the identified technology is not truly
``available'' to this industry because it would remove a relatively
small number of additional toxic pounds at a cost significantly greater
than that EPA has typically determined is appropriate for other
industries. EPA has determined that Option 2 technology is not the best
available technology economically achievable for existing indirect
dischargers in the General Metals subcategory. Therefore, EPA is not
establishing PSES for this subcategory based on the Option 2
technology.
As discussed in the June 2002 NODA (see 67 FR 38798), EPA also
considered a number of alternative options whose economic impacts would
be less costly than Option 2 technology. These options potentially have
compliance costs more closely aligned with toxic pollutant reductions.
EPA considered the following alternative options for today's final
rule:
Option A: No change in current regulation;
Option B: Option 2 with a higher low-flow exclusion;
Option C: Upgrading facilities currently covered by part 413 to the
PSES of part 433; and
Option D: Upgrading all facilities covered by part 413, and those
facilities covered by ``local limits only'' that discharge greater than
a specified wastewater flow (e.g., 1, 3, or 6.25 MGY) of process
wastewater to the part 433 pretreatment standards for existing sources.
Note that facilities regulated by ``local limits only'' are also
regulated by the General Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR part 403).
As discussed in section IV.B.1 of today's final rule, based on
comments, EPA has revised its methodology for estimating compliance
costs and pollutant loadings for Option 2, higher low-flow exclusions
(Option B); and the ``upgrade'' options (Options C and D) previously
described. Using information from this revised analysis, EPA concludes
that all of these alternative options (Options B, C, and D) are either
not available or not economically achievable. EPA rejected Options B,
C, and D as: (1) Greater than 10% of existing indirect dischargers not
covered by part 433 close at the upgrade option; or (2) toxic removals
of the upgrade options are quite expensive (cost-effectiveness values
(in 1981$) in excess of $420/PE), suggesting that these options are not
truly available technologies for this industry segment. EPA
consequently determined that none of the treatment options represented
best available technology economically achievable. Therefore, EPA is
not revising or establishing PSES for existing indirect dischargers in
the General Metals subcategory (Option A). Wastewater discharges to
POTWs from facilities in this subcategory will remain regulated by
local limits, general pretreatment standards (part 403), and parts 413
and/or 433, as applicable. EPA also notes that facilities regulated by
parts 413 and/or 433 PSES must comply with part 433 PSNS if the changes
to their facilities are determined to make them new sources.
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)
In 2001, EPA proposed pretreatment standards for new sources based
on the Option 4 technology basis. Option 4 technology is similar to
Option 2 (including Option 2 flow control and pollution prevention) but
includes oils removal using ultrafiltration and solids separation by a
microfilter (instead of a clarifier). As explained in section VI.A.4,
EPA concluded its database is insufficient to support a determination
that the Option 4 standards are technically achievable. As a result,
for the final rule EPA considered
[[Page 25704]]
establishing PSNS in the General Metals subcategory based on the Option
2 technology (i.e., the same technology basis that was considered for
BPT/BCT/BAT for this subcategory) along with the same ``low-flow''
exemption of 1 MGY considered for existing sources.
For today's final rule EPA evaluated setting General Metals PSNS
based on the Option 2 technology and assessed the financial burden to
new General Metals indirect dischargers. Specifically, EPA's ``barrier
to entry'' analysis identified whether General Metals PSNS based on the
Option 2 technology would pose sufficient financial burden on new
General Metals facilities to constitute a material barrier to entry
into the MP&M point source category.
EPA projects a barrier to entry for General Metals PSNS based on
the Option 2 technology as 14% of General Metals indirect dischargers
have after-tax compliance costs between 1 to 3% of revenue and 20% have
after-tax compliance costs between 3 to 5% of revenue. Consequently,
EPA is today rejecting Option 2 technology as the basis for PSNS in the
General Metals subcategory. EPA has selected ``no further regulation''
for new General Metals indirect dischargers and is not revising PSNS
for new General Metals indirect dischargers. Wastewater discharges to
POTWs from facilities in this subcategory will remain regulated by
local limits, general pretreatment standards (part 403), and part 433,
as applicable. See section 11 of the TDD for a description of how these
new source compliance costs were developed and Chapter 9 of the EEBA
for a description of the framework EPA used for the barrier to entry
analysis and general discussion of the results.
B. Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory
EPA is not revising any limitations or standards for facilities
that would have been subject to this subcategory. Such facilities will
continue to be regulated by the General Pretreatment Standards (part
403), local limits, permit limits, and parts 413 and/or 433, as
applicable.
1. BPT/BCT/BAT
EPA proposed to establish BPT/BCT/BAT for existing direct
dischargers in the MFJS subcategory based on the Option 2 technology
(see section VI.A for a description of Option 2). EPA evaluated the
cost of effluent reductions, pollutant reductions, and the economic
achievability of compliance with BPT/BCT/BAT limitations based on the
Option 2 technology. Based on the revisions and corrections to the EPA
Cost & Loadings Model discussed in the NODA and in section IV.B.1 of
today's final rule, EPA determined that the compliance costs of the
Option 2 technology are not economically achievable. EPA estimates that
compliance with BPT/BCT/BAT limitations based on the Option 2
technology will result in the closure of 50% of the existing direct
dischargers in this subcategory (12 of 24 existing MFJS direct
dischargers). Consequently, EPA concludes that for existing direct
dischargers in the MFJS subcategory, Option 2 is not the best
practicable control technology, best conventional pollutant control
technology, or best available technology economically achievable. EPA
has decided not to establish new BPT, BCT, or BAT limitations for
existing MFJS direct dischargers based on the Option 2 technology,
which will remain subject to part 433.
2. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
EPA proposed to establish NSPS for new direct dischargers in the
MFJS subcategory based on the Option 4 technology. Option 4 technology
is similar to Option 2 (including Option 2 flow control and pollution
prevention) but includes oils removal using ultrafiltration and solids
separation by a microfilter (instead of a clarifier). As explained in
section VI.A.4, EPA concluded its database is insufficient to support a
determination that the Option 4 standards are technically achievable.
Consequently, EPA rejected Option 4 technology as the basis for NSPS in
the MFJS subcategory.
For today's final rule EPA evaluated setting MFJS NSPS based on the
Option 2 technology and assessed the financial burden to new MFJS
direct dischargers. Specifically, EPA's ``barrier to entry'' analysis
identified whether MFJS NSPS based on the Option 2 technology would
pose sufficient financial burden so as to constitute a material barrier
to entry into the MP&M point source category. Additionally, EPA
reviewed its database for establishing MFJS NSPS based on the Option 2
technology as commentors indicated the proposed standards were not
technically achievable.
In response to these comments, EPA reviewed all the information
currently available on MFJS facilities employing the Option 2
technology basis. This review demonstrated that process wastewaters at
MFJS facilities contain a wide variety of metals in significant
concentrations. Commentors stated that single stage precipitation and
solids separation may not achieve sufficient removals for wastewaters
that contain significant concentrations of a wide variety of metals--
especially if the metals preferentially precipitate at disparate pH
ranges. Consequently, to address concerns raised by commentors, EPA
also costed new sources to operate two separate chemical precipitation
and solids separation steps in series. Two-stage chemical precipitation
and solids separation allows MFJS facilities with multiple metals to
control metal discharges to concentrations lower than single-stage
chemical precipitation and solids separation over a wider pH range.
Applying this revised costing approach, EPA projects a barrier to
entry for MFJS NSPS based on the Option 2 technology as all MFJS direct
dischargers have new source compliance costs that are greater than 5%
of revenue. Consequently, EPA is today rejecting Option 2 technology as
the basis for NSPS in the MFJS subcategory, and is not revising NSPS
for new MFJS direct dischargers. Wastewater discharges from these
facilities in this subcategory will remain regulated by local limits
and part 433 NSPS as applicable. See section 11 of the TDD for a
description of how these new source compliance costs were developed and
Chapter 9 of the EEBA for a description of the framework EPA used for
the barrier to entry analysis and general discussion of the results.
3. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
EPA proposed to establish PSES for existing indirect dischargers in
the MFJS subcategory based on the Option 2 technology. Based on the
revisions and corrections to the EPA Cost & Loadings Model discussed in
the NODA and in section IV.B.1 of today's final rule, EPA determined
that the costs of Option 2 are not economically achievable for existing
indirect dischargers in the MFJS subcategory. EPA estimates that
compliance with PSES based on the Option 2 technology will result in
the closure of 46% of the existing indirect dischargers in this
subcategory (589 of 1,270 existing MFJS indirect dischargers), which
EPA considers to be too high. EPA has determined that Option 2
technology is not the best available technology economically achievable
for existing indirect dischargers in the MFJS subcategory. Therefore,
EPA is not establishing PSES for this subcategory based on the Option 2
technology.
As discussed in the January 2001 proposal (see 66 FR 551) and June
2002 NODA (see 67 FR 38801), EPA also considered a number of
alternative options whose economic impacts would be less costly than
Option 2 technology.
[[Page 25705]]
These options potentially have compliance costs more closely aligned
with toxic pollutant reductions. EPA considered the following
alternative options for today's final rule:
Option A: No change in current regulation;
Option B: Option 2 with a low-flow exclusion; and
Option C: Upgrading facilities currently covered by part 413 to the
PSES of part 433.
Option D: Pollution Prevention Option.
All facilities in the MFJS subcategory are currently subject to part
413, part 433 or both.
As discussed in section IV.B.1 of today's final rule, based on
comments, EPA has revised its methodology for estimating compliance
costs and pollutant loadings for Option 2, low-flow exclusions (Option
B), and the ``upgrade'' option (Option C) previously described. Using
information from this revised analysis, EPA concludes that neither of
these alternative options (Options B or C) are economically achievable.
EPA rejected Options B and C as greater than 10% of existing indirect
dischargers not covered by part 433 close at the upgrade option.
EPA also solicited comment in the January 2001 proposal on a
pollution prevention alternative for indirect dischargers in this
subcategory (Option D). Commentors supported option D and stated that
the pollution prevention practices identified by EPA in the January
2001 proposal represent environmentally sound practices for the metal
finishing industry. The commentors also stated that Option D should,
however, be implemented on a voluntary basis similar to the National
Metal Finishing Strategic Goals Program (see 66 FR 511). Control
authorities also commented that Option D may increase their
administrative burden because of additional review of facility
operations and compliance with the approved pollution prevention plan,
and enforcement of Option D may be more difficult than other options
considered. EPA is not promulgating Option D for facilities in the MFJS
subcategory for the final rule due to the increased administrative
burden on pretreatment control authorities and potential problems
enforcing Option D. Section 15 of the TDD describes many of the
pollution prevention practices that were considered for Option D. These
pollution prevention practices may be useful in helping facilities
lower operating costs, improve environmental performance, and foster
other important benefits.
EPA is not establishing PSES for existing indirect dischargers in
the MFJS subcategory. Wastewater discharges to POTWs from facilities in
this subcategory will remain regulated by general pretreatment
standards (part 403), and parts 413 and/or 433, as applicable. EPA also
notes that facilities regulated by parts 413 and/or 433 PSES must
comply with part 433 PSNS if the changes to their facilities are
determined to make them new sources.
4. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)
EPA proposed to establish PSNS for indirect dischargers in the MFJS
subcategory based on the Option 4 technology. Option 4 technology is
similar to Option 2 (including Option 2 flow control and pollution
prevention) but includes oils removal using ultrafiltration and solids
separation by a microfilter (instead of a clarifier). As explained in
section VI.A.4, EPA concluded its database is insufficient to support a
determination that the Option 4 standards are technically achievable.
Consequently, EPA is today rejecting Option 4 technology as the basis
for PSNS in the MFJS subcategory.
For today's final rule EPA evaluated setting MFJS PSNS based on the
Option 2 technology and assessed the financial burden to new MFJS
indirect dischargers. Specifically, EPA's `barrier to entry' analysis
identified whether MFJS PSNS based on the Option 2 technology would
pose sufficient financial burden on new MFJS facilities to constitute a
material barrier to entry into the MP&M point source category.
EPA projects a barrier to entry for MFJS PSNS based on the Option 2
technology as 8% of MFJS indirect dischargers have after-tax compliance
costs between 1-3% of revenue, 5% have after-tax compliance costs
between 3-5% of revenue, and 6% have after-tax compliance costs greater
than 5% of revenue. Consequently, EPA is today rejecting Option 2
technology as the basis for PSNS in the MFJS subcategory, and is not
revising PSNS for new MFJS indirect dischargers. Wastewater discharges
to POTWs from facilities in this subcategory will remain regulated by
local limits, general pretreatment standards (part 403), and part 433,
as applicable. See section 11 of the TDD for a description of how these
new source compliance costs were developed and Chapter 9 of the EEBA
for a description of the framework EPA used for the barrier to entry
analysis and general discussion of the results.
C. Printed Wiring Board Subcategory
EPA is not revising any limitations or standards for facilities
that would have been subject to this subcategory. Such facilities will
continue to be regulated by the General Pretreatment Standards (part
403), local limits, permit limits, and parts 413 and/or 433, as
applicable.
1. BPT/BCT/BAT
EPA proposed to establish BPT/BCT/BAT for direct dischargers in the
PWB subcategory based on the Option 2 technology (see section VI.A for
a description of Option 2). EPA evaluated the cost of effluent
reductions, pollutant reductions, and the economic achievability of
compliance with BPT/BCT/BAT limitations based on the Option 2
technology. Based on revisions and corrections to the EPA Cost &
Loadings Model discussed in the NODA and in section IV.B.1 of today's
final rule, EPA has concluded that revision of the national regulation
is not warranted for this subcategory.
Based on MP&M survey information, EPA estimates that compliance
with BPT/BCT/BAT limitations based on the Option 2 technology results
in no closures of the existing eight direct dischargers in the PWB
subcategory. However, EPA decided not to establish BPT/BAT limitations
based on the Option 2 technology for the PWB subcategory for the
following reasons: (1) EPA identified only eight existing PWB direct
dischargers and all of these PWB direct dischargers are currently
regulated by existing effluent guidelines (part 433); and (2) the costs
of Option 2 are disproportionate to the estimated toxic pollutant
reductions. EPA estimates compliance cost of $0.3 million (2001$) with
only 186 toxic pound-equivalents (PE) being removed. This equates to a
cost-effectiveness value (in 1981$) of approximately $900/PE. EPA
concludes that for existing direct dischargers in the PWB subcategory,
Option 2 is not the best practicable control technology, best
conventional pollutant control technology, or best available technology
economically achievable. EPA has decided not to establish new BPT, BCT,
or BAT limitations for existing PWB direct dischargers based on the
Option 2 technology, which will remain subject to part 433.
2. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
EPA proposed to establish NSPS for new direct dischargers in the
PWB subcategory based on the Option 4 technology. Option 4 technology
is similar to Option 2 (including Option 2 flow control and pollution
prevention) but includes oils removal using ultrafiltration and solids
separation by a microfilter (instead of a clarifier). As explained in
section VI.A.4, EPA
[[Page 25706]]
concluded its database is insufficient to support a determination that
the Option 4 standards are technically achievable. Consequently, EPA is
today rejecting Option 4 technology as the basis for NSPS in the PWB
subcategory.
For today's final rule EPA evaluated setting PWB NSPS based on the
Option 2 technology. EPA reviewed its database for establishing PWB
NSPS based on the Option 2 technology as commentors indicated the
proposed standards were not technically achievable. In response to
these comments, EPA reviewed all the information currently available on
PWB facilities employing the Option 2 technology basis. EPA now
concludes that the PWBs Option 2 database can only be used to establish
limitations for copper, nickel, and tin. In order to assess the
difference between current NSPS requirements (from part 433) for PWB
facilities and those under consideration here, EPA estimated the
incremental quantities of copper, nickel, and tin that would be reduced
if a new PWB facility were required to meet NSPS based on the Option 2
technology rather than NSPS based on 433. EPA analysis shows minimal
amounts of pollutant reductions based on more stringent requirements on
copper, nickel, and tin.
Consequently, EPA is today rejecting Option 2 technology as the
basis for NSPS in the PWB subcategory based on the small incremental
quantity of toxic pollutants that would be reduced in relation to
existing requirements. EPA is not establishing NSPS for new PWB direct
dischargers and is not revising existing NSPS for new PWB direct
dischargers. Wastewater discharges from these facilities in this
subcategory will remain regulated by permit limits and part 433 as
applicable. See section 11 of the TDD for a description of how these
new source compliance costs were developed and Chapter 9 of the EEBA
for a description of the framework EPA used for the barrier to entry
analysis and general discussion of the results.
3. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
EPA proposed to establish PSES for existing indirect dischargers in
the PWB subcategory based on the Option 2 technology. Based on the
revisions and corrections to the EPA Cost & Loadings Model discussed in
the NODA and in section IV.B.1 of today's final rule, EPA rejected
promulgating PSES for existing indirect dischargers in the PWB
subcategory based on the Option 2 technology for the following reasons:
(1) All PWB indirect dischargers are currently regulated by existing
effluent guidelines (parts 413 or 433 or both, as applicable); (2) EPA
estimates that compliance with PSES based on the Option 2 technology
will result in the closure of 6.5% of the existing indirect dischargers
in this subcategory (55 of 840 existing PWB indirect dischargers); and
(3) EPA determined that the toxic pollutant reductions are very
expensive per pound removed (the cost-effectiveness value (in 1981$) is
$455/PE). EPA has determined that Option 2 technology is not the best
available technology economically achievable for existing indirect
dischargers in the PWB subcategory, therefore is not establishing PWB
PSES based on the Option 2 technology.
As discussed in the June 2002 NODA (see 67 FR 38802), EPA also
considered a number of alternative options whose economic impacts would
be less costly than Option 2 technology. These options potentially have
compliance costs more closely aligned with toxic pollutant reductions.
EPA considered the following alternative options for today's final
rule:
Option A: No change in current regulation;
Option B: Option 2 with a higher low-flow exclusion; and
Option C: Upgrading facilities currently covered by part 413 to the
PSES of part 433
EPA notes that all facilities in the PWB subcategory are currently
subject to part 413, part 433 or both.
As discussed in section IV.B.1 of today's final rule, based on
comments, EPA has revised its methodology for estimating compliance
costs and pollutant loadings for Option 2, higher low-flow exclusions
(Option B); and the ``upgrade'' option (Options C) previously
described. Using information from this revised analysis, EPA rejected
Options B and C as: (1) Greater than 10% of existing indirect
dischargers not covered by part 433 close at the upgrade option; or (2)
the incremental compliance costs of the upgrade options were too great
in terms of toxic removals (cost-effectiveness values (in 1981$) in
excess of $833/PE). Therefore EPA is not revising PSES for existing
indirect dischargers in the PWB subcategory. Wastewater discharges to
POTWs from facilities in this subcategory will remain regulated by
general pretreatment standards (part 403) and parts 413 and/or 433, as
applicable. EPA also notes that facilities regulated by parts 413 and/
or 433 PSES must comply with part 433 PSNS if the changes to their
facilities are determined to make them new sources.
4. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)
EPA proposed to establish PSNS for indirect dischargers in the PWB
subcategory based on the Option 4 technology. Option 4 technology is
similar to Option 2 (including Option 2 flow control and pollution
prevention) but includes oils removal using ultrafiltration and solids
separation by a microfilter (instead of a clarifier). As explained in
section VI.A.4, EPA concluded its database is insufficient to support a
determination that the Option 4 standards are technically achievable.
Consequently, EPA is today rejecting Option 4 technology as the basis
for PSNS in the PWB subcategory.
For today's final rule EPA evaluated setting PWB PSNS based on the
Option 2 technology and assessed the financial burden to new PWB
indirect dischargers. Specifically, EPA's `barrier to entry' analysis
identified whether PWB PSNS based on the Option 2 technology would pose
sufficient financial burden on new PWB facilities to constitute a
material barrier to entry into the MP&M point source category.
EPA projects a barrier to entry for PWB PSNS based on the Option 2
technology as 3% of PWB indirect dischargers have after-tax compliance
costs between 1 to 3% of revenue and 4% have after-tax compliance costs
greater than 5% of revenue. Consequently, EPA is today rejecting Option
2 technology as the basis for PSNS in the PWB subcategory. EPA has
selected ``no further regulation'' for new PWB indirect dischargers and
is not revising PSNS for new PWB indirect dischargers. Wastewater
discharges to POTWs from facilities in this subcategory will remain
regulated by local limits, general pretreatment standards (part 403),
and part 433, as applicable. See section 11 of the TDD for a
description of how these new source compliance costs were developed and
Chapter 9 of the EEBA for a description of the framework EPA used for
the barrier to entry analysis and general discussion of the results.
D. Non-Chromium Anodizing Subcategory
EPA is not revising limitations or standards for any facilities
that would have been subject to this subcategory. Such facilities will
continue to be regulated by the General Pretreatment Standards (part
403), local limits, permit limits, and parts 413 and/or 433, as
applicable.
1. BPT/BCT/BAT
As previously discussed, after publication of the June 2002 NODA
EPA
[[Page 25707]]
conducted another review of all NCA facilities in the MP&M
questionnaire database to determine the destination of discharged
wastewater (i.e., either directly to surface waters or indirectly to
POTWs or both) and the applicability of the final rule to discharged
wastewaters. As a result of this review, EPA did not identify any NCA
direct discharging facilities or NCA facilities that do not discharge
wastewater (i.e., zero discharge or contract haulers) or do not use
process water (dry facilities) in its rulemaking record. All of the NCA
facilities in EPA's database are indirect dischargers. Therefore, EPA
cannot evaluate treatment systems at direct dischargers. As a result,
EPA transferred cost and pollutant loading data from the best
performing indirect facilities in order to evaluate direct discharging
limitations in this subcategory.
In 2001, EPA proposed to establish BPT/BCT/BAT limitations for
direct dischargers in the NCA subcategory based on the Option 2
technology. EPA evaluated the cost of effluent reductions, quantity of
pollutant reductions, and the economic achievability of compliance with
BPT/BCT/BAT limitations based on the Option 2 technology. Based on the
revisions and corrections to the EPA Cost & Loadings Model discussed in
the NODA and in section IV.B.1 of today's final rule, the costs of the
Option 2 technology were disproportionate to the projected toxic
pollutants reductions (cost-effectiveness values (in 1981$) in excess
of $1,925/PE).
EPA decided not to establish BPT/BCT/BAT limitations based on the
Option 2 technology for the NCA subcategory for following reasons: (1)
EPA identified no NCA direct dischargers; and (2) the costs of Option 2
are disproportionate to the estimated toxic pollutant reductions (i.e.,
$1,925/PE). EPA concludes that for existing direct dischargers in the
NCA subcategory, Option 2 is not the best practicable control
technology, best conventional pollutant control technology, or best
available technology economically achievable. EPA has decided not to
establish new BPT, BCT, or BAT limitations for existing NCA direct
dischargers based on the Option 2 technology. EPA identified no NCA
direct dischargers through its survey efforts. However, if such
facilities do exist, they would be subject to part 433.
2. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
EPA proposed to establish NSPS for direct dischargers in the NCA
subcategory based on the Option 2 technology. For today's final rule
EPA evaluated setting NCA NSPS based on the Option 2 technology and
assessed the financial burden to new NCA direct dischargers.
Specifically, EPA's `barrier to entry' analysis identified whether NCA
NSPS based on the Option 2 technology would pose sufficient financial
burden on new NCA facilities to constitute a material barrier to entry
into the MP&M point source category.
EPA projects a barrier to entry for NCA NSPS based on the Option 2
technology as approximately 26% of NCA direct dischargers have new
source compliance costs that are between 3% and 5% of revenue.
Consequently, EPA is today rejecting Option 2 technology as the basis
for NSPS in the NCA subcategory. EPA has selected ``no further
regulation'' for new NCA direct dischargers and is not revising NSPS
for new NCA direct dischargers, which will remain subject to part 433.
See section 11 of the TDD for a description of how these new source
compliance costs were developed and Chapter 9 of the EEBA for a
description of the framework EPA used for the barrier to entry analysis
and general discussion of the results.
3. Pretreatment Standards for Existing and New Sources (PSES/PSNS)
EPA proposed ``no further regulation'' for existing and new
indirect dischargers in the NCA subcategory. EPA based this decision on
the economic impacts to indirect dischargers associated with Option 2
and the small quantity of toxic pollutants discharged by facilities in
this subcategory, even after a economically-achievable flow cutoff is
applied (see 66 FR 467). For the reasons set out in the 2001 proposal,
EPA has decided not to establish new regulations and is not
establishing PSES or PSNS in the NCA subcategory. These facilities
remain subject to parts 413 or 433, or both, as applicable. EPA also
notes that facilities regulated by parts 413 and/or 433 PSES must
comply with part 433 PSNS if the changes to their facilities are
determined to make them new sources.
E. Steel Forming & Finishing Subcategory
EPA is not revising limitations or standards for any facilities
that would have been subject to this subcategory. Such facilities will
continue to be regulated by the General Pretreatment Standards (part
403), local limits, permit limits, and Iron & Steel effluent
limitations guidelines (part 420) as applicable.
1. BPT/BCT/BAT
EPA proposed to establish BPT/BCT/BAT for existing direct
dischargers in the SFF subcategory in this part (40 CFR part 438) based
on the Option 2 technology (see section VI.A for a description of
Option 2). For the final rule, EPA evaluated the cost of effluent
reductions, pollutant reductions, and the economic achievability of
compliance with BPT/BCT/BAT limitations based on the Option 2
technology. Based on the revisions and corrections to the EPA Cost &
Loadings Model discussed in the NODA and in section IV.B.1 of today's
final rule, EPA determined that the compliance costs of Option 2 are
not economically achievable. EPA estimates that compliance with BPT/
BCT/BAT limitations based on the Option 2 technology will result in the
closure of 17% of the existing direct dischargers in this subcategory
(7 of 41 existing SFF direct dischargers). EPA concludes that for
existing direct dischargers in the SFF subcategory, Option 2 is not the
best practicable control technology, best conventional pollutant
control technology, or best available technology economically
achievable, and therefore, EPA is not establishing new BPT, BCT, or BAT
limitations for existing SFF direct dischargers based on the Option 2
technology. These facilities will remain subject to part 420.
2. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
EPA proposed to establish NSPS for new direct dischargers in the
SFF subcategory based on the Option 4 technology. Option 4 technology
is similar to Option 2 (including Option 2 flow control and pollution
prevention) but includes oils removal using ultrafiltration and solids
separation by a microfilter (instead of a clarifier). As explained in
section VI.A.4, EPA concluded its database is insufficient to support a
determination that the Option 4 standards are technically achievable.
Consequently, EPA is today rejecting Option 4 technology as the basis
for NSPS in the SFF subcategory. EPA has selected ``no further
regulation'' for new SFF direct dischargers and is not revising NSPS
for new SFF direct dischargers, which will remain subject to part 420.
3. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
EPA proposed to establish PSES for existing indirect dischargers in
the SFF subcategory based on the Option 2 technology. Based on the
revisions and corrections to the EPA Cost & Loadings
[[Page 25708]]
Model discussed in the NODA and in section IV.B.1 of today's final
rule, EPA estimates that compliance with PSES based on the Option 2
technology will result in the closure of 9% of the existing indirect
dischargers in this subcategory (10 of 112 existing SFF indirect
dischargers). Option 2 technology is not economically achievable.
EPA has determined that Option 2 technology is not the best
available technology economically achievable for existing indirect
dischargers in the SFF subcategory, and therefore EPA is not revising
PSES for this subcategory based on the Option 2 technology. Wastewater
discharges to POTWs from these facilities will remain regulated by
general pretreatment standards (part 403) and part 420.
4. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)
EPA proposed to establish PSNS for indirect dischargers in the SFF
subcategory based on the Option 4 technology. Option 4 technology is
similar to Option 2 (including Option 2 flow control and pollution
prevention) but includes oils removal using ultrafiltration and solids
separation by a microfilter (instead of a clarifier). As explained in
section VI.A.4, EPA concluded its database is insufficient to support a
determination that the Option 4 standards are technically achievable.
Consequently, EPA is today rejecting Option 4 technology as the basis
for PSNS in the SFF subcategory. EPA has selected ``no further
regulation'' for new SFF indirect dischargers and is not revising PSNS
for new SFF indirect dischargers. These facilities will remain subject
to part 420.
F. Oily Wastes Subcategory
EPA is promulgating limitations and standards for existing and new
direct dischargers in the Oily Wastes subcategory based on the proposed
Option 6 technology (see section VI.F.1). EPA is not promulgating
pretreatment standards for existing or new indirect dischargers in this
subcategory.
1. Best Practicable Control Technology (BPT)
EPA is establishing BPT pH limitations and daily maximum
limitations for two pollutants, oil and grease as hexane extractable
material (O&G (as HEM)) and total suspended solids (TSS), for direct
dischargers in the Oily Wastes subcategory based on the proposed
technology option (Option 6). Option 6 technology includes the
following treatment measures: (1) in-process flow control and pollution
prevention; and (2) chemical emulsion breaking followed by oil water
separation (see section 9 of the TDD for today's final rule for
additional details on the Option 6 technology).
The Agency concluded that the Option 6 treatment technology
represents the best practicable control technology currently available
and should be the basis for the BPT Oily Wastes limitations for the
following reasons. First, this technology is available technology
readily applicable to all facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory.
Approximately 42% of the direct discharging facilities in the Oily
Wastes subcategory currently employ the Option 6 technology. Second,
the cost of compliance with these limitations in relation to the
effluent reduction benefits is not wholly disproportionate. None of
these wastewater discharges are currently subject to national effluent
limitations guidelines and the final rule will control wastewater
discharges from a significant number of facilities (2,382 facilities).
EPA estimates that compliance with BPT limitations based on Option
6 technology will result in no closures of the existing direct
dischargers in the Oily Wastes subcategory. Moreover, the adoption of
this level of control will represent a significant reduction in
pollutants discharged into the environment by facilities in this
subcategory. For facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory at Option 6,
EPA estimates an annual compliance cost of $13.8 million (pre-tax,
2001$) and 480,325 pounds of conventional pollutants removed from
current discharges into the Nation's waters at a cost of $28.73/pound-
pollutant removed (2001$) (see Table VII-1). EPA has, therefore,
determined the total cost of effluent reductions employing the Option 6
technology are reasonable in relation to the effluent reduction
benefits. (In estimating the pounds of pollutant removed by
implementing Option 6 technology for direct dischargers in the Oily
Wastes subcategory, EPA used the sum of O&G (measured as HEM) and TSS
pounds removed to avoid any significant double counting of pollutants).
The 2001 proposal also contains detailed discussions explaining why
EPA rejected BPT limitations based on other BPT technology options (see
66 FR 457). The information in the record for today's final rule
provides no basis for EPA to change this conclusion.
In the 2001proposal, in addition to pH, O&G (as HEM), and TSS, EPA
also proposed to regulate sulfide. In today's final rule, EPA has not
established a sulfide limitation because it may serve as a treatment
chemical (see TDD). EPA also proposed three alternatives to control
discharges of toxic organics in MP&M process wastewaters: (1) Meet a
numerical limit for the total sum of a list of specified organic
pollutants (similar to the Total Toxic Organic (TTO) parameter used in
the Metal Finishing Effluent Limitations Guidelines); (2) meet a
numerical limit for Total Organic Carbon (TOC) as an indicator
parameter; or (3) develop and certify the implementation of an organic
chemicals management plan. EPA evaluated the analytical wastewater and
treatment technology data from OWS facilities and concluded it should
not establish a separate indicator parameter or control mechanism for
toxic organics. Optimizing the separation of oil and grease from
wastewater using the Option 6 technology will similarly optimize the
removal of toxic organic pollutants amenable to this treatment
technology. Consequently, EPA is effectively controlling toxic organics
and other priority and non-conventional pollutant discharges in OWS
process wastewaters by regulating O&G (as HEM).
In its analyses, EPA estimated that facilities will monitor once
per month for O&G (as HEM) and TSS. EPA expects that 12 data points for
each pollutant per year will yield a meaningful basis for establishing
compliance with the promulgated limitations through long-term trends
and short-term variability in O&G (as HEM) and TSS pollutant discharge
loading patterns.
Although EPA is not changing the technology basis from that
proposed, EPA is revising all of the proposed Oily Wastes subcategory
BPT limitations. This is a result of a recalculation of the limitations
after EPA revised the data sets used to calculate the promulgated
limitations to reflect changes including corrections and additional
data (see 67 FR 38754).
2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)
In deciding whether to adopt more stringent limitations for BCT
than BPT, 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. EPA generally refers to the decision criteria
as the ``BCT cost test.'' EPA is promulgating effluent limitations for
conventional parameters (e.g., pH, TSS, O&G) equivalent to BPT for this
subcategory because it identified no technologies that can achieve
greater removals of conventional pollutants
[[Page 25709]]
than the selected BPT technology basis that also pass the BCT cost
test. EPA evaluated the addition of ultrafiltration technology to the
BPT technology basis as a means to obtain further O&G reductions.
However, this technology option failed the BCT cost test. For a more
detailed description of the BCT cost test and details on EPA's
analysis, see Chapter 4 of the EEBA.
3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
EPA proposed to control toxic and non-conventional pollutants by
establishing BAT limitations based on Option 6 technology. EPA has now
decided not to establish BAT toxic and non-conventional limitations
based on the Option 6 technology. As described in section VI.F.1, the
BPT technology basis is readily available, and the limitations are cost
reasonable. However the additional costs associated with compliance
with Option 6-generated BAT limitations are not warranted. EPA has
determined that these costs--primarily monitoring costs--are not
warranted in view of the small quantity of additional effluent
reduction (if any) the BAT limitations would produce. As explained
above, EPA has determined that, the BPT limitation on O&G (measured as
HEM) will effectively control toxic and non-conventional discharges in
OWS process wastewaters. EPA has not identified any more stringent
economically-achievable treatment technology option beyond BPT
technology (Option 6) which it considered to represent BAT level of
control applicable to Oily Wastes subcategory facilities.
For the reasons explained above, EPA has concluded that it should
not establish BAT limitations for specific pollutant parameters for
Oily Waste operations. EPA notes that permit writers retain the
authority to establish, on a case-by-case basis under section
301(b)(1)(C) of the CWA, toxic effluent limitations that are necessary
to meet State water quality standards.
4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
EPA is promulgating NSPS that would control pH and the same
conventional pollutants controlled at the BPT and BCT levels. The
selected technology basis for NSPS for this subcategory for today's
final rule is Option 6. This is unchanged from the proposal. EPA
projects no barrier to entry for new source direct dischargers
associated with Option 6 as: (1) Option 6 technology is currently used
at existing direct dischargers (i.e., Option 6 technology is
technically available); and (2) there is no barrier to entry for new
sources.
EPA evaluated the economic impacts for existing direct dischargers
associated with compliance with limitations based on Option 6 and found
Option 6 to be economically achievable (no closures projected). EPA
expects compliance costs to be lower for new sources as new sources can
use Option 6 technology without incurring retrofitting costs (as is
required for some existing sources). Additionally, EPA projects no
barrier to entry for OWS NSPS based on the Option 6 technology as
approximately 97% of OWS direct dischargers have after-tax compliance
costs less than 1% of revenue and 3% have after-tax compliance costs
between 1 to 3% of revenue.
Consequently, EPA selected Option 6 technology as the basis for
NSPS in the OWS. See section 11 of the TDD for a description of how
these new source compliance costs were developed and Chapter 9 of the
EEBA for a description of the framework EPA used for the barrier to
entry analysis and general discussion of the results.
In addition, EPA also evaluated and rejected more stringent
technology options for OWS NSPS (i.e., Options 8 and 10). EPA reviewed
its database for the Option 8 and 10 technologies and found that the
database for Option 8 and 10 technologies is insufficient (i.e., no
available data) or the costs are not commensurate with the pollutant
removals (see 66 FR 457). Since EPA's database did not contain Option
10 treatability data from oily subcategory facilities, EPA considered
transferring limitations for Option 10 from the Shipbuilding Dry Docks
or Railroad Line Maintenance subcategories. EPA ultimately rejected
this approach, however, because influent wastewaters in the
Shipbuilding Dry Docks or Railroad Line Maintenance subcategories are
generally less concentrated and contain less pollutants than
wastewaters discharged by OWS facilities.
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
EPA proposed to establish PSES for existing indirect dischargers in
the Oily Wastes subcategory based on the Option 6 technology (i.e., the
same technology basis that is being promulgated for BPT/BCT/NSPS for
this subcategory) with a ``low-flow'' exclusion of 2 MGY to reduce
economic impacts on small businesses and administrative burden for
control authorities. Based on the revisions and corrections to the EPA
Cost & Loadings Model discussed in the NODA and in section IV.B.1 of
today's final rule, and previously discussed, EPA determined that the
toxic pollutant reductions are very expensive in dollars per toxic
pounds removed. The cost-effectiveness value (in 1981$) for Option 6
for indirect dischargers in the Oily Wastes subcategory is in excess of
$3,500/PE removed. This suggests that the technology is not truly
``available.'' EPA has determined that Option 6 technology with a 2 MGY
low-flow cutoff is not the best available technology economically
achievable for existing indirect dischargers in the OWS. Therefore, EPA
is not establishing PSES for this subcategory based on Option 6
technology with a 2 MGY low-flow cutoff.
As discussed in the June 2002 NODA (see 67 FR 38804), EPA also
considered alternative options for which economic impacts could be less
costly than Option 6 technology with a 2 MGY low-flow cutoff. These
options potentially have compliance costs more closely align with toxic
pollutant reductions. EPA considered the following alternative options
for today's final rule:
Option A: No regulation;
Option B: Option 6 with a higher low-flow exclusion;
As discussed in section IV.B.1 of today's final rule, based on
comments, EPA has revised its methodology for estimating compliance
costs and pollutant loadings for Option 6, and higher low-flow
exclusions (Option B) previously described. Using information from this
revised analysis, EPA concludes that none of the alternative low-flow
exclusions (even as high as 6.25 MGY) represented ``available
technology'' because the costs associated with these alternatives were
not commensurate with the projected toxic pollutants reductions.
Therefore, EPA is not establishing PSES for existing indirect
dischargers in the Oily Wastes subcategory (Option A). Since EPA did
not identify another technology basis that was more cost-effective, EPA
is not promulgating PSES for existing indirect dischargers in the Oily
Wastes subcategory. These facilities remain subject to the General
Pretreatment regulations (40 CFR part 403) and local limits, as
applicable.
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)
EPA proposed to establish PSNS for indirect dischargers in the Oily
Wastes subcategory based on the Option 6 technology (i.e., the same
technology basis that is being promulgated for NSPS for this
subcategory) with a ``low-flow'' exclusion of 2MGY to reduce economic
impacts on small businesses
[[Page 25710]]
and reduce administrative burden to POTWs.
For today's final rule EPA evaluated setting OWS PSNS based on
Option 6 technology and assessed the financial burden of OWS PSNS based
on Option 6 technology on new OWS indirect dischargers. Specifically,
EPA's `barrier to entry' analysis identified whether OWS PSNS based on
Option 6 technology would pose sufficient financial burden on new OWS
facilities to constitute a material barrier to entry into the MP&M
point source category.
EPA projects a barrier to entry for OWS PSNS based on Option 6
technology as approximately as 1% of OWS indirect dischargers have
after-tax compliance costs between 1 to 3% of revenue and 5% have
after-tax compliance costs between 3 to 5% of revenue. Consequently,
EPA is today rejecting Option 6 technology as the basis for PSNS in the
OWS. EPA has selected ``no further regulation'' for new OWS indirect
dischargers and is not revising PSNS for new OWS indirect dischargers.
Wastewater discharges to POTWs from facilities in this subcategory will
remain regulated by local limits and general pretreatment standards
(part 403), as applicable. See section 11 of the TDD for a description
of how these new source compliance costs were developed and Chapter 9
of the EEBA for a description of the framework EPA used for the barrier
to entry analysis and general discussion of the results.
G. Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory
EPA is not establishing limitations or standards for any facilities
that would have been subject to this subcategory. Permit writers and
control authorities will establish controls using BPJ to regulate
wastewater discharges from these facilities.
1. Best Practicable Control Technology (BPT)
For today's final rule EPA evaluated setting BPT limitations for
two pollutants, TSS and O&G (as HEM), for direct dischargers in the
RRLM subcategory based on a different technology basis from that
proposed in 2001. EPA proposed Option 10 technology (see section VI.H.1
for a description) as the technology basis for BPT. However, as
discussed in the NODA, EPA considered promulgating limitations for the
final rule based on the Option 6 technology for the RRLM subcategory
(see 67 FR 38804). Option 6 technology includes the following: (1) in-
process flow control and pollution prevention; and (2) chemical
emulsion breaking followed by oil water separation (see section 9 of
the TDD for today's final rule for additional details on the Option 6
technology).
For the RRLM subcategory, EPA changed the technology basis
considered for the final rule and eliminated consideration of
regulating BOD5 based on comments and data submitted by the
American Association of Railroads (AAR). This organization is a trade
association which currently represents all facilities in this
subcategory. As discussed in the NODA (see 67 FR 38755), for each RRLM
direct discharging facility known to them, AAR provided current permit
limits, treatment-in-place, and summarized information on each
facility's measured monthly average and daily maximum values. AAR also
provided a year's worth of long-term monitoring data for each facility
(see section 15.1 of the public record for the AAR surveys). This data
shows that, contrary to EPA's initial findings in the 2001 proposal,
most RRLM direct dischargers treat their wastewater by chemical
emulsion breaking/oil water separation (Option 6). Based on this
updated information, EPA is today rejecting Option 10 as the technology
basis for BPT. The 2001 proposal also contains detailed discussions on
why EPA rejected BPT limitations based on other BPT technology options
(see 66 FR 451). The information in the record for today's final rule
provides no basis for EPA to change this conclusion.
As previously discussed, after publication of the June 2002 NODA
EPA also conducted another review of all RRLM facilities in the MP&M
questionnaire database to determine the destination of discharged
wastewater (i.e., either directly to surface waters or indirectly to
POTWs or both) and the applicability of the final rule to discharged
wastewaters. As a result of this review, EPA determined its
questionnaire database did not accurately represent direct dischargers
in this subcategory. Consequently, for today's final rule EPA used the
information supplied by AAR as a basis for its analyses and conclusions
on direct dischargers in this subcategory.
AAR provided information on 27 facilities. EPA reviewed the
information on each of these facilities to ensure they were direct
dischargers, discharged wastewaters resulting from operations subject
to this final rule, and discharged ``process'' wastewaters as defined
by the final rule. As a result of this review, EPA concluded 18 of the
facilities for which AAR provided information do not directly discharge
wastewaters exclusively from oily operations (see section V.A).
Therefore, EPA's final database consists of 9 direct discharging RRLM
facilities. EPA considered promulgating BPT limitations for these 9
direct discharging RRLM facilities based on the Option 6 technology.
The Agency made the following conclusions during its evaluation of
Option 6 for this subcategory.
First, this technology is readily applicable to all facilities in
the RRLM subcategory. All direct discharging facilities in the RRLM
subcategory currently employ wastewater treatment equivalent or better
than chemical emulsion breaking/oil water separation (Option 6).
Second, EPA estimates that compliance with BPT limitations based on
Option 6 technology will result in no closures of the existing direct
dischargers in the RRLM subcategory. Moreover, none of the facilities
identified by AAR are small businesses as defined by the Small Business
Administration (SBA). Third, most of the RRLM facilities identified by
AAR have NPDES daily maximum permit limitations for O&G (as HEM) and
TSS as 15 and 45 mg/L, respectively. Based on AAR survey information,
EPA concludes that these O&G (as HEM) and TSS daily maximum limits
represent the average of the best performances of facilities utilizing
Option 6 technology.
EPA evaluated the compliance costs and load reductions associated
with establishing BPT daily maximum limitations equivalent to 15 and 45
mg/L for O&G (as HEM) and TSS, respectively. EPA concluded that all of
the facilities identified by AAR currently meet a daily maximum oil and
grease limit of 15 mg/L and most currently monitor once per month.
Therefore, EPA estimates no pollutant load reductions and minimal
incremental annualized compliance costs for the monitoring associated
with a BPT daily maximum limitation equivalent to 15 mg/L for O&G (as
HEM). For TSS, with the exception of one facility, all RRLM facilities
identified by AAR currently meet a daily maximum limit of 45 mg/L. For
this one facility, EPA estimates the TSS pollutant loadings reductions
associated with a BPT daily maximum limitation equivalent to 45 mg/L to
be less than 1 pound of TSS per day. Given the fact that the few
facilities in this subcategory are already essentially achieving the
limitations under consideration, EPA has determined that additional
national regulation is not warranted. As a result of this analysis, EPA
concludes that it is more appropriate to address permits limitations
for this industry on a case-by-case basis and that additional national
regulation of direct discharges
[[Page 25711]]
in the RRLM subcategory at this time is unwarranted.
2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)
In deciding whether to adopt more stringent limitations for BCT
than BPT, EPA considers 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. EPA generally refers to the decision criteria
as the ``BCT cost test.'' For a more detailed description of the BCT
cost test and details of EPA's analysis, see Chapter 4 of the EEBA.
For the reasons discussed above, EPA is not establishing BCT
limitations for the RRLM subcategory.
3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
As proposed, EPA is not establishing BAT regulations for the RRLM
subcategory. EPA did not propose BAT regulations because the Agency
concluded that facilities in this subcategory discharge very few pounds
of toxic pollutants. EPA estimates that six facilities discharge 34 PE
per year to surface waters, or about 6 PE per year per facility. The
Agency based the loadings calculations on EPA sampling data, which
found very few priority toxic pollutants at treatable levels in raw
wastewater. EPA has received no data or information during the
rulemaking that contradicts these conclusions. Therefore, nationally-
applicable regulations for toxic and nonconventional pollutants are
unnecessary at this time and direct dischargers will remain subject to
permit limitations for toxic and nonconventional pollutants established
on a case-by-case basis using BPJ.
4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
EPA proposed setting NSPS based on Option 10 technology for this
subcategory. For today's final rule EPA considered setting RRLM NSPS
based on Option 10 technology and assessed the financial burden of RRLM
NSPS based on Option 10 technology on new RRLM direct dischargers.
Specifically, EPA's ``barrier to entry'' analysis identified whether
RRLM NSPS based on Option 10 technology would pose sufficient financial
burden as to constitute a material barrier to entry into the MP&M point
source category.
EPA projects no barrier to entry for RRLM NSPS based on Option 10
technology as: (1) Option 10 technology is currently used at existing
RRLM direct dischargers (i.e., Option 10 technology is technically
available); and (2) all RRLM direct dischargers have new source
compliance costs that are less than 1% of revenue. However, EPA is not
promulgating RRLM NSPS based on the Option 10 technology as EPA
concludes that it is more appropriate to address limitations for this
industry on a case-by-case basis and that national regulation of direct
discharges in the RRLM subcategory at this time is unwarranted. See
section 11 of the TDD for a description of how these new source
compliance costs were developed and Chapter 9 of the EEBA for a
description of the framework EPA used for the barrier to entry analysis
and general discussion of the results.
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing and New Sources (PSES/PSNS)
EPA proposed not to establish pretreatment standards for existing
and new indirect dischargers in the RRLM subcategory based on the small
quantity of toxic pollutants discharged to the environment (after POTW
treatment) by facilities in this subcategory (i.e., approximately 2 PE
removed annually per facility (see 66 FR 470-471)). For the same
reasons set out in the 2001 proposal, EPA is not promulgating
pretreatment standards for existing or new indirect dischargers in this
subcategory. These facilities remain subject to the General
Pretreatment regulations (40 CFR part 403) and local limits.
H. Shipbuilding Dry Dock Subcategory
EPA is not establishing limitations or standards for any facilities
that would have been subject to this subcategory. Permit writers and
control authorities will establish controls using BPJ to regulate
wastewater discharges from these facilities.
1. BPT/BCT/BAT/NSPS
At the time of the 2001 proposal, EPA identified 6 direct
discharging shipbuilding dry dock facilities with multiple discharges.
Based on the information in the database at that time, discharges from
these facilities contained minimal concentrations of toxic organic and
metals pollutants (<9 PE/facility), but substantial quantities of
conventional pollutants, particularly oil and grease. Consequently, EPA
proposed to establish BPT limitations and NSPS for only two pollutants,
TSS and O&G (as HEM), for direct dischargers in the SDD subcategory
based on Option 10 technology. This technology includes the following:
(1) in-process flow control and pollution prevention; and (2) oil-water
separation by chemical emulsion breaking and oil-water separation by
dissolved air flotation (see section 9 of the TDD for today's final
rule for additional details on the Option 10 technology). EPA proposed
this technology basis because some existing SDD facilities use this
technology and it projected significant reductions in conventional
pollutants and determined these reductions were cost reasonable.
Following proposal, EPA received comments and supporting data
indicating that its estimates of current pollutant discharges from this
subcategory were overestimated. In particular, commentors claimed that
current discharges of oil and grease were minimal and that national
regulation was not warranted for this subcategory.
For today's final rule, EPA incorporated the additional information
provided by commentors into its analysis. EPA continues to conclude
that there are six direct discharging shipbuilding dry dock facilities.
However, EPA now concludes that direct discharges from these facilities
generally contain minimal levels of all pollutants. In particular,
EPA's database indicates that regulation of oil and grease in direct
discharges from shipbuilding dry docks is unwarranted because current
oil and grease discharges from these facilities are not detectable (<5
mg/L) or nearly not detectable. EPA has similarly determined that it
should not establish nationally applicable limitations and standards
for TSS because TSS discharges are, on average, minimal. The data show
that TSS discharges may increase episodically, particularly when the
dry dock is performing abrasive blasting operations cleaning. However,
EPA has concluded that these episodic discharges from six facilities do
not warrant national regulation.
Therefore, nationally-applicable regulations for new and existing
SDD direct dischargers are unnecessary at this time and these
facilities will remain subject to permit limitations established on a
case-by-case basis using BPJ.
2. Pretreatment Standards for Existing and New Sources (PSES/PSNS)
EPA proposed not to establish pretreatment standards for existing
and new indirect dischargers in the SDD subcategory based on the small
number of facilities in this subcategory and on the small quantity of
toxic pollutants removed by the technology options evaluated by EPA at
proposal (i.e., less than 26 PE removed annually per facility (see 66
FR 471)). For the same reasons set out in the 2001 proposal,
[[Page 25712]]
EPA is not promulgating pretreatment standards for existing or new
indirect dischargers in this subcategory. These facilities remain
subject to the General Pretreatment regulations (40 CFR part 403) and
local limits.
VII. Pollutant Reduction and Compliance Cost Estimates
A. Pollutant Reductions
Presented in this section are the pollutant reductions obtainable
through the application of Option 6 technology that form the basis of
the effluent limitations guidelines for the Oily Wastes subcategory
promulgated today. This section summarizes these estimated reductions.
Section 12 of the TDD includes the estimated pollutant reductions for
options considered but not promulgated, and discusses the loadings
determination methodology in detail.
Today's final rule does not establish PSES for any dischargers to
POTWs in the MP&M point source category. Therefore, EPA does not
project any pollutant reductions from POTWs as a result of today's
rule. The following pollutant reductions are related to direct
dischargers in the Oily Wastes subcategory.
1. Conventional Pollutant Reductions
The Agency estimates that this regulation will reduce discharges of
TSS and O&G (as HEM) by approximately 500,000 pounds per year (see
Table VII-1).
Table VII-1.--Reduction in Direct Discharge of Conventional Pollutants After Implementation of BPT/BCT
Regulations Promulgated Today
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oil and Oil and grease and
Subcategory grease Total suspended total suspended
pounds/year solids pounds/year solids pounds/year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oily Wastes............................................... 396,079 84,246 480,325
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Priority and Non-conventional Pollutant Reductions
The Agency did not estimate the reductions in priority and non-
conventional metals and organic pollutants because the Agency did not
have sufficient COD or other non-conventional data to estimate baseline
pollutant discharges. The Agency does expect some non-conventional
pollutant removals at OWS facilities complying with limitations and
standards based on Option 6 technology.
B. Regulatory Costs
Presented in this section are the regulatory costs EPA projects
through the application of Option 6 technology that form the basis of
the effluent limitations guidelines for the Oily Wastes subcategory
promulgated today. This section summarizes these estimated costs.
Section 11 of the TDD includes the estimated regulatory costs for
options considered but not promulgated, and discusses the costing
methodology in detail.
This preamble, TDD, and EEBA express all cost estimates in this
section in terms of 2001 dollars. The cost components reported in this
section represent estimates of the investment cost of purchasing and
installing equipment, the annual operating and maintenance costs
associated with that equipment, additional land requirement costs
associated with new equipment, and additional costs for discharge
monitoring.
1. Direct Discharge Facilities
Table VII-2 shows the costs EPA estimated for existing direct
dischargers in the Oily Wastes subcategory to comply with the BPT/BCT
limitations promulgated today.
Table VII-2.--Estimated Costs for BPT/BCT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total capital and Annualized
Subcategory Number of land costs Annual O&M costs compliance costs
facilities (2001$, millions) (2001$, millions) (2001$, millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oily Wastes........................... 2,382 6.5 13.1 13.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Indirect Discharge Facilities
Because today's final rule does not establish PSES for any
dischargers in the MP&M industry, EPA has not projected compliance
costs for facilities that discharge indirectly to POTWs.
VIII. Economic Analyses
A. Introduction and Overview
This section of the preamble presents EPA's estimates of the
private and social costs of the regulation, and the expected economic
impacts of compliance with the regulation. Measures of economic impact
include facility closures and associated losses in employment, firm-
level impacts, impacts on government-owned facilities, local community
impacts, and international trade. An analysis of impacts on small
businesses supports EPA's compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act (SBREFA). Section XII.C of this preamble discusses RFA/
SBREFA issues. EPA's complete assessment of costs and economic impacts
including results for the alternative regulatory options can be found
in ``Economic, Environmental, & Benefit Analysis of the Final Metal
Products & Machinery Rule'' (hereafter referred to as the ``EEBA'').
EPA based its regulatory decisions for the final MP&M rule in part
on the findings from the facility impact analyses reported in the EEBA
and discussed in this section. The economic impact analyses assess how
facilities will be affected financially by the final MP&M rule. Key
outputs of the facility impact analysis include expected facility
closures in the MP&M industries, associated losses in employment, and
the number of facilities experiencing financial stress short of closure
(``moderate impacts''). The findings from the facility impact analysis
also provide the basis for the following analyses:
[[Page 25713]]
[sbull] A firm-level analysis, which assesses the impact on the
financial performance and condition of firms owning MP&M facilities;
[sbull] An analysis of impacts on government-owned facilities,
which assesses the impact on the financial performance and condition of
government entities that own and operate at least one MP&M site;
[sbull] An employment effects analysis, which assesses the increase
in employment associated with compliance activities, the loss of
employment due to facility closures, and the net effect on overall
employment;
[sbull] A community impact analysis, which assesses the potential
impact of employment changes in communities where MP&M facilities are
located; and
[sbull] A foreign trade analysis, which assesses the effect of the
regulation on the U.S. balance of trade.
EPA performed economic impact analyses for three groups of
facilities, using different methodologies to evaluate impacts on each
group. The three groups are:
[sbull] Privately-owned MP&M Facilities, including privately-owned
facilities that do not perform railroad line maintenance and are not
owned by governments. This major category includes privately-owned
businesses in a wide range of sectors or industries, including the
segment of facilities that manufacture and rebuild railroad equipment.
[sbull] Railroad line maintenance facilities that maintain and
repair railroad track, equipment and vehicles.
[sbull] Government-owned MP&M facilities operated by
municipalities, State agencies and other public sector entities such as
State universities and Federal facilities. Many of these facilities
repair, rebuild, and maintain buses, trucks, cars, utility vehicles
(e.g., snow plows and street cleaners), and light machinery.
The facility impact analysis starts with compliance cost estimates
from the EPA engineering analysis and then calculates how these
compliance costs would affect the financial condition of MP&M
facilities. EPA made several changes to the facility impact methodology
between proposal (see 66 FR 424) and final regulation. The NODA (see 67
FR 38752) and section IV.B.3 of this preamble document these changes,
which to a large degree address comments on the proposal impact
methodology. The major changes to the economic impact analyses include:
(1) Using sector-specific thresholds for the moderate impact analysis
tests; (2) using a single financial test, based on net present value,
to assess the potential for closures (this test excludes consideration
of liquidation values for all MP&M facilities, including the 219
facilities that reported them in their response to the MP&M survey);
and (3) using estimated baseline capital outlays in the calculation of
cash flow for the net present value test. Other changes to the economic
impact methodology include: (1) Using revised cost pass-through
coefficients; (2) using sector-specific price indices in updating
survey data; and (3) limiting post-compliance tax shields to no greater
than reported baseline taxes.
In conducting the facility impact analysis, EPA first eliminated
from the analysis those facilities showing materially inadequate
financial performance in the baseline, that is, in the absence of the
rule. EPA judged these facilities, which are referred to as baseline
closures, to be at substantial risk of financial failure regardless of
any financial burdens that may result from the MP&M rule. Second, for
the remaining facilities, EPA evaluated how compliance costs would
likely affect facility financial health. In this analysis of compliance
cost impact, EPA accounted for potential price increases that may help
facilities cover the cost of compliance. EPA based its estimate of
potential price increases on a cost pass-through analysis that
estimates how prices might change in response to regulation-induced
production cost increases. EPA identified a facility as a regulatory
closure if it would have operated under baseline conditions but would
fall below an acceptable financial performance level under the new
regulatory requirements.
EPA also identified facilities that would likely incur moderate
impacts from the rule but that are not expected to close as a result of
the rule. EPA used a different methodology to assess moderate impacts
for each of three types of MP&M facilities: privately-owned MP&M
facilities, railroad line maintenance facilities, and government-owned
facilities. EPA established thresholds for two measures of financial
performance--interest coverage ratio and pre-tax return on assets--and
compared the facilities' performance before and after compliance under
each regulatory option with these thresholds. EPA attributes
incremental moderate impacts to the rule if both financial ratios
exceeded threshold values in the baseline (i.e., there were no moderate
impacts in the baseline), but at least one financial ratio fell below
the threshold value in the post-compliance case. EPA refers the reader
to the full EEBA report for a detailed discussion of the economic
impact methodology used for each of these types of MP&M facilities.
B. Economic Costs of Technology Options by Subcategory
The TDD for the final rule presents EPA's engineering estimates of
costs that will be incurred by facilities to comply with the final
regulation, and the costs for other regulatory options. EPA adjusted
the engineering costs from 1996 to 2001 dollars using the Engineering
News-Record Construction Cost Index (CCI), and adjusted the costs to
reflect the effect of taxes using a combined Federal/State corporate
income tax rate of 39 percent. EPA calculated the annual equivalent of
capital and other one-time costs by annualizing costs at a seven
percent discount rate over an estimated 15-year equipment life.
The compliance costs of the rule are the costs incurred by those
facilities that EPA estimates will continue to operate in compliance
with the rule. Aggregate compliance costs presented in this section
differ from the costs presented in sections VI and VII because they
exclude costs for facilities that are baseline closures or that close
due to regulatory requirements (see section VIII.D for estimates of
baseline and post-compliance closures). Therefore, they represent only
the compliance outlays of facilities that are estimated to continue
operations. Section VIII.I presents EPA's estimates of social costs,
which include costs for regulatory closures. Table VIII-1 shows the
total annualized compliance costs by subcategory for the 2,382 OWS
direct dischargers that are: (1) Subject to requirements; (2) make the
necessary investments to meet the requirements; and (3) continue
operating under the regulation. Facilities in all other subcategories
are excluded from the final rule and have no incremental compliance
costs.
Total annualized costs are the sum of the annual operating and
maintenance costs and the annualized equivalent of capital and other
one-time costs. Annualized pre-tax compliance costs in 2001 dollars are
estimated at $13.8 million per year for the final rule.
Table VIII-1.--Total Annualized Facility* Compliance Costs for the Oily
Wastes Subcategory
[pre-tax, million $2001]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final
Subcategory rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oily Wastes.................................................... $13.8
[[Page 25714]]
All Categories: Number of Facilities Operating in the 2,382
Baseline**....................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This table includes facility compliance costs only. Section VIII.I
discusses the social costs of the rule. The estimates in this table
exclude baseline and regulatory closures.
** This estimate can be found in section VIII.B.
C. Facility Level Economic Impacts of the Final Rule by Subcategory
1. Baseline Closure Analysis
Table VIII-2 summarizes the estimated baseline closures for direct
dischargers. Based on its evaluation, EPA determined that 3,593
facilities (or 8.2 percent) of the estimated 43,858 discharging
facilities are baseline closures. The 3,593 baseline closures include
3,511 indirect dischargers (97.7 percent) and 98 direct dischargers
(2.7 percent). The total number of facilities classified as indirect
and direct dischargers does not equal the total number of dischargers.
Some facilities operate in more than one subcategory and have an
indirect and direct discharging operation within the same facility. The
facilities estimated to close in the baseline analysis are at
substantial risk of financial failure independent of the regulation.
These facilities were excluded from the post-compliance analysis of
regulatory impacts. Data on facility start-ups and closures from the
Census Statistics of U.S. Businesses indicate that between 6 and 12
percent of facilities in the major metal products manufacturing
industries close in any given year. Therefore, EPA's analysis of
baseline closures is consistent with this data.
Table VIII-2.--Summary of Baseline Closures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Percent of
Subcategory Total number of baseline baseline Operating
dischargers closures closures % in baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals........................................ 11,364 880 7.7 10,484
Metal Finishing Job Shops............................. 1,542 50 3.2 1,491
Non-Chromium Anodizer................................. 122 29 23.8 93
Oily Wastes........................................... 29,185 2,409 8.3 26,776
Printed Wiring Boards................................. 848 239 28.2 609
Railroad Line Maintenance............................. 826 0 0.0 831
Shipbuilding Dry Dock................................. 14 0 0.0 14
All Subcategories*.................................... 43,858 3,593 8.2 40,265
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: The reported total of facilities over all subcategories does not equal the sum of facilities by
subcategory because some facilities operate in more than one subcategory and have an indirect and direct
discharging operation within the same facility.
2. Facilities Subject to Regulatory Requirements
Of the estimated 40,265 discharging facilities open in the
baseline, EPA estimates that 37,880 facilities (or 94 percent) will not
be subject to the rule's requirements due to subcategory exclusions.
The subcategory exclusions exempt 37,652 indirect dischargers in all
subcategories and 259 direct dischargers in seven subcategories from
the final rule.
Table VIII-3.--Summary Facilities Subject to Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Operating Number of Percent of facilities
Subcategory in baseline facilities facilities subject to
excluded excluded final rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals.................................. 10,484 10,484 100.0 0
Metal Finishing Job Shops....................... 1,491 1,491 100.0 0
Non-Chromium Anodizer........................... 93 93 100.0 0
Oily Wastes..................................... 26,776 24,394 91.1 2,382
Printed Wiring Boards........................... 609 609 100.0 0
Railroad Line Maintenance....................... 829 829 100.0 0
Shipbuilding Dry Dock........................... 14 14 100.0 0
All Subcategories*.............................. 40,265 37,883 94.0 2,382
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: The reported total of facilities over all subcategories does not equal the sum of facilities by
subcategory because some facilities operate in more than one subcategory and have an indirect and direct
discharging operation within the same facility.
3. Post-Compliance Impact Analysis
EPA estimates that none of the direct discharging facilities
operating in the baseline regulation will close as a result of the MP&M
rule. With no predicted facility closures, EPA expects no employment
losses from the rule. EPA also expects that none of the 2,382 direct
discharging facilities operating in the baseline and subject to
regulatory requirements will experience moderate financial impacts due
to the rule. Chapter 5 of the EEBA includes impact analysis results for
alternative regulatory options that EPA considered in developing the
final rule.
4. Summary of Facility Impacts
Table VIII-4 summarizes the results of the economic impact analysis
for the final rule. EPA estimates that no facilities will close or
experience moderate financial impacts. The table presents the
annualized compliance cost on both a pre-tax and after-tax basis. The
after-tax value represents the cost that privately-owned firms would
incur in complying with the regulation because some of the costs are
borne by the general tax-paying public through
[[Page 25715]]
the tax deduction permitted on privately-owned firms' compliance
outlays. EPA's after-tax analyses (1) use a combined Federal/State tax
rate of 39 percent, and (2) limit tax offsets to compliance costs to
not exceed facility-level tax payments as reported in facility
questionnaire responses.
Table VIII-4.--Facility Impacts for All Facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Facilities Operating in Baseline..................... 40,265
Number of facilities excluded from regulatory requirements..... 37,883
Number of facilities operating subject to regulatory 2,382
requirements..................................................
Number of Closures (Severe Impacts)............................ 0
Percent Closing (%)............................................ 0.0
Number of Additional Facilities with Moderate Impacts.......... 0
Percent with Moderate Impacts (%).............................. 0.0
Annualized Compliance Costs (pre-tax, million $2001)........... $13.8
Annualized Compliance Costs (after tax, million $2001)......... $11.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Firm Level Impacts
EPA examined the impacts of the final rule on firms that own MP&M
facilities, as well as on the financial condition of the facilities
themselves. A firm that owns multiple MP&M facilities could experience
adverse financial impacts at the firm level if its facilities are among
those that incur significant impacts at the facility level. EPA also
uses the firm-level analysis to compare impacts on small versus large
firms, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. Section XII.C of this
preamble discusses RFA/SBREFA issues.
EPA compared compliance costs with revenue at the firm level as a
measure of the relative burden of compliance costs. EPA applied this
analysis only to MP&M facilities owned by privately-owned entities.
(Section VIII.E discusses impacts on governments that own MP&M
facilities.) EPA estimated firm-level compliance costs by summing costs
for all facilities owned by the same firm that responded to the survey
plus estimated compliance costs for additional facilities for which
respondents submitted information.
The Agency was not able to estimate precisely at the national level
the number of firms that own MP&M facilities, because the sample
weights based on the survey design represent numbers of facilities
rather than firms. Most privately-owned MP&M facilities that remain
open in the baseline are single-facility firms, however. These firms
can be analyzed using the survey weights. In addition, 278 survey
respondents report being owned by a firm that owns more than one MP&M
facility. For the firm-level analysis, EPA assigned these facilities,
and their owning firms, a sample weight of one, since it is not known
how many firms these 278 sample facilities represent. Chapter 9 of the
EEBA presents EPA's analysis of firm-level impacts.
Table VIII-5 shows the results of the firm-level analysis. The
results represent a total of 26,750 MP&M firms (26,472 + 278), owning
37,424 facilities (26,472 owned by single-facility firms plus 10,953
owned by multi-facility firms).
Table VIII-5.--Firm Level After Tax Annual Compliance Costs as a Percent of Annual Revenues for Privately-owned
Businesses: Selected Regulatory Option
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number and percent with after tax annual compliance costs/annual
revenues equal to:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of firms in the analysis* Less than 1% 1 to 3% Over 3%
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26,750.................................. 26,750 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Single-site firms whose only MP&M facilities close in the baseline are excluded from the firm count. To be
conservative, EPA included compliance costs for facilities that are owned by multi-site firms but predicted to
be baseline closures in the facility impact analysis.
EPA's analysis shows that none of the firms in the analysis incur
after-tax compliance costs equal to one percent or more of annual
revenues. All firms incur compliance costs less than one percent of
annual revenues.
This analysis is likely to overstate costs at the firm level
because it does not account for actions a multi-facility firm might
take to reduce its compliance costs under the regulation. These include
consolidating and/or transferring functions among facilities to
consolidate wet processes and take advantage of scale economies in
wastewater treatment. In some instances, such compliance responses may
result in loss of employment in some facilities and possible increases
in employment in others. As discussed in Chapter 5 of the EEBA report,
EPA is unable to account for and analyze the full range of possible
compliance actions that a firm may consider and implement in response
to regulation.
E. Impacts on Government-Owned Facilities
EPA surveyed government-owned MP&M facilities to assess the cost of
the regulation on these facilities and the government entities that own
them (see 66 FR 437). A government is judged to experience major
budgetary impacts if it has: (1) One or more facilities with compliance
costs exceeding one percent of the baseline cost of service; (2) total
debt service costs (including costs to finance MP&M capital costs
entirely with debt) exceeding 25 percent of baseline revenue; and (3)
post-compliance total annualized pollution control costs per household
exceeding one percent of median household income. EPA discusses the
methodology for assessing impacts on government-owned facilities in
more detail in Chapter 7 of the EEBA report (this methodology and the
impact thresholds were also used to support EPA's analysis under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, discussed at section XII.D of this
preamble). Table VIII-6 provides national estimates of the number of
MP&M facilities operated by governments that are potentially subject to
the regulation, by type and size of government.
Table VIII-7 summarizes the status of government-owned facilities,
their compliance costs and measures of impacts on government that own
MP&M facilities.
[[Page 25716]]
Table VIII-6.--Number of Government-Owned Facilities by Type and Size of Government Entity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Municipal State County Regional governmental
Size of government government government government authority Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large Governments (population 50,000)....................
Small Governments (population <= 1,750 ........... 212 ....................... 1,962
50,000)...........................
All Governments.................... 2,368 377 993 46 3,785
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table VIII-7.--Number of Regulated Government-Owned Facilities,
Compliance Costs and Budgetary Impacts by Regulatory Option
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Number of Government-Owned Facilities.......... 3,785
Number of Facilities exempted by subcategory 3,327
exclusions..........................................
Number of Facilities subject to regulation........... 458
Compliance costs ($2001 million)..................... $8.99
Number of Facilities with compliance costs one percent of baseline cost of service*........
Number of Governments failing the ``impact on 0
taxpayers'' criterion**.............................
Number of Governments failing the ``impacts on 0
government debt'' criterion ***.....................
Number of Governments failing all three impacts 0
criteria[dagger]....................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Annualized compliance costs as a percent of total facility costs and
expenditures, including operating, overhead and debt service costs and
expenses.
** Based on comparison of compliance costs for all facilities owned by
the government to the income of households that are served by the
relevant government. A government is judged to experience impacts if
the regulation results in a ratio of total annualized pollution
control costs per household to median household income that exceeds
one percent, post-compliance. Includes existing pollution control
costs plus the compliance costs due to the MP&M rule.
*** Based on comparison of total debt service costs (including costs to
finance MP&M capital costs entirely with debt) with baseline
government revenue. A government is judged to experience impacts if
the rule causes its total debt service payments to exceed 25% of
baseline revenue.
[dagger] A government is judged to experience major budgetary impacts if
it has one or more facilities with costs of compliance above 1% of
baseline cost of service and fails both the taxpayers impact and
government debt impact tests.
Under the final rule, an estimated 162 government-owned facilities
(4.3 percent of the total) would incur costs exceeding one percent of
their baseline cost of service. The residual 95.7 percent of
government-owned facilities incur no costs or incur costs so low as to
be readily absorbed within existing budgets. None of the governments
incur costs that cause them to exceed the thresholds for impacts on
taxpayers or for government debt burden. EPA therefore concludes that
the regulation will not impose major budgetary burdens on any of the
governments that own MP&M facilities.
F. Community Level Impacts
EPA considered the potential impacts of changes in employment due
to the regulation on the communities where MP&M facilities are located.
EPA does not expect any adverse community employment effects because it
anticipates no rule-driven facility closures and accordingly no job
losses from the rule.
G. Foreign Trade Impacts
The foreign trade impacts analysis allocates the value of changes
in output, for each facility that is projected to close, to exports,
imports or domestic sales, based on the dominant source of competition
in each market as reported in the surveys. EPA does not expect any
material foreign trade impacts as a result of the final rule because no
facility closures are expected. See Chapter 8 in the EEBA for a more
detailed discussion of the foreign trade impact analysis and the
resulting impacts of the alternative regulatory options on foreign
trade.
H. Administrative Costs
EPA also assessed the costs incurred by governments to administer
the rule. The final rule only regulates direct dischargers; therefore,
EPA does not expect increases in administrative costs because the
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program
requires that these facilities already hold permits. However, EPA did
estimate costs to POTWs for alternative options that would have
regulated indirect dischargers. See Chapter 7 in the EEBA for a
discussion of these estimates.
I. Social Costs
1. Components of Social Costs
The social costs of regulatory actions are the opportunity costs to
society of employing scarce resources in pollution control activity.
The largest component of economic costs to society is the cost incurred
by MP&M facilities for the labor, equipment, material, and other
economic resources needed to comply with the regulation. EPA accounts
for these costs on a pre-tax basis.
Social costs may also include lost producers' and consumers'
surplus that result when the quantity of goods and services produced
decreases as a result of the rule. Lost producers' surplus is measured
as the difference between revenues earned and the cost of production
for the lost production. Lost consumers' surplus is the difference
between the price paid by consumers for the lost production and the
maximum amount they would have been willing to pay for those goods and
services. To accurately calculate lost producers' and consumers'
surplus requires knowledge of the characteristics of market supply and
demand for each affected industry. EPA instead calculated an upper-
bound estimate of social compliance costs using the simplifying
assumption that all facilities continue operating in compliance with
the rule, and pay the associated compliance costs (i.e., assuming that
there are no regulation-related closures.) This framework provides an
upper-bound estimate of social costs, because, for facilities predicted
to close, continuing to operate and to incur compliance costs is more
costly than closing the facility with associated lost producers' and
consumers' surplus. For the final regulation, EPA estimated that no
facilities would close because of the rule. As a result, the potential
effect of consumers' and producers' surplus should not be of
consequence in assessing social costs.
In addition to the resource costs to society associated with
compliance, the estimated social cost also includes two other elements:
the cost to local governments of implementing the rule
[[Page 25717]]
and the cost of any unemployment that may result from the regulation.
The government administration costs include the costs to POTWs of
permitting and compliance monitoring and enforcement activities. The
unemployment-related costs include the cost of administering
unemployment programs for workers who would lose employment, and an
estimate of the amount that workers would be willing to pay to avoid
involuntary unemployment.
2. Resource Cost of Compliance
The resource costs of compliance are the value of society's
productive resources--including labor, equipment, and materials--
consumed to achieve the reductions in effluent discharges required by
the final rule. On the basis of a 7 percent discount rate, EPA
estimates the annualized cost of compliance at $13.8 million (2001$).
This value exceeds the cost that privately-owned firms would incur in
complying with the regulation because: (1) Some of the costs are borne
by the general tax-paying public through the tax deduction permitted on
privately-owned firms' compliance outlays and (2) some costs are passed
onto consumers in the form of price increases. Although these two
categories of cost are not part of the financial burden on regulated
industries, they are part of the regulation's overall cost to society.
EPA also estimated the annualized cost of compliance using a 3 percent
discount rate and, in conjunction, an assumed 3 percent opportunity
cost of capital to society. At the 3 percent discount rate, EPA
estimates the annualized cost of compliance at $13.7 million (2001$).
3. Cost of Administering the Regulation
As discussed in section VIII.I of this preamble, since the final
rule only regulates direct dischargers, EPA does not expect increases
in administrative costs because all direct dischargers already hold
permits.
4. Social Cost of Unemployment
The loss of jobs associated with any facility closures would
represent a social cost of the regulation. However, from its facility
impact analysis, EPA estimates that no facilities will close as a
result of the regulation. Accordingly, EPA estimates a zero cost of
unemployment for the final regulation. The results of this analysis for
alternative regulatory options where closures are predicted can be
found in Chapter 6 of the EEBA.
5. Total Social Costs
Summing across all social costs results in a total annualized
social cost estimate of $13.8 million ($2001), at a 7 percent discount
rate, and $13.7 million, at a 3 percent discount rate, as shown in
Table VIII-8.
Table VIII-8.--Annual Social Costs of the Regulation
[Pre-tax, million $2001]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Annualized
Social cost category @ 3% @ 7%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resource Value of Compliance Costs (before-tax). $13.7 $13.8
Government Administrative Costs................. $0 $0
Social Costs of Unemployment.................... $0 $0
-------------
Total Social Costs.......................... $13.7 $13.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Cost and Removal Comparison Analysis
The Agency is promulgating BPT limitations for the Oily Wastes
subcategory. Among the factors EPA must consider when promulgating BPT
limitations, section 304(b)(1)(B) of the CWA directs EPA to consider
the total incremental compliance costs of the BPT technology in
relation to the effluent reductions achieved by the technology. This
inquiry does not limit EPA's broad discretion to adopt BPT limitations
based on available technology unless the required additional reductions
are wholly out of proportion to the costs of achieving the additional
effluent reduction.
One cost and removal comparison ratio used by EPA is the average
cost per pound of pollutant removed by a BPT regulatory option. EPA
measures the cost component as pre-tax total annualized costs ($2001).
For the Oily Wastes subcategory, EPA measures the effluent reduction
benefits as the summation of O&G (as HEM) and TSS to avoid significant
double counting of pollutants. EPA analyses show that OWS facilities
largely discharge conventional pollutants. Table VIII-9 shows the
incremental compliance costs, the incremental pollutant reductions, and
the resulting cost and removal comparison ratio.
Table VIII-9.--Cost and Removal Comparison for the Oily Wastes
Subcategory
[$2001/lb pollutant removed]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost and
Annual removal
Annualized pounds of comparison
Subcategory cost ($2001) pollutant ($2001/lb
(millions) removed pollutant
removed)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oily Wastes................... 13.8 480,325 28.73
------------------------------------------------------------------------
K. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
In the development of best available technology effluent
limitations guidelines for removals of toxic pollutants, EPA evaluates
the relative efficiency of alternative regulatory options in removing
toxic pollutants from the effluent discharges to the nation's waters.
Because EPA is today not promulgating Oily Wastes subcategory BAT
limitations based on a more stringent technology than BPT technology,
EPA is not providing a cost-effectiveness analysis for the final rule,
which contains only BPT limitations (see section VIII.J for the cost
and removal comparison analysis). EPA did perform a cost-effectiveness
analysis for the alternative regulatory options that would have
regulated indirect dischargers; the results of this analysis are
reported in the EEBA and DCN 37900, section 26.0.
[[Page 25718]]
IX. Water Quality Analysis and Environmental Benefits
A. Introduction and Overview
This section presents EPA's estimates of the national environmental
benefits of the final MP&M effluent guidelines. The benefits occur due
to the reduction in facility discharges described in section VII. The
methodologies used in the estimation of benefits of the final rule are
largely similar to those used for estimating benefits of the proposed
rule (see 66 FR 424). The Notice of Data Availability (see 67 FR 38752)
and section IV.B of today's final rule discuss revisions made to these
methodologies after the publication of the proposed rule. The EEBA
provides EPA's complete benefit assessment for the final rule.
EPA estimated national benefits from the regulation on the basis of
sample facility data. The Agency extrapolated findings from the sample
facility analyses to the national level using two alternative
extrapolation methods: (1) traditional extrapolation and (2) post-
stratification extrapolation. Section A.2 of today's final rule and
Appendix G of the EEBA discuss the extrapolation methods used in the
benefits analysis in detail.
To supplement the national level analysis performed for the final
MP&M regulation, EPA also conducted a detailed case study of the
expected State-level costs and benefits of the MP&M rule in Ohio. For
several important reasons, EPA judges that the Ohio case study is more
robust than the national benefit analyses that EPA undertakes in
support of effluent guideline development. These reasons include: (1)
Use of more detailed data on MP&M facilities than is possible at the
national level; (2) use of more detailed and accurate water quality
data than are usually available; (3) more accurate accounting for the
presence and effect of multiple discharges to the same reach; (4)
inclusion of data on non-MP&M discharges in the baseline and post
compliance; (5) use of a first-order decay model to estimate in-stream
concentrations in downstream water bodies; and (6) inclusion of an
additional recreational benefit category (swimming) in the analysis.
Sections B through G of today's final rule discuss the national
level benefits analyses; section H presents the Ohio case study. These
sections include results only for the final rule; however, the EEBA
presents results for additional options evaluated.
1. Benefit Overview
Table IX-1 summarizes the benefits categories associated with the
regulation and notes which categories EPA was able to quantify and
monetize. The benefits include three broad classes: human health,
ecological, and economic productivity benefits. Within these three
broad classes, EPA was able to assess benefits with varying degrees of
completeness and rigor. Where possible, EPA quantified the expected
effects and estimated monetary values. Data limitations and limited
understanding of how society values certain water quality changes
prevented monetizing some benefit categories.
Table IX-1.--Benefit Categories Associated with Water Quality Improvements Resulting from the Metal Products and
Machinery Effluent Guideline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonquantified
Benefit Category Quantified and Quantified and and
monetized nonmonetized nonmonetized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human Health Benefits:
Reduced cancer risk due to ingestion of chemically- X
contaminated fish and unregulated pollutants in drinking
water...................................................
Reduced non-cancer adverse health effects (e.g., ............... X
reproductive, immunological, neurological, circulatory,
or respiratory toxicity) due to ingestion of chemically-
contaminated fish and unregulated pollutants in drinking
water...................................................
Reduced non-cancer adverse health effects from exposure X
to lead from consumption of chemically-contaminated fish
Reduced health hazards from exposure to contaminants in ............... ............... X
waters used recreationally (e.g., swimming).............
Ecological Benefits:
Reduced risk to aquatic life............................. ............... X
Enhanced water-based recreation, including fishing, X
boating, and near-water (wildlife viewing) activities...
Other enhanced water-based recreation, such as swimming, ............... ............... X
waterskiing, and white water rafting....................
Increased aesthetic benefits, such as enhancement of ............... ............... X
adjoining site amenities (e.g., residing, working,
traveling, and owning property near the water)..........
Non-user value (i.e., existence, option, and bequest X
value)..................................................
Reduced contamination of sediments....................... ............... ............... X
Economic Productivity Benefits: a
Benefits to tourism industries from increased ............... ............... X
participation in water-based recreation.................
Improved commercial fisheries yields..................... ............... ............... X
Reduced water treatment costs for municipal drinking ............... ............... X
water, irrigation water, and industrial process and
cooling water...........................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The final rule regulates direct dischargers only. Therefore the selected option does not affect POTW
operation. EPA, however, includes this benefit category when analyzing alternative options which considered
the regulation of indirect dischargers (See Chapter 19 of the EEBA for the benefits analysis of alternative
options).
2. Extrapolation Methods
EPA traditionally estimates national level costs and benefits by
extrapolating analytic results from sample facilities to the national
level using sample facility weights. EPA's traditional sampling
approach relies on information about the economic and technical
characteristics of the regulated community. Although important for
understanding the technical requirements and costs of a regulation,
this sampling approach does not incorporate information that could
significantly affect the occurrence and
[[Page 25719]]
distribution of regulatory benefits, such as characteristics of the
receiving water body and the size of population that may benefit from
reduced pollutant discharges. As a result, the traditional sampling
approach likely yields benefit estimates that are less accurate than
those that could be obtained by using a sampling framework that
accounts for such benefit-receptor characteristics.
EPA recognizes that using a traditional extrapolation method to
estimate national level benefits may lead to a large degree of
uncertainty in benefits estimates. Therefore, in addition to the
traditional extrapolation method used in the proposed rule (see 66 FR
424), EPA has estimated national level benefits for the final rule
using an alternative extrapolation method as discussed in the NODA (see
67 FR 38752).
In this alternative extrapolation method, post-stratification
sample weighting, EPA adjusted the original sample weights using two
variables that are likely to affect the occurrence and size of benefits
associated with reduced discharges from sample MP&M facilities: (1)
receiving water body type and size; and (2) the size of the population
residing in the vicinity of the sample facility. The Agency utilized a
commonly used post-stratification method calling ``raking'' to adjust
original sample weights to reflect these benefit pathway
characteristics. EPA used data from three data sources--EPA's Permit
Compliance System database (PCS), EPA's Reach File 1, and Census Data--
to develop the adjusted weights. Because of data limitations, EPA
restricted the re-weighting effort only to direct dischargers and
excluded indirect dischargers. Therefore, EPA performed this
alternative analysis for only the selected option.
EPA used the alternative benefit estimate to validate general
conclusions that EPA drew from its main analysis based on the
traditional extrapolation method. Appendix G of the EEBA provides
detailed discussion of this alternative extrapolation method.
In the NODA, EPA also sought public comment on a proposed second
alternative extrapolation method. In this extrapolation method, EPA
proposed the extrapolation of the Ohio case study results to the
national level based on three key factors that affect the occurrence
and magnitude of benefits: (1) The estimated change in MP&M pollutant
loadings; (2) the level of recreational activities on the reaches
affected by MP&M discharges; and (3) income of the affected population.
The Agency recognizes that this method is not rigorous for
extrapolation to the national level. Therefore, EPA used this method
only as a sensitivity analysis.
Sections IX.B through IX.E of this preamble present national level
benefits that are estimated based on both sample facility weights used
in the engineering and economic impact analysis (traditional
extrapolation method) and sample facility weights adjusted by water
body and population (post-stratification extrapolation). National level
benefits estimated from the Ohio case study analysis are not presented
in today's final rule. These estimates can be found in Appendix G of
the EEBA report.
B. Reduced Human Health Risk
EPA estimates that the final rule will prevent discharge of 18
pounds per year of carcinogens and 119 pounds per year of lead. Also,
the final rule will prevent discharge of an additional 6,900 pounds of
76 pollutants of concern that are known to cause adverse non-cancer
human health effects. These reduced pollutant discharges from MP&M
facilities generate human health benefits in a number of ways. The most
important human health benefits stem from reduced risk of illness from
consumption of contaminated fish, shellfish, and water.
EPA analyzed the following measures of human health-related
benefits: reduced cancer risk from fish and water consumption; reduced
risk of non-cancer adverse health effects from fish and water
consumption; reduced lead-related adverse health effects in children
and adults; and reduced occurrence of in-waterway pollutant
concentrations in excess of levels of concern. The levels of concern
include human health-based ambient water quality criteria (AWQC) or
documented toxic effect levels for those chemicals not covered by AWQC.
The Agency monetized only two of these health benefits: (1) Changes in
the incidence of cancer resulting from reduced exposure to carcinogens
in fish and drinking water and (2) changes in adverse non-cancer health
effects in children and adults resulting from reduced exposure to lead
in fish. EPA monetized human health benefits by estimating the change
in the expected number of individuals experiencing adverse human health
effects in the populations exposed to MP&M discharges. For carcinogens
that have linear dose-response relationships, it is feasible to
estimate the incremental cancer incidence in a population from the
estimate of mean individual risk for the population and the number of
individuals in the population. However, for health effects with non-
linear dose-response relationships and thresholds (e.g., non-cancer
health effects), estimating population risk is computationally more
complex and was not proposed (see Table IX-1).
The national-level analysis of human health benefits finds
negligible monetized benefits from the final rule. However, because of
significant simplifications in the national level analysis, this
finding should be recognized as potentially having substantial error
and should therefore be interpreted with caution. In particular, the
national-level analysis: (1) Is based only on limited information on
MP&M facilities at the national level; (2) accounts in only a very
limited way for the presence and effect of joint discharges on the same
reach; (3) omits data on non-MP&M discharges in the baseline and post
compliance; and (4) omits consideration of the downstream effects of
pollutant discharges.
In contrast to the national-level analysis, and as discussed in
section IX.A. of today's final rule and Chapter 21 of the EEBA report,
the methods and data used for the Ohio case study address a number of
these analytic weaknesses. This more site-specific and detailed
analysis finds that the final regulation would achieve $0.5 million
(2001$) in health-related benefits in the State of Ohio alone. EPA
estimates that this analysis provides a more accurate, albeit lower-
bound, estimate of health-related benefits than indicated by the
simpler national-level analysis. Moreover, given (1) that Ohio
represents only about 6 percent of the total MP&M facility population
and (2) that a substantial share of the total MP&M facility population
is located in other States with similar water body and population
characteristics (e.g., the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Pennsylvania), it is reasonable to expect that additional human health
benefits would be estimated for the remainder of the country if EPA
were able to apply this more rigorous approach at the national level.
Accordingly, EPA judges that the final rule's human health benefits are
higher than its social costs.
1. Benefits From Reduced Incidence of Cancer
EPA assessed changes in the incidence of cancer cases from
consumption of MP&M pollutants in fish tissue and drinking water. The
Agency valued changes in incidence of cancer cases using a willingness-
to-pay (WTP) of $6.5 million (2001$) for avoiding premature mortality.
This estimate of the value of a statistical life saved is recommended
in EPA's Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analysis. This estimate does
not include
[[Page 25720]]
estimates of WTP to avoid morbidity prior to death.
EPA estimated aggregate cancer risk from contaminated drinking
water for populations served by drinking water intakes on water bodies
to which MP&M facilities discharge. EPA based this analysis on six
carcinogenic pollutants for which drinking water criteria have not been
published. This analysis excludes seven carcinogens for which drinking
water criteria have been published. EPA assumed that public drinking
water treatment systems will remove these seven pollutants from the
public water supply. To the extent that treatment for these seven
pollutants may cause incidental removals of the six pollutants without
criteria, the analysis may overstate cancer-related benefits.
Calculated in-stream concentrations serve as a basis for estimating
changes in cancer risk for populations served by affected drinking
water intakes. EPA estimates that baseline MP&M discharges from in-
scope facilities are associated with virtually zero annual cancer
cases. The national-level analysis finds that the final regulation
would lead to a marginal reduction in these cancer cases resulting from
consumption of contaminated drinking water; correspondingly, monetary
benefits estimated from reduced consumption of contaminated drinking
water are essentially zero.
EPA also estimated cancer risk from the consumption of contaminated
fish for recreational and subsistence anglers and their families. EPA
based this analysis on thirteen carcinogenic pollutants found in MP&M
effluent discharges. Estimated contaminant concentrations in fish
tissue are a function of predicted in-stream pollutant concentrations
and pollutant bioconcentration factors. EPA used data on numbers of
licensed fishermen by state and county, presence of fish consumption
advisories, number of fishing trips per person per year, and average
household size to estimate the affected population of recreational and
subsistence anglers and their families. The analysis uses different
fish consumption rates for recreational and subsistence anglers to
estimate the change in cancer risk among these populations.
EPA estimated that baseline MP&M discharges from in-scope
facilities are associated with 0.03 annual cancer cases. The national-
level analysis shows that final option would lead to a marginal
reduction in cancer cases among recreational and subsistence angler
populations. The monetary benefits estimated from consumption of less
contaminated fish by these populations are essentially negligible.
The previous findings from the national analysis of changes in
cancer risk associated with the final rule differ from the Ohio case
study results. Based on the Ohio case study, the final option is
expected to eliminate less than 0.01 cancer cases annually in the State
of Ohio (see section IX.H of today's final rule for a detail). This
reduction translates into approximately $14,500 (2001$) in annual
benefits due to reduced cancer risk from consumption of contaminated
fish tissue and drinking water. The difference in the findings of the
national- and Ohio analyses results primarily from more comprehensive
information on MP&M and non-MP&M facility discharges used in the Ohio
case study analysis (see section IX.A. of today's final rule for
additional details). The national-level analysis accounts only for the
pollutant exposures from MP&M sample facilities. In contrast, the Ohio
case study approach accounts for a broader baseline of pollutant
exposure, including more thorough and detailed coverage of discharges
from MP&M facilities and also estimated exposures from non-MP&M
sources. As a result, this analysis more accurately reflects baseline
health risk conditions.
2. Reductions in Non-Cancer Adverse Human Health Effects Other Than
Those Related to Lead Exposure
The final rule can potentially generate non-cancer human health
benefits (e.g., reduction in systemic effects, reproductive toxicity,
and developmental toxicity) from reduced contamination of fish tissue
and drinking water sources. The common approach for assessing the risk
of non-cancer health effects from the ingestion of a pollutant is to
calculate a hazard quotient by dividing an individual's oral exposure
to the pollutant, expressed as a pollutant dose in milligrams per
kilogram body weight per day (mg/kg-day), by the pollutant's oral
reference dose (RfD). An RfD is defined as an estimate (with
uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a daily oral
exposure that likely would not result in the occurrence of adverse
health effects in humans, including sensitive individuals, during a
lifetime. Toxicologists typically establish an RfD by applying
uncertainty factors to the lowest-or no-observed-adverse-effect level
for the critical toxic effect of a pollutant.\1\ A hazard quotient less
than one means that the pollutant dose to which an individual is
exposed is less than the RfD, and, therefore, presumed to be without
appreciable risk of adverse human health effects. A hazard quotient
greater than one means that the pollutant dose is greater than the RfD.
Further, EPA guidance for assessing exposures to mixtures of pollutants
recommends calculating a hazard index (HI) by summing the individual
hazard quotients for those pollutants in the mixture that affect the
same target organ or system (e.g., the kidneys, the respiratory
system).\2\ HI values are interpreted similarly to hazard quotients;
values below one are generally considered to suggest that exposures are
not likely to result in appreciable risk of adverse health effects
during a lifetime, and values above one are generally cause for
concern, although an HI greater than one does not necessarily suggest a
likelihood of adverse effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. EPA, 1993, ``Reference Dose (RfD): Description and Use
in Health Risk Assessments, Background Document 1A,'' http://www/
epa.gov/iris/rfd.htm.
\2\ ``Supplementary Guidance for Conducting Health Risk
Assessment of Chemical Mixtures. Risk Assessment Forum Technical
Panel,'' EPA/630/R-00/002. U.S. EPA, August 2000. http://
www.epa.gov/nceawww1/pdfs/chem mix/chem mix 08 2001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To evaluate the potential benefits of reducing the in-stream
concentrations of 76 pollutants that cause non-cancer health effects,
EPA estimated target organ-specific HIs for drinking water and fish
ingestion exposures in both the baseline and post-compliance scenarios.
Specifically, EPA calculated target-organ specific HIs for pollutants
predicted in each MP&M discharge reach, such that one HI was calculated
for each target organ/exposure pathway (fish consumption and drinking
water)/reach combination. EPA then combined estimates of the numbers of
individuals in the exposed populations with the HIs for the populations
to determine how many individuals might be expected to realize reduced
risk of non-cancer health effects in the post-compliance scenario. This
analysis was limited in two primary ways. First, hazard indices
estimated in this analysis may understate the actual potential for
adverse health effects because possible additional sources of
pollutants, such as background pollutants and MP&M pollutants from
upstream dischargers, were not considered in the analysis. Second, EPA
used mean individual exposure parameters and not the distribution of
exposure parameters to estimate hazard indices for the populations
affected by MP&M discharges.
The results of EPA's analysis suggest that hazard indices for
individuals in the exposed populations may decrease
[[Page 25721]]
after facilities comply with today's rule. Increases in the percentage
of exposed populations that would be exposed to no risk of non-cancer
adverse human health effects due to the MP&M discharges occur in both
the fish and drinking water analyses. The shift to lower hazard indices
should be considered in conjunction with the finding that the hazard
indices for incremental exposures to pollutants discharged by MP&M
facilities (for which reference doses are available) are less than one
in the baseline analysis for the entire population associated with
sample facilities. Whether the incremental shifts in hazard indices are
significant in reducing absolute risks of non-cancer adverse human
health effects is uncertain and will depend on the magnitude of
contaminant exposures for a given population from risk sources not
accounted for in this analysis.
3. Benefits From Reduced Exposure to Lead
EPA performed a separate analysis of benefits from reduced exposure
to lead. This analysis differs from the analysis of non-cancer adverse
human health effects from exposure to other MP&M pollutants because it
is based on dose-response functions tied to specific health endpoints
to which monetary values can be applied.
Many lead-related adverse health effects are relatively common and
are chronic in nature. These effects include, but are not limited to,
hypertension, coronary heart disease, and impaired cognitive function.
Lead is harmful to individuals of all ages, but the effects of lead on
children are of particular concern. Children's rapid rate of
development makes them more susceptible to neurobehavioral effects from
lead exposure. The neurobehavioral effects on children from lead
exposure include hyperactivity, behavioral and attention difficulties,
delayed mental development, and motor and perceptual skill deficits.
This analysis assessed benefits of reduced lead exposure from
consumption of contaminated fish tissue to three sensitive populations:
(1) Preschool age children; (2) pregnant women; and (3) adult men and
women. This analysis uses blood-lead levels as a biomarker of lead
exposure. EPA estimated baseline and post-compliance blood lead levels
in the exposed populations and then used changes in these levels to
estimate benefits in the form of avoided health damages.
EPA assessed neurobehavioral effects on children based on a dose
response relationship for IQ decrements. Avoided neurological and
cognitive damages are expressed as changes in overall IQ levels,
including reduced incidence of extremely low IQ scores (<70, or two
standard deviations below the mean) and reduced incidence of blood-lead
levels above 20 [mu]g/dL. The analysis uses the value of compensatory
education that an individual would otherwise need and the impact of an
additional IQ point on individuals' future earnings to value the
avoided neurological and cognitive damages. The national-level analyses
shows that implementation of the final option would not result in any
changes in IQ loss across all exposed children. The final option does
not reduce occurrences of extremely low IQ scores (<70) or incidences
of blood-lead levels above 20 [mu]g/dL.
Prenatal exposure to lead is an important route of exposure. Fetal
exposure to lead in utero due to maternal blood-lead levels may result
in several adverse health effects, including decreased gestational age,
reduced birth weight, late fetal death, neurobehavioral deficits in
infants, and increased infant mortality. To assess benefits to pregnant
women, EPA estimated changes in the risk of infant mortality due to
changes in maternal blood-lead levels during pregnancy. The national-
level analysis shows that the final option does not result in changes
in maternal blood lead levels during pregnancy and as a result does not
reduce neonatal mortality.
The national-level analysis finds no benefits to children from
reduced exposure to lead. However, as for the cancer risk analysis
previously discussed, these findings differ from the more comprehensive
analysis used in the Ohio case study. Using the case study approach,
EPA estimates that the final regulation will yield annual lead-related
benefits for children in Ohio of $422,113 (2001$). This benefit value
includes three components. First, reduced lead exposure is estimated to
reduce neonatal mortality by 0.024 cases annually with an annual value
of $162,094 (2001$). Second, reduced lead exposure will avoid the loss
of an estimated 26.96 IQ points among preschool children in Ohio, which
translates into $253,934 (2001$) per year in benefits. Third, the
annually avoided costs of compensatory education from incidence of IQ
below 70 and blood-lead levels above 20 [mu]g/dL among children amounts
to approximately $5,345 (2001$).
Lead exposure has been shown to have adverse effects on the health
of adults as well as children. The health effects in adults that EPA
quantified all derive from lead's effects on blood pressure. Quantified
health effects include increased incidence of hypertension (estimated
for males only), initial coronary heart disease (CHD), strokes (initial
cerebrovascular accidents and atherothrombotic brain infarctions), and
premature mortality. This analysis does not include other health
effects associated with elevated blood pressure and other adult health
effects of lead, including nervous system disorders in adults, anemia,
and possible cancer effects. EPA used cost of illness estimates (i.e.,
medical costs and lost work time) to estimate monetary value of reduced
incidence of hypertension, initial CHD, and strokes. EPA then used the
value of a statistical life saved to value changes in risk of premature
mortality. The national level analysis finds that the final rule will
achieve no lead-related health benefits among adults.
Again, the national analysis results differ from the Ohio case
study results. Using the case study approach, EPA estimates that the
final regulation will achieve total lead-related benefits among Ohio
adults of $117,393 (2001$). This value includes benefits from reduced
hypertension among adult males: a reduction of an estimated 9.4 cases
annually, with benefits of approximately $10,670 (2001$). In addition,
reducing the incidence of initial CHD, strokes, and premature mortality
among adult males and females in Ohio would result in estimated
benefits of $963, $2,115, and $103,645, respectively.
Based on the national-level benefits analysis, EPA found that total
benefits from reduced exposure to lead, for both children and adults,
are negligible under the final rule. However, based on the Ohio case
study findings, benefits for children and adults from reduced lead-
related health effects to the final rule are estimated to total
approximately $0.5 million (2001$) annually in the State of Ohio alone
(see section H of today's final rule for detail). As in the cancer risk
analysis, the difference in the national and Ohio-based results is
primarily due to more comprehensive information on MP&M and non-MP&M
facility discharges used in Ohio.
4. Reduced Exceedances of Health-Based AWQC
EPA also estimated the effect of MP&M facility discharges on the
occurrence of pollutant concentrations in affected waterways that
exceed human health-based AWQCs. In a conceptual sense, this analysis
and its findings are not additive to the preceding analyses of change
in cancer or lead-related health risks but are
[[Page 25722]]
another way of quantitatively characterizing the same possible benefit
categories. This analysis compares the estimated baseline and post
compliance in-stream pollutant concentrations in affected waterways to
ambient water criteria for protection of human health. The comparison
included AWQC for protection of human health through consumption of
organisms and for consumption of organisms and water. Pollutant
concentrations in excess of these values indicate potential risks to
human health. Table IX-2 presents results of this analysis.
Table IX-2.--Estimated MP&M Discharge Reaches With MP&M Pollutant Concentrations in Excess of AWQC Limits for
Protection of Human Health
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of reaches with Number of benefitting reaches
MP&M pollutant ---------------------------------------------------
concentrations exceeding All AWQC exceedances Number of AWQC
human health-based AWQC eliminated exceedances reduced
limits ---------------------------------------------------
Regulatory status --------------------------
For For For For For For
consumption consumption consumption consumption consumption consumption
of water of of water of of water of
and organisms and organisms and organisms
organisms only organisms only organisms only
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Selected Option: Traditional Extrapolation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.......................... 78 21 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Post-Compliance................... 78 21 0 0 0 0
-----------------------------------
Selected Option: Post-Stratification Extrapolation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.......................... 112 21 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Post-Compliance................... 112 21 0 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA estimates that in-stream concentrations of 4 pollutants (i.e.,
arsenic, iron, manganese, and n-nitrosodimethylamine) will exceed human
health criteria for consumption of water and organisms in 78 receiving
reaches nationwide as the result of baseline MP&M pollutant discharges.
EPA estimates that there are human health AWQC exceedances caused by n-
nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA). However EPA did not consider NDMA
pollutant reductions in its national benefits analyses because of the
low number of detected values for that pollutant (See Chapter 7 of the
TDD). EPA estimates that the final rule will not eliminate the
occurrence of pollutant concentrations in excess of human health
criteria for consumption of water and organisms and for consumption of
organisms on any of the reaches on which baseline discharges are
estimated to cause pollutant concentrations in excess of AWQC values.
5. Uncertainties and Assumptions of the Human Health Benefits Analysis
Because of the uncertainties and assumptions of EPA's analysis, the
estimates of benefits presented in this section may either overstate or
understate the benefits to recreational fishers, subsistence fishers,
and members of the general population who consume drinking water
obtained from intakes located downstream of MP&M discharges. Some of
the major uncertainties and assumptions of EPA's analysis include the
following:
[sbull] In estimating cancer risks and evaluating the risk of non-
cancer health effects other than those related to lead exposure, EPA
did not consider the potential for interactions between pollutants. EPA
estimated cancer risk or non-cancer hazard attributable to each
pollutant and summed the pollutant-specific estimates as appropriate
(that is, EPA summed all pollutant-specific cancer risk estimates for
each pathway of exposure, and summed pollutant-specific hazard
quotients across target organs for each pathway of exposure). This
approach does not account for the possibility that pollutants may
interact synergistically or antagonistically such that the cancer
potency or non-cancer hazard of the mixture of the pollutants is more
or less than that calculated from the cancer potencies or RfDs of the
individual pollutants.
[sbull] Population risk for cancer is based on mean exposure. Using
mean exposure parameters for non-cancer could either over- or under-
estimate HI exceedences.
[sbull] EPA's estimates of cancer cases were calculated using
cancer potency factors that are upper bound estimates of cancer
potency, potentially leading to overestimation of cancer risk.
[sbull] The analysis benefits from reduced incidence of cancer did
not account for a cessation-lag, the time between when exposures are
reduced and when reduction in risk occurs. Ignoring a cessation lag may
lead to overestimation of cancer-related benefits.
[sbull] EPA assumed that the number of subsistence fishers would be
an additional 5% of the licensed fishing population. This could be
either an overestimate or underestimate of the actual number of
subsistence fishers.
[sbull] Hazard indices estimated in this analysis may understate
actual health risk because possible additional sources of pollutants,
such as background pollutants and MP&M pollutants from upstream
dischargers, were not considered in the analysis.
Additional details on methodology and the uncertainties and
limitations of EPA's analysis of human health risk from the final
effluent guidelines, particularly assumptions related to exposure
parameters, are presented in Chapter 13 and Chapter 14 of the EEBA
report.
C. Improved Ecological Conditions and Recreational Uses
EPA expects the final regulation to provide ecological benefits by
improving the habitats or ecosystems (aquatic and terrestrial) affected
by the MP&M industry's effluent discharges. Benefits associated with
changes in aquatic life may include restoration of sensitive species,
recovery of diseased species, changes in taste- and odor-producing
algae, changes in dissolved oxygen (DO), increased assimilative
capacity of affected waterways, and improved related recreational
activities. These activities include swimming,
[[Page 25723]]
fishing, boating and wildlife observation that may be enhanced when
risks to aquatic life are reduced and where perceivable water quality
efforts associated with MP&M pollutants, such as turbidity, are
reduced. Among these ecological benefits, EPA was able to estimate
dollar values for improved recreational opportunities and for non-user
benefits.
EPA expects the MP&M rule to improve aquatic species habitats by
reducing concentrations of toxic contaminants such as aluminum,
cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, silver, and zinc in water. These
improvements may enhance the quality and value of water-based
recreation, such as fishing, swimming, wildlife viewing, camping,
waterfowl hunting, and boating. The benefits from improved water-based
recreation would be seen as increases in the increased value
participants derive from a day of recreation and the increased number
of days that consumers of water-based recreation choose to visit the
cleaner waterways. This analysis measures the economic benefit to
society from water quality improvements based on the increased monetary
value of recreational opportunities resulting from those improvements.
EPA assessed recreational benefits of reduced occurrence of
pollutant concentrations exceeding aquatic life and human health AWQC
values. EPA estimates that baseline in-stream concentrations of 9
pollutants (i.e., aluminum, cadmium, copper, lead, manganese, mercury,
nickel, silver, and zinc) will exceed the acute and chronic criterion
for aquatic life in 353 reaches nationwide. The final rule eliminates
concentrations in excess of aquatic life-based AWQCs on nine of these
reaches. Section IX.4 of this preamble presents EPA's analysis of the
effect of MP&M discharges on occurrence of pollutant concentrations in
affected waterways in excess of human health-based AWQCs.
The analysis of recreational benefits combined the findings from
the aquatic life benefits analysis and the human health AWQC exceedance
analysis described previously. These analyses found that 394 stream
reaches exceed chronic or acute aquatic life AWQC and/or human health
AWQC values at the baseline discharge levels (see Table IX-3). EPA
expects the final rule will eliminate exceedances on nine of these
discharge reaches.
Table IX-3.--Estimated MP&M Discharge Reaches With MP&M Pollutant Concentrations in Excess of AWQC Limits for Protection of Human Health or Aquatic
Species
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of reaches with MP&M pollutant concentrations exceeding Number of benefitting
AWQC limits reaches
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory status Aquatic life Human health
---------------------------------------------------- All AWQC AWQC
H2O and Organisms Total exceedances exceedances
Chronic Acute organisms only eliminated reduced
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Selected Option: Traditional Extrapolation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline..................................................... 353 18 78 21 394 N/A N/A
Post-Compliance.............................................. 344 9 78 21 386 9 0
--------------------------------------------------------------
Selected Option: Post-Stratification Extrapolation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline..................................................... 350 15 112 21 426 N/A N/A
Post-Compliance.............................................. 344 9 112 21 420 6 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Removing water quality impairments would increase services provided
by water resources to recreational users. EPA expects potential
recreational users to benefit from improved recreational opportunities,
including an increased number of available choices of recreational
sites. For example, some of the streams that were not usable for
recreation under the baseline discharge conditions may be newly
included in the site choice set for recreational users from nearby
counties. Streams that have been used for recreation under the baseline
conditions can become more attractive for users making recreational
trips more enjoyable. Individuals may also take trips more frequently
if they enjoy their recreational activities more.
EPA attached a monetary value to these reduced exceedances based on
increased values for three water-based recreation activities--fishing,
boating, and wildlife viewing--and for non-user values. Because most
benefitting reaches are close to densely populated areas, potential
recreational users may also benefit from lower travel costs to the
recreational sites in the vicinity of their home towns that were not
previously suitable to water-based recreation. EPA applied a benefits
transfer approach to estimate the total WTP, including both use and
non-use values, for improvements in surface water quality. This
approach builds upon a review and analysis of the surface water
valuation literature.
EPA first estimated the baseline value of each recreational
activity (i.e., fishing, boating, and wildlife viewing) corresponding
to the benefitting reach by multiplying the estimated annual person-
days per reach by the estimated per-day values of water-based
recreation. The baseline per-day values of water-based recreation are
based on studies by Walsh et. al (1992) and Bergstrom and Cordell
(1991) (see DCN 20444 and DCN 20427, section 8.5.2.4). The studies
provide values per recreation day for a wide range of water-based
activities, including fishing, boating, wildlife viewing, waterfowl
hunting, camping, and picnicking. The mean values per recreational
fishing, boating, and wildlife viewing day used in this analysis are
$42.12, $48.30 and $26.28 (2001$) respectively. Applying facility
weights and assuming over all benefitting reaches provides a total
baseline value for a given recreational activity for MP&M reaches
expected to benefit from the elimination of pollutant concentrations in
excess of AWQC limits.
EPA then applied the percentage change in the recreational value of
water resources implied by surface water valuation studies to estimate
changes in values for all MP&M reaches in which the regulation
eliminates AWQC exceedances by one or more MP&M pollutants. The Agency
selected eight of the most comparable studies and calculated the
changes in recreation values from water quality improvements (as
percentage of the baseline) implied
[[Page 25724]]
by those studies. Sources of estimates included Lyke (1993), Jakus et
al. (1997), Montgomery and Needleman (1997), Paneuf et al. (1998),
Desvousges et al. (1987), Lant and Roberts (1990), Farber and Griner
(2000), and Tudor et al. (2000) (see section 8.5.2.4 of the rulemaking
record). EPA's reasoning for selecting each study is discussed in
detail in Chapter 15 of the EEBA report. EPA took a simple mean of
point estimates from all applicable studies to derive a central
tendency value for percentage change in the water resource values due
to water quality improvements. These studies yielded estimates of
increased recreational value from water quality improvements expected
from reduced MP&M discharges of 12, 9, and 18 percent for fishing,
boating, and wildlife-viewing respectively. Using all possible
applicable valuation studies in developing a benefit transfer approach
to valuing changes in the recreational value of water resources from
reduced MP&M discharges, makes unit values more likely to be nationally
representative, and avoids the potential bias inherent in using a
single study to make estimates at the national level.
Table IX-4 presents the estimated national recreational benefits of
the final rule (2001$). See EEBA Chapter 15 for estimated recreational
benefits for alternative regulatory options. The estimated increased
value of recreational activities to users of water-based recreation is
$537,197, $202,691, and $259,949 annually for fishing, boating, and
wildlife viewing respectively. The recreational activities considered
in this analysis are stochastically independent; EPA calculated the
total user value of enhanced water-based recreation opportunities by
summing over the three recreation categories. The estimated increase in
the total user value is $999,838 annually.
EPA also estimated non-market non-user benefits. These non-market
non-user benefits are not associated with current use of the affected
ecosystem or habitat; instead, they arise from the value society places
on improved water quality independent of planned uses or based on
expected future use. Past studies have shown that non-user values are a
sizable component of the total economic value of water resources. EPA
estimated average changes in non-user value to equal one-half of the
recreational use benefits (see Fisher, A. and R. Raucher, 1984; DCN
20431, section 8.5.2.4). The estimated increase in non-use value is
$499,919 (2001$).
A recent literature review finds that non-use benefits are, on
average, 1.9 to 2.5 times all use values, rather than 0.5 times
recreational benefits alone as EPA has traditionally assumed for its
non-use benefit estimates (see T. Brown, 1993; DCN 20426, section
8.5.2.4). EPA's method for estimating non-use benefits from water
quality improvements resulting from reduced MP&M dischargers is
therefore likely to understate the true value of non-use benefits.
Table IX-4.--Estimated Recreational and Non-Use Benefits From Reduced
MP&M Discharges
[Thousands of 2001$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-
Benefit type Traditional stratification
extrapolation extrapolation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recreational Fishing..................... $537.20 $349.98
Recreational Boating..................... $202.69 $132.05
Recreational Wildlife Viewing............ $259.95 $169.36
Non-Use Benefits (\1/2\ Recreational $499.92 $325.70
Benefits)...............................
----------------
Total Recreational Benefits.......... $1,499.76 $977.09
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Categories may not sum to totals due to rounding of individual
estimates for presentation purposes.
EPA calculated the total value of enhanced water-based recreation
opportunities by summing over the three recreation categories and non-
user value. The resulting increase in value of water resources to
consumers of water-based recreation and non-users is $1,449,756 (2001$)
annually.
Findings from the Ohio-case study analysis suggest that the
benefits to consumers of water-based recreation may be substantially
underestimated at the national level. EPA estimates recreational and
non-use benefits to Ohio residents alone are $376,400 (2001$) annually.
See section IX.H of today's final rule and Chapter 21 of the EEBA for a
detailed discussion of the case study of recreational benefits in Ohio.
Given that the in-scope MP&M facilities located in the State of Ohio
account only for six percent of the total number of in-scope
facilities, it is reasonable to expect that the benefits to Ohio
residents do not account for such a large proportion of recreational
benefits from the final rule nationwide. In addition to more accurately
account for the presence and effect of MP&M and non-MP&M dischargers in
Ohio, the following factors are likely to result in more comprehensive
estimates of recreational benefits under the case study approach: (1)
Use of an original travel cost study to value four recreational
activities affected by the regulation: fishing, swimming, boating, and
wild life viewing; (2) use of a first-order decay model to estimate in-
stream concentrations in downstream water bodies; (3) ability to
estimate welfare gain to recreational users from reduced discharges of
nutrients such as Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN).
D. Effect on POTW Operations
The final rule only regulates direct dischargers. Therefore, the
selected option does not affect POTW operation. For the alternative
policy options that consider both direct and indirect dischargers, EPA
evaluated two productivity measures associated with MP&M pollutants.
The first measure is the reduction in pollutant interference at
publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs). The second measure is pass-
through of pollutants into the sludge, which limits options for POTW
disposal of sewage sludge. These analyses are presented in EEBA Chapter
16.
E. Summary of Benefits
Using the national-level analysis approach, EPA estimates total
benefits for the five monetized categories of approximately $1,500,000
(2001$) annually (see Table IX-5). EPA's complete benefit assessment
can be found in EEBA for the final rule. The monetized benefits of the
rule likely underestimates the total benefits of the rule because they
omit various sources of benefits to society from reduced MP&M effluent
discharges. Examples of benefit categories not reflected in these
estimates include non-cancer health benefits other than benefits from
reduced exposure to lead; other water-dependent recreational benefits,
such as swimming and waterskiing benefits to recreational users from
reduced concentration of conventional pollutants and nonconventional
pollutants such as TKN; and reduced cost of drinking water treatment
for the pollutants with drinking water criteria. In addition, as noted
in the prior discussion, although the national-level benefits analysis
finds negligible benefits from reduced health risk, the more rigorous
analytic approach used for the Ohio case study found more benefits--
approximately $0.5 million.
[[Page 25725]]
Table IX-5.--Estimated Benefits from Reduced MP&M Discharges
[Annual Benefits--Thousands of 2001$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-
Benefit category Traditional stratification
extrapolation extrapolation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Reduced Cancer Risk:
Fish Consumption..................... $0.09 $0.13
Water Consumption.................... $0 $0
2. Reduced Risk from Exposure to Lead:
Children............................. $0 $0
Adults............................... $0 $0
3. Avoided Sewage Sludge Disposal Costs N/A N/A
\a\.....................................
4. Enhanced Fishing...................... $537.20 $349.98
5. Enhanced Boating...................... $202.69 $132.05
6. Enhanced Wildlife Viewing............. $259.95 $169.36
7. Non-Use benefits (\1/2\ of $499.92 $325.70
Recreational Use Benefits)..............
----------------
Total monetized benefits............. $1,499.85 $977.22
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Not applicable to the final rule.
F. National Cost-Benefit Comparison
The comparison of costs and benefits for the final rule is
inevitably incomplete because EPA cannot value all of the benefits
resulting from the final rule in dollar terms. A comparison of costs
and benefits is thus limited by the lack of a comprehensive benefits
valuation and also by uncertainties in the estimates. Bearing these
limitations in mind, EPA presents a summary comparison of costs and
benefits for the final rule in Table IX-6. The estimated social cost of
the final rule is $13.8 million annually (2001$). The total benefits
that can be valued in dollar terms in the categories traditionally
analyzed for effluent guidelines range from around $977,000 to
$1,500,000 annually (2001$), based on the alternative extrapolation
methods.
As previously noted, EPA used more detailed information and a more
comprehensive analytic method to estimate expected benefits of the
final rule for the State of Ohio. This more rigorous analysis was
undertaken to address certain issues in the national-level analysis and
to supplement the national-level analysis performed for the final rule.
The following section presents this analysis. The Ohio case study
showed that the more rigorous analytic approach leads to a different
conclusion from that found in the simpler, national-level analysis
approach--in particular, that the estimated State-level benefits exceed
the estimated State-level cost. As previously discussed, given (1) that
Ohio accounts for only about 6 percent of total MP&M facilities, and
(2) that other States with substantial numbers of MP&M facilities have
similar population and water body characteristics to Ohio, EPA believes
that use of the more rigorous approach nationally would yield a higher
estimate of national benefits. On this basis, the Agency estimates that
national benefits from the final rule may be comparable to its social
costs.
Table IX-6.--Cost-Benefit Comparison [Thousands of 2001$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-
Category Traditional stratification
extrapolation extrapolation*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Social Cost of Regulation......... $13,824.56 $13,824.56
Monetized Benefits................ $1,499.85 $977.22
Net Benefits...................... (-$12,324.72) (-$12,847.34)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Post-Stratification extrapolation is applied to benefits estimates
only.
G. Ohio Case Study
1. Overview
The Ohio Case Study Report presents a detailed case study of the
expected State-level costs and benefits of the MP&M rule in Ohio. The
case study assesses the costs and benefits of the final rule for
facilities and water bodies located in Ohio. Ohio is among the ten
States with the largest numbers of MP&M facilities. The State has a
diverse water resource base and a more extensive water quality
ecological database than many other States. EPA gathered data on MP&M
facilities and on Ohio's baseline water quality conditions and water-
based recreation activities to support the case study analysis. These
data characterize current water quality conditions, water quality
changes expected from the regulation, and the expected welfare changes
from water quality improvements at water bodies affected by MP&M
discharges. The case study also estimates the social costs of the final
rule for facilities in Ohio and compares estimated social costs and
benefits for the State.
The case study analysis supplements the national level analysis
performed for the final MP&M regulation in two important ways. First,
the analysis used improved data and methods to determine MP&M pollutant
discharges from both MP&M facilities and other sources. In particular,
EPA administered 1,600 screener questionnaires to augment information
on the Ohio's MP&M facilities. The Agency also used information from
the sampled MP&M facilities to estimate discharge characteristics of
non-sampled MP&M facilities, as described in Appendix H of the EEBA
report. The Agency assigned discharge characteristics to all non-MP&M
industrial direct discharges based on the information provided in PCS.
Second, the analysis used an original travel cost study to value four
recreational uses of water resources affected by the regulation:
swimming, fishing, boating, and near-water activities. The added detail
provides a more complete and reliable analysis of water quality changes
from reduced MP&M discharges. The study provides more complete
estimates of changes in human welfare resulting from reduced health
risk, enhanced recreational opportunities, and improved economic
productivity.
EPA estimated human health benefits from reduced MP&M dischargers
in Ohio using similar methodologies to those used for the national-
level analysis. Section IX.B of this preamble summarizes these
methodologies. Uncertainties and assumptions of EPA's
[[Page 25726]]
analysis of human health benefits are presented in section IX.B.5.
Additional details on methodology and the uncertainties and limitations
of EPA's analysis of reduced human health risk from the final effluent
guidelines are presented in Chapter 13 and 14 of the EEBA report.
The case study analysis of recreational benefits combines water
quality modeling with a random utility model (RUM) to assess how
changes in water quality from the regulation will affect consumers'
valuation of water resources. The RUM analysis addresses a wide range
of pollutant types and effects, including water quality measures not
often addressed in past recreational benefits studies. In particular,
the model supports a more complete analysis of recreational benefits
from reductions in nutrients and toxic pollutants (i.e., priority
pollutants and nonconventional pollutants with toxic effects).
EPA subjected this study to a formal peer review by experts in the
natural resource valuation field. The peer review concluded that EPA
had done a competent job, especially given the available data. As
requested by the Agency, peer reviewers provided suggestions for
further improvements in the analysis. Since the proposed rule analysis,
the Agency made changes to the Ohio model and conducted additional
sensitivity analyses suggested by the reviewers. The peer review report
and EPA's response to peer reviewers' comments, along with the revised
model, are in the docket for the rule.
2. Benefits for Ohio Case Study
The use of an original RUM in this case study allows the Agency to
address limitations inherent in benefits transfer used in the analysis
of recreational benefits at the national level. The use of benefits
transfer often requires additional assumptions because water quality
changes evaluated in the available recreation demand studies are only
roughly comparable with the water quality measures evaluated for a
particular rule. The RUM model estimates the effects of the specific
water quality characteristics analyzed for the final MP&M regulation,
such as presence of AWQC exceedances and concentrations of the
nonconventional pollutant Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN). EPA estimates
that this direct link between the water quality characteristics
analyzed for the rule and the characteristics valued in the RUM
analysis reduces uncertainty in benefit estimates and makes the
analysis of recreational benefits more robust.
The final MP&M regulation affects a broad range of pollutants, some
of which are toxic to human and aquatic life but are not directly
observable (i.e., priority and non-conventional pollutants). These
unobservable toxic pollutants may degrade aquatic habitats, decrease
the size and abundance of fish and other aquatic species, increase fish
deformities, and change watershed species composition. Changes in toxic
pollutant concentrations may therefore affect recreationists' valuation
of water resources, even if consumers are unaware of changes in ambient
pollutant concentrations.
The study used data from the National Demand Survey for Water-Based
Recreation (NDS), conducted by U.S. EPA and the National Forest
Service, to examine the effects of in-stream pollutant concentrations
on consumers' decisions to visit a particular water body. The analysis
estimated baseline and post-compliance water quality at recreation
sites actually visited by the surveyed consumers and at all other sites
within the consumers' choice set, visited or not. The RUM analysis of
consumer behavior then estimated the effect of ambient water quality
and other site characteristics on the total number of trips taken for
different water-based recreation activities and the allocation of these
trips among particular recreational sites. The RUM analysis is a travel
cost model, in which the cost to travel to a particular recreational
site represents the ``price'' of a visit.
EPA modeled two consumer decisions: (1) How many water-based
recreational trips to take during the recreational season (the trip
participation model); and (2) which recreation site to choose (the site
choice model). Combining the trip frequency model's prediction of trips
under the baseline and post-compliance scenarios and the site choice
model's per-trip welfare measure provides a measure of total welfare.
EPA calculated each individual's seasonal welfare gain for each
recreation activity from post-compliance water quality changes, and
then used Census data to aggregate the estimated welfare change to the
State level. The sum of estimated welfare changes over the four
recreation activities yielded estimates of total welfare gain.
EPA estimated other components of benefits in Ohio using similar
methodologies to those used for the national-level analysis. In
addition to the RUM study of recreational benefits, other analytical
improvements included the following: (1) Use of more detailed data on
MP&M facilities, obtained from the 1,600 additional surveys; (2) use of
data on non-MP&M discharges to estimate current baseline conditions in
the State; and (3) use of a first-order decay model to estimate in-
stream concentrations in the Ohio water bodies in the baseline and
post-compliance.
Appendix H of the EEBA Report describes the water quality model
used in this analysis and the approach and data sources used to
estimate total pollutant loadings from all industrial and municipal
sources to Ohio's water bodies. The Agency has concluded that the added
level of detail results in more robust benefit estimates.
Summing the monetary values over all benefit categories yields
total monetized benefits of $930,400 (2001$) annually for the final
rule, as shown in Table IX-7. Although more comprehensive than the
national benefits analysis, the case study benefit estimates still omit
important mechanisms by which society is likely to benefit from the
final rule. Examples of benefit categories not reflected in the
monetized benefits include non-cancer health benefits (other than lead-
related benefits) and reduced costs of drinking water treatment.
Table IX-7.--Estimated Benefits from Reduced MP&M Discharges From Ohio
Facilities
[Annual benefits--thousands of 2001$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Selected
Benefit category option
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Reduced Cancer Risk:
Fish Consumption:.......................................... $14.5
Water Consumption:......................................... $0.00
2. Reduced Risk from Exposure to Lead:
Children:.................................................. $422.11
Adults:.................................................... $117.39
3. Avoided Sewage Sludge Disposal Costs...................... $0.00
4. Enhanced Fishing.......................................... $153.10
5. Enhanced Swimming......................................... $9.78
6. Enhanced Boating.......................................... $0.00
7. Enhanced Wildlife Viewing................................. $88.05
8. Non-Use benefits (\1/2\ of Recreational Use Benefits)..... $125.47
----------
Total Monetized Benefits................................... $930.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Social Costs for Ohio Case Study
EPA also estimated the social costs of the final rule for MP&M
facilities in Ohio. EPA relied on the results of the national analysis
to predict the number of Ohio facilities that would close in the
baseline and due to the final rule.
The MP&M regulations will not affect facilities that are baseline
closures. Predicting the number of regulatory closures is necessary to
estimate the costs and impacts of the regulation on industry and water
quality. The screener
[[Page 25727]]
data collected for Ohio facilities did not provide financial data to
perform facility financial impact analyses, as was done in the national
analysis. EPA therefore used data from the national analysis to
estimate the percentage of facilities that would close in the baseline
and post-compliance. EPA assumed the ratio of facilities that close in
the national analysis with the same discharge status, subcategory, and
flow category would be comparable to closures for facilities in Ohio.
For example, two percent of direct Oily Waste facilities discharging
less than one MGY close in the baseline in the national data set.
EPA developed engineering estimates of compliance costs for each
Ohio facility and annualized costs using a seven percent discount rate
over a 15-year period. As in the national social cost analysis, EPA
included compliance costs for facilities that close due to the rule and
costs for facilities that continue to operate subject to the final
regulation. Including costs for regulatory closures in effect
calculates the social costs of compliance that would be incurred if
every facility continued to operate post-regulation. In fact, some
facilities may find it more economical to close, and calculating costs
as if all facilities continue operating provides an upper bound
estimate of social costs.
EPA used the same methods as used in the national social cost
analysis to estimate other components of social costs for the Ohio case
study. Section VIII of this preamble and Chapter 11 of the EEBA
describe the methods used to estimate government administrative costs
and the social costs of unemployment.
Table IX-8 shows the total estimated social costs of the final rule
for Ohio facilities.
Table IX-8.--Annual Social Costs for Ohio Facilities: Proposed Option
[Thousands 2001$, costs annualized at 7%]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Selected
Component of social costs option
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resource value of compliance costs........................... $62.23
Government administrative costs.............................. $0.00
Social cost of unemployment.................................. $0.00
----------
Total social cost........................................ $62.23
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Comparison of Monetized Benefits and Costs for Ohio Case Study
The Ohio case study shows substantial net positive benefits
associated with the MP&M regulation. EPA estimates the social cost in
Ohio of the final regulation to be $62,232 annually (2001$). The sum
total of benefits that can be valued in dollar terms is $930,408
annually (2001$). Comparing the midpoint estimate of social costs
($62,232) with the midpoint estimate of monetizable benefits ($930,408)
results in a net social benefit of $868,178. This represents a partial
cost-benefit comparison because not all of the benefits resulting from
the regulation can be valued in dollar terms (e.g., changes in systemic
health risk).
For the reasons previously discussed, EPA judges that the analytic
approach and detailed data used for the Ohio case study provide a more
robust and accurate benefits estimate than the data and approach used
for the national-level analysis.
X. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
Sections 304(b) and 306 of the Act require EPA to consider non-
water quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements)
associated with effluent limitations guidelines and standards. In
accordance with these requirements, EPA has considered the potential
impact of today's final regulation 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 benefits
associated with compliance with the limitations and standards justify
the multi-media impacts identified in this section (see section IX for
a discussion on the environmental benefits associated with this
regulation). For additional information on non-water quality impacts
associated with today's regulation, see section 13 of the TDD.
A. Air Pollution
MP&M facilities generate wastewater that contain organic compounds.
These organic compounds may be volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which
contribute to the formation of ambient ozone, or hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs) listed in section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
These wastewaters often pass through a series of collection and
treatment units that are open to the atmosphere and allow wastewater
containing organic compounds to contact ambient air. Atmospheric
exposure of the organic-containing wastewaters may result in the
release of VOCs or organic HAPs from the wastewater.
The use of halogenated hazardous air pollutant solvent (methylene
chloride, perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, 1,1,1 trichloroethane,
carbon tetrachloride and chloroform) for cleaning in the MP&M industry
can create hazardous air pollutant emissions. The Agency has concluded
that this regulation will not affect the use of halogenated hazardous
air pollutant solvent in the MP&M industry. This regulation neither
requires nor discourages the use of aqueous cleaners in lieu of
halogenated hazardous air pollutant solvent.
Because today's final rule would not allow any less stringent
control of VOCs or organic HAPs than is currently in place at MP&M
facilities, EPA does not predict any net increase in air emissions from
volatilization of organic pollutants due to today's action. As such,
EPA expects no adverse air impacts are expected to occur as a result of
today's regulation.
The Agency notes that it is developing National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) under section 112 of the CAA to
address air emissions of HAPs. Current and upcoming NESHAPs that may
potentially affect HAP emitting activities at MP&M facilities
considered during the development of this rule include:
[sbull] Chromium Emissions from Hard and Decorative Chromium
Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks;
[sbull] Halogenated Solvent Cleaning;
[sbull] Aerospace Manufacturing;
[sbull] Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating);
[sbull] Large Appliances (Surface Coating);
[sbull] Metal Furniture (Surface Coating);
[sbull] Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Manufacturing (Surface
Coating); and
[sbull] Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products (Surface Coating).
Finally, EPA notes that the energy requirements discussed in this
section may result in increased emissions of combustion byproducts
associated with energy production. Given the relatively small projected
increases in energy use, EPA does not anticipate that this effect would
be significant.
B. Solid Waste
As shown in Table X-1, EPA anticipates that waste oil generation
will increase as a result of today's rule. The estimated increase of
waste oil generation as a result of today's rule reflects better
removal of oil and grease by the selected technology than is currently
achieved.
[[Page 25728]]
Table X-1.--Waste Oil Generation for Oily Wastes Subcategory
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Oil
Generated
Option (million
gallons/
year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline (or current) Technology 1......................... 13.5
Option 6 Technology........................................ 15.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
1 EPA calculated the baseline sludge and waste oil generation using
responses to the 1989 MP&M Phase I Questionnaire and the 1996 MP&M
Phase II Detailed Questionnaires.
MP&M facilities usually either recycle waste oil on-site or off-
site, or contract haul it for disposal as either a hazardous or
nonhazardous waste. However, EPA notes that the inclusion of water
conservation and pollution prevention in the technology basis for the
Oily Wastes subcategory results in the generation of less waste oil
than a technology basis that did not incorporate pollution prevention.
EPA finds the overall increase in waste oil generation as acceptable.
C. Energy Requirements
EPA estimates that compliance with this regulation will result in a
net increase in energy consumption at MP&M facilities. EPA presents the
estimates of energy usage for the selected option in Table X-2.
Table X-2.--Energy Requirements by Option
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy
required
Option (kilowatt
hrs/yr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline 1................................................. 6,883,774
Selected Options........................................... 7,234,450
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
1 EPA calculated the baseline sludge and waste oil generation using
responses to the 1989 MP&M Phase I Questionnaire and the 1996 MP&M
Phase II Detailed Questionnaires. The final regulation does not
include indirect discharging facilities.
By comparison, electric power generation facilities generated 3,123
billion kilowatt hours of electric power in the United States in 1997
(The Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Annual 1998
Volume 1, Table A1). Additional energy requirements for EPA's selected
options are trivial (i.e., significantly less than 0.01 percent of
national requirements).
XI. Regulatory Implementation
The purpose of this section is to provide assistance and direction
to permit writers and MP&M facilities to aid in their implementation of
this regulation. This section also discusses the relationship of upset
and bypass provisions, and variances and modification to the final
limitations and standards. For additional implementation information,
see section 15 of the TDD for today's final rule.
A. Implementation of the Limitations and Standards for Direct
Dischargers
Effluent limitations and new source performance standards act as
one of the primary mechanisms to control the discharges of pollutants
to waters of the United States. Authorized States may also set permit
limitations based on the capabilities of the treatment installed to
ensure proper operation and maintenance of the treatment technology.
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.
In specific cases, the NPDES permitting authority may elect to
establish permit limits for pollutants not covered by this regulation
based on the capabilities of on-site treatment technologies. 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 in order to achieve compliance), the permitting authority
must apply those limitations or standards. See CWA section
301(b)(1)(C).
1. Compliance Dates for Existing and New Sources
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.
New sources must comply with the new source standards (NSPS) of the
MP&M rule at the time they commence discharging MP&M process
wastewater. Because the final rule was not promulgated within 120 days
of the proposed rule, the Agency considers a discharger a new source if
its construction commences after June 12, 2003.
2. Applicability
In section V of this preamble and section 15 of the TDD, EPA
provides details information on the applicability of this rule to
various operations. Permit writers should closely examine all metal
products and machinery operations and compare these operations against
the applicability statement for today's rule (see 40 CFR 438.1) and
section 1 of the TDD to determine if they are subject to the provisions
of this rule.
3. Implementation for Facilities Subject to Multiple Effluent
Limitations Guidelines
The regulations in today's final rule do not apply to wastewater
discharges which are subject to the limitations and standards of other
effluent limitations guidelines (e.g., Metal Finishing (40 CFR part
433) or Iron and Steel Manufacturing (40 CFR part 420)).
4. Waiver for Pollutants Not Present
In May 2000, EPA promulgated a regulation to streamline the NPDES
regulations (``Amendments to Streamline the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System Program Regulations: Round Two'' (see 65
FR 30886; May 15, 2000)) which includes a monitoring waiver for direct
dischargers subject to effluent guidelines. Direct discharge facilities
may forego sampling of a guideline-limited pollutant if that discharger
``has demonstrated through sampling and other technical factors that
the pollutant is not present in the discharge or is present only at
background levels from intake water and without any increase in the
pollutant due to activities of the discharger,'' (see 65 FR 30908; 40
CFR 122.44). EPA noted in the preamble to the final NPDES streamlining
rule that it is providing a waiver from monitoring requirements, but
not a waiver from the limit. In addition, the revision does not waive
monitoring for any pollutants for which there are limits based on water
quality standards. The waiver for direct dischargers lasts for the term
of the NPDES permit and is not available during the term of the first
permit issued to a discharger. Any request for this waiver must be
submitted when applying for a reissued permit or modification of a
reissued permit. Therefore, EPA is not including a monitoring waiver in
today's final regulations for direct dischargers. When authorized by
their permit writer, direct discharge facilities covered by any
effluent guidelines (including today's rule) will be able to use the
monitoring waiver contained in the NPDES streamlining final rule.
5. Compliance with the Limitations and Standards
The same basic procedures apply to the calculation of all
limitations and standards for the OWS, regardless of whether the
control level is BPT, BCT,
[[Page 25729]]
or NSPS. For simplicity, the following discussion refers only to
effluent limitations guidelines; however, the discussion also applies
to new source standards.
a. Definitions
The limitations for pollutants for the OWS, as presented in today's
final rule, are provided as maximum daily discharge limitations.
Definitions provided at 40 CFR 122.2 state that the ``maximum daily
discharge limitation'' is the ``highest allowable `daily discharge.' ''
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.'' Section 10 of
the TDD describes the data selection and calculations used to develop
today's limitations.
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 daily maximum limitations one day out of 100. As explained in
section 10.4 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 today's rule, some dischargers
may need to improve treatment systems, process controls, and/or
treatment system operations in order to consistently meet limitations
and standards in the final MP&M effluent guidelines. EPA finds that
this consequence is consistent with the Clean Water Act statutory
framework, which requires that discharge limitations reflect best
practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
c. Limitations
EPA did not establish monthly average limitations for O&G (as HEM)
and TSS because a monthly average limitation would be based on the
assumption that a facility would be required to monitor more frequently
than once a month. For the reasons set forth in section VI.F.1, EPA
estimates that one monthly monitoring event is sufficient; however, if
permitting authorities choose to require more frequent monitoring for
O&G (as HEM) and TSS, they may set monthly average limitations and
standards based on their BPJ (see 40 CFR 430.24(a)(1), footnote b).
d. 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. 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)).
B. Upset and Bypass Provisions
A ``bypass'' is an intentional diversion of the streams from any
portion of a treatment facility. An ``upset'' is an exceptional
incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance
with technology-based permit effluent limitations because of factors
beyond the reasonable control of the permittee. EPA's regulations
concerning bypasses and upsets for direct dischargers are set forth at
40 CFR 122.41(m) and (n) and for indirect dischargers at 40 CFR 403.16
and 403.17.
C. Variances and Modifications
The CWA requires application of effluent limitations established
pursuant to section 301 to all direct dischargers. However, the statute
provides for the modification of these national requirements in a
limited number of circumstances. Moreover, the Agency has established
administrative mechanisms to provide an opportunity for relief from the
application of the national effluent limitations guidelines for
categories of existing sources for toxic, conventional, and
nonconventional pollutants.
1. Fundamentally Different Factors Variances
EPA will develop effluent limitations or standards different from
the otherwise applicable requirements if an individual discharging
facility is fundamentally different with respect to factors considered
in establishing the limitation of standards applicable to the
individual facility. Such a modification is known as a ``fundamentally
different factors'' (FDF) variance.
Early on, EPA, by regulation provided for the FDF modifications
from the BPT effluent limitations, BAT limitations for toxic and
nonconventional pollutants and BPT limitations for conventional
pollutants for direct dischargers. For indirect dischargers, EPA
provided for modifications from pretreatment standards. FDF variances
for toxic pollutants were challenged judicially and ultimately
sustained by the Supreme Court. (Chemical Manufacturers Assn v. NRDC,
479 U.S. 116 (1985)).
Subsequently, in the Water Quality Act of 1987, Congress added a
new section 301(n) explicitly authorizing modifications of the
otherwise applicable BAT effluent limitations or categorical
pretreatment standards for existing sources if a facility is
fundamentally different with respect to the factors specified at
section 304 (other than costs) considered by EPA in establishing the
effluent limitations or pretreatment standards. Section 301(n) also
defined the conditions under which EPA may establish alternative
requirements. Under section 301(n), an application for approval of FDF
variance must be based solely on: (1) Information submitted during
rulemaking raising the factors that are fundamentally different; or (2)
information the applicant did not have an opportunity to submit. The
alternate limitation or standard must be no less stringent than
justified by the difference and must not result in
[[Page 25730]]
markedly more adverse non-water quality environmental impacts than the
national limitation or standard.
EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 125 subpart D, authorizing the
Regional Administrators to establish alternative limitations and
standards, further detail the substantive criteria used to evaluate FDF
variance requests for direct dischargers. Thus, 40 CFR 125.31(d)
identifies six factors (e.g., volume of process wastewater, age and
size of a discharger's facility) that may be considered in determining
if a facility is fundamentally different. The Agency must determine
whether, on the basis of one or more of these factors, the facility in
question is fundamentally different from the facilities and factors
considered by EPA in developing the nationally applicable effluent
guidelines. The regulation also lists four other factors (e.g.,
infeasibility of installation within the time allowed or a discharger's
ability to pay) that may not provide a basis for an FDF variance. In
addition, under 40 CFR 125.31(b)(3), a request for limitations less
stringent than the national limitation may be approved only if
compliance with the national limitations would result in either: (a) A
removal cost wholly out of proportion to the removal cost considered
during development of the national limitations; or (b) a non-water
quality environmental impact (including energy requirements)
fundamentally more adverse than the impact considered during
development of the national limits. The conditions for approval of a
request to modify applicable pretreatment standards and factors
considered are the same as those for direct dischargers.
The legislative history of section 301(n) underscores the necessity
for the FDF variance applicant to establish eligibility for the
variance. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 125.32(b)(1) are explicit in
imposing this burden upon the applicant. The applicant must show that
the factors relating to the discharge controlled by the applicant's
permit which are claimed to be fundamentally different are, in fact,
fundamentally different from those factors considered by the EPA in
establishing the applicable guidelines. The pretreatment regulations
incorporate a similar requirement at 40 CFR 403.13(h)(9).
Facilities must submit all FDF variance applications to the
appropriate Director (as defined at 40 CFR 122.2) no later than 180
days from the date the limitations or standards are established or
revised (see CWA Sec. 301(n)(2) and 40 CFR 122.21(m)(1)(i)(B)(2)). EPA
regulations clarify that effluent limitations guidelines are
``established'' or ``revised'' on the date those effluent limitations
guidelines are published in the Federal Register (see 40 CFR
122.21(m)(1)(i)(B)(2)). Therefore all facilities requesting FDF
variances from the effluent limitations guidelines in today's final
rule must submit all FDF variance applications to their Director (as
defined at 40 CFR 122.2) no later than November 10, 2003.
An FDF variance is not available to a new source subject to NSPS.
2. Water Quality Variances
Section 301(g) of the CWA authorizes a variance from BAT effluent
guidelines for certain non-conventional pollutants due to localized
environmental factors so long as the discharge does not violate any
water quality-based effluent limitations. These pollutants include
ammonia, chlorine, color, iron, and phenols (as measured by the
colorimetric 4-aminoantipyrine (4AAP) method). Dischargers subject to
new or revised BAT limitations promulgated today for those pollutants
may be eligible for a section 301(g) variance. Please note that section
301(g)(4)(c) requires the filing of section 301(g) variance
applications pertaining to the new or revised limits not later than
February 9, 2004. Existing section 301(g) variances for limitations not
being revised today are not affected by today's action. This variance
is not applicable to today's final rule as none of these parameters are
regulated by today's final rule.
3. Permit Modifications
Even after EPA (or an authorized State) has issued a final permit
to a direct discharger, the permit may still be modified under certain
conditions. (When a permit modification is under consideration,
however, all other permit conditions remain in effect.) A permit
modification may be triggered in several circumstances. These could
include a regulatory inspection or information submitted by the
permittee which reveals the need for modification. Any interested
person may request that a permit modification be made. There are two
classifications of modifications: Major and minor. From a procedural
standpoint, they differ primarily with respect to the public notice
requirements. Major modifications require public notice while minor
modifications do not. Virtually any modification that results in less
stringent conditions is treated as a major modifications, with
provisions for public notice and comment. Conditions that would
necessitate a major modification of a permit are described at 40 CFR
part 122.62. Minor modifications are generally non-substantive changes.
The conditions for minor modification are described at 40 CFR part
122.63.
XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866, (see 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993))
the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is
``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB review and the
requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant
regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is
therefore not subject to OMB review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
This rule merely establishes technology-based discharge limitations and
standards.
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
[[Page 25731]]
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
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed at 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, a
small entity is defined as: (1) A small business according to the
regulations of the Small Business Administration (SBA) at 13 CFR part
121.201, which define small businesses for Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) codes; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that
is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special
district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
To assess the potential economic impact of today's rule on small
entities, EPA drew on: (1) A comparison of compliance costs to revenue;
and (2) the firm and facility impact analyses discussed in section VIII
of this preamble. First, EPA performed an analysis comparing annualized
compliance costs to revenue for small entities at the firm level. EPA
found that none of the small firms are estimated to incur compliance
costs equaling or exceeding one percent of annual revenue. Second, EPA
drew on the facility impact analysis, which estimated facility closures
and other adverse changes to financial condition (referred to as
``moderate impacts''). See section VIII.D of today's rule for details
of EPA's analysis of closures and moderate impacts for privately-owned
businesses. This analysis indicated that the final rule would cause no
regulated facilities owned by small entities to close or to incur
moderate impacts. From these analyses, EPA determined that the final
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. See Chapter 10 of the final rule EEBA for a
more detailed discussion of the economic impacts on small entities.
After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In accordance with section 603 of the RFA, EPA prepared an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for the proposed rule and
convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel to obtain advice and
recommendations of representatives of the regulated small entities in
accordance with section 609(b) of the RFA (see 66 FR 519). The January
2001 proposed rule (see 66 FR 523) presents a summary of the Panel's
recommendations and the full Panel Report (see DCN 16127, section 11.2)
presents a detailed discussion of the Panel's advice and
recommendations.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
1. UMRA Requirements
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under UMRA section 202, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year.
Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is
needed, UMRA section 205 generally requires EPA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted.
EPA is required by UMRA section 203 to develop a small government
agency plan before it establishes any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal
governments. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected
small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to
have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
EPA determined that this rule does not contain a Federal mandate
that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State,
local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector
in any one year. The estimated total annualized before-tax costs of
compliance are $13.8 million ($2001). On an after-tax basis the costs
total $11.9 million ($2001), of which the private sector incurs $3.0
million ($2001) and state and local governments that perform MP&M
activities incur $9.0 million ($2001). Thus, today's rule is not
subject to the requirements of UMRA sections 202 and 205.
EPA also determined that this rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. The final regulation imposes no new administrative costs
on small governments owning POTWs because the regulations does not
establish pretreatment standards for POTWs with indirectly discharging
government-owned facilities. With respect to the 280 small government-
owned facilities, EPA determined that the costs of the final rule are
not significant for small governments. Of these facilities, 140 incur
no compliance costs under the final rule and the remaining 140 incur
annualized costs that average approximately $25,000 per facility. The
total compliance cost for all the small government-owned facilities
incurring costs under the regulation is $3.5 million. EPA concluded
that these compliance costs will have no significant budgetary impacts
for any of the governments owning these facilities. In addition, EPA
concluded that the final rule does not uniquely affect small
governments because small and large governments are affected by the
rule in the same way. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the
requirements of UMRA section 203.
Although today's final rule does not contain a Federal mandate
under UMRA, EPA did undertake an assessment of the impacts of the final
rule on State and local governments as part of its decision-making
process. The following section discusses some of the results of EPA's
review. More detail may be found in the EEBA.
2. Analysis of Impacts on Government Entities
EPA estimates that the costs to government-owned facilities to
comply
[[Page 25732]]
with today's final rule are approximately $9.0 million annually
($2001), which is below the threshold specified in Sec. 202. EPA,
nevertheless, assessed the impacts on State and local governments
during the course of development of the rule. Generally, governments
may incur two types of costs as a result of the proposed regulation:
(1) Direct costs to comply with the rule for facilities owned by
government entities; and (2) administrative costs to implement the
regulation. Both types of costs are discussed below.
a. Compliance Costs for Government-Owned MP&M Facilities
As previously explained, EPA surveyed government-owned facilities
to assess the cost of the regulation on these facilities and the
government entities that own them. The survey responses support EPA's
analysis of the budgetary impacts of the regulation. Survey information
includes: The size and income of the populations served by the affected
government entities; the government's current revenues by source,
taxable property, debt, pollution control spending, and bond rating;
and the costs, funding sources, and other characteristics of the MP&M
facilities owned by each government entity. Table XII-1 provides
national estimates of the government entities that operate MP&M
facilities potentially subject to the regulation by size.
Table XII-2 summarizes the annualized compliance costs incurred by
government entities by size.
Table XII-1.--Number of Government-Owned Facilities by Type and Size of Government Entity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional
Size of government and status under final Municipal State County government Total
option government government government authority
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large Governments (population 50,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of regulated government entities........ 26 129 23 0 178
Number of government entities with exclusions.. 592 248 758 46 1,645
------------------------------------------------
Small Governments (population <=50,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of regulated government entities........ 280 0 0 0 280
Number of government entities with exclusions.. 1,470 0 212 0 1,682
------------------------------------------------
All Governments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of regulated government entities........ 306 129 23 0 458
Number of government entities with exclusions.. 2,062 248 970 46 3,327
--------------
Total...................................... 2,368 377 993 46 3,785
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table XII-2.--Number of Regulated Government-Owned Facilities and
Compliance Costs by Size of Government
[million, 2001$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
facilities Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulated Facilities Owned by 178 $5.5
Large Governments................
Regulated Facilities Owned by 280 $3.5
Small Governments................
All Regulated Government-Owned 458 $9.0
Facilities.......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The table shows that 280 regulated facilities (or 61 percent) of
the regulated government entities are owned by small governments. These
facilities incur $3.5 million annually in compliance costs with an
average cost of $12,575 per facility. Larger governmental entities own
the remaining 178 regulated facilities (or 39 percent). EPA estimates
that facilities owned by the larger governmental entities incur $5.5
million in annual compliance costs with an average cost of $30,700 per
facility.
EPA used the analysis described in Section VIII.E to estimate the
impacts on government owned facilities. EPA judged a government to
experience significant budgetary impacts if: (1) One or more facilities
incur compliance costs exceeding 1% of the baseline cost of service,
(2) total debt service costs--post-compliance, and including costs to
finance MP&M capital costs entirely with debt--exceed 25% of baseline
revenue, and (3) total annualized pollution control costs per
household, post-compliance, exceed one percent of median household
income. EPA estimated no significant impacts for any of these
facilities, based on these budgetary criteria. Thus, EPA concluded that
none of the affected governments are expected to incur significant
budgetary impacts as a result of the regulation. However, EPA also
considered whether the MP&M regulation may significantly or uniquely
affect small governments.
b. Small Government Impacts
EPA estimates that small governments (i.e., governments with a
population of less than 50,000) own 1,962 MP&M facilities. The decision
not to regulate indirect facilities will exclude 1,682 small
government-owned MP&M facilities from additional requirements. Thus,
the final regulation covers 280 small government-owned facilities. Of
these facilities, 140 incur no compliance costs under the final rule,
and the remaining 140 incur annualized costs that average approximately
$25,000 per facility. The total compliance cost for all the small
government-owned facilities incurring costs under this regulation is
$3.5 million. Of the 280 facilities owned by small governments, 140
have costs greater than 1 percent of baseline cost of
[[Page 25733]]
service (measured as total facility costs and expenditures, including
operating, overhead and debt service costs and expenses). None of the
affected governments incur costs that cause them to exceed the
thresholds for impacts on taxpayers or for government debt burden. EPA
therefore estimated no significant budgetary impacts for any of the
governments owning these facilities. In accordance with this finding,
EPA determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
c. POTW Administrative Costs
Since all indirect dischargers are excluded from the final rule,
EPA expects the rule to impose no new POTW administrative costs.
3. Consultation
In addition to private industry, stakeholders affected by this rule
include State and local government regulators. During development of
the proposed and final rule, EPA consulted with all of these
stakeholder groups on topics such as options development, cost models,
pollutants to be regulated, cost of the regulation, and compliance
alternatives. Some stakeholders provided helpful comments on the cost
models, technology options, pollution prevention techniques, and
monitoring alternatives.
Because many MP&M facilities in the proposed rule were indirect
dischargers, the Agency involved POTWs as they would have had to
implement the rule. EPA consulted with POTWs individually and through
the Association of Municipal Sewerage Agencies (AMSA). In addition, EPA
consulted with Regional pretreatment coordinators and State and local
regulators. However, EPA is not promulgating new or revised
pretreatment standards in today's final rule. See the proposed rule
preamble (see 66 FR 519) for a summary of these consultation
activities.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (see 64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999), requires Federal agencies 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. The rule establishes effluent
limitations imposing requirements that apply to metal product and
machinery facilities, as defined by this final rule, when they
discharge wastewater. The rule applies to States and localities if they
own and operate in-scope MP&M facilities that discharge directly to
surface waters. EPA estimates that 458 facilities subject to the
regulation are owned and operated by state and local governments. EPA
estimates that these facilities will experience an impact of $0 to
$125,000, with an average impact of $20,000 per year ($2001).
In addition, the final rule will affect State governments
responsible for administering CWA permitting programs. The final 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). This rule
does not change the current status of this administrative burden
because this rule does not impose any further regulation on any
indirect dischargers. The total cost of today's final rule to state and
local governments is $9.0 million ($2001). Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to this rule.
Although Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule, EPA did
consult with State and local government representatives in developing
this rule. See 66 FR 525 for a discussion of consultation activities.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (see 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, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Based on the information collection efforts for this industry category,
EPA does not expect any Indian tribal governments to own or operate in-
scope MP&M facilities. In addition, EPA estimates few, if any, new
facilities subject to the rule will be owned by tribal governments.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health & Safety Risks
1. Executive Order 13045 Requirements
Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (see 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 affect 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 final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it
is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866.
Nevertheless, since the final rule is expected to reduce numerous
pollutants, including lead, in fish tissue and drinking water that
exceed human health criteria, EPA performed an analysis of children's
health impacts reduced by the final rule.
2. Analysis of Children's Health Impacts
EPA assessed whether the final regulation will benefit children,
including reducing health risk from exposure to MP&M pollutants from
consumption of contaminated fish tissue and drinking water and
improving recreational opportunities. The Agency was able to quantify
only one category of benefits specific to children: avoided health
damages to
[[Page 25734]]
pre-school age children from reduced exposure to lead. This analysis
considered several measures of children's health benefits associated
with lead exposure for children up to age six. Avoided neurological and
cognitive damages were expressed as changes in three metrics: (1)
Overall IQ levels; (2) the incidence of low IQ scores (<70); and (3)
the incidence of blood-lead levels above 20 [mu]g/dL. The Agency also
assessed changes in the incidence of neonatal mortality from reduced
maternal exposure to lead. EPA's methodology for assessing lead-related
benefits to children is presented in the EEBA, Chapter 14. The Ohio
case study analysis showed that the final rule is expected to yield
$422,000 (2001$) in annual benefits to children in the State of Ohio
from reduced neurological and cognitive damages and reduced incidence
of neonatal mortality. On the other hand, the national-level analysis
shows that benefits to children from reduced lead discharges are
negligible nationwide. As noted in section IX of today's final rule,
different findings from these two analyses are likely to be due to
insufficient data and a more simplistic approach used in the national
level analysis.
Children over age seven are also likely to benefit from reduced
neurological and cognitive damages from reduced exposure to lead. Giedd
et al. (1999) studied brain development among 10- to 18-year-old
children and found substantial growth in brain development, mainly in
the early teenage years (see DCN 20385, section 8.5.2.3). This research
suggests that older children may be hypersensitive to lead exposure, as
are children aged 0 to 7.
Additional benefits to children from reduced exposure to lead not
quantified in this analysis may include prevention of the following
adverse health effects: slowed or delayed growth, delinquent and anti-
social behavior, metabolic effects, impaired heme synthesis, anemia,
impaired hearing, and cancer (see DCN 20416, section 8.5.2.3).
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (see May 22, 2001; 66 FR 28355) because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. 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
OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
Today's final rule does not establish any technical standards, thus
NTTAA does not apply to this rule. It should be noted, however, that
this rulemaking requires direct dischargers to monitor for pH, TSS, and
O&G (as HEM). All of these analytes can be measured by EPA methods that
are specified in the tables at 40 CFR part 136.3.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
1. Executive Order 12898 Requirements
Executive Order 12898 requires that, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, each Federal agency must make
achieving environmental justice part of its mission. Executive Order
12898 requires that each Federal agency conduct its programs, policies,
and activities that substantially affect human health or the
environment in a manner that ensures that such programs, policies, and
activities do not exclude persons (including populations) from
participation in, deny persons (including populations) the benefits of,
or subject persons (including populations) to discrimination under,
such programs, policies, and activities because of their race, color,
or national origin.
2. Environmental Justice Analysis
EPA examined whether the final regulation will promote
environmental justice in the areas affected by MP&M discharges. EPA
analyzed the demographic characteristics of the populations residing in
the counties affected by MP&M discharges to determine whether minority
and or low-income populations are subject to disproportionally high
environmental impacts. This analysis is based on information on the
race, national origin, and income level of populations residing in
counties traversed by reaches receiving discharges from the 32 sample
MP&M facilities. EPA performed this analysis at the sample level only.
The 32 sample facilities discharge to 32 unique reaches and are located
in 46 counties in 12 States.
EPA compared demographic data from the 1990 Census for counties
traversed by sample MP&M reaches with corresponding State-level data.
The demographic characteristics that EPA analyzed include: percent
African Americans, percent Native American, Eskimo, or Aleut, percent
Asian of Pacific Islander, the percent of the population below the
poverty level, and median income. This analysis shows that the
socioeconomic characteristics of populations residing in counties
abutting MP&M discharge reaches reflect corresponding State averages.
As a result, EPA expects that environmental benefits resulting from the
MP&M rule will not accrue to populations disproportionally based on
race or national origin, and therefore will neither promote nor
discourage environmental justice.
EPA also analyzed the human health impacts of the final regulation,
including changes in cancer and systemic health risk to subsistence
anglers. EPA determined that the reductions in these health risks
resulting from the final regulation are negligible (see Chapter 17 of
the EEBA for a detailed discussion of environmental justice analyses
and alternative regulatory options).
K. 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 after June 12, 2003.
[[Page 25735]]
Appendix A To The Preamble: Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Other Terms
Used in Today's Final Rule
Act--The Clean Water Act
Agency--U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
AWQC--Ambient Water Quality Criteria
BAT--Best available technology economically achievable, as defined
by section 304(b)(2)(B) of the Act.
BCT--Best conventional pollutant control technology, as defined by
section 304(b)(4) of the Act.
BMP--Best management practices, as defined by section 304(e) of the
Act.
BPJ--Best professional judgment
BPT--Best practicable control technology currently available, as
defined by section 304(b)(1) of the Act.
CAA--Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., as amended)
CBI--Confidential Business Information
CWA--Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C 1251 et seq., as amended)
Conventional Pollutants--Constituents of wastewater as determined by
section 304(a)(4) of the Act and the regulations thereunder 40 CFR
401.16, including pollutants classified as biochemical oxygen
demand, suspended solids, oil and grease, fecal coliform, and pH.
CE--Cost-effectiveness (ratio of compliance costs (in 1981$) to the
toxic pounds of pollutants removed (in terms of pound-equivalents
(PE))
DAF--Dissolved Air Flotation
Direct Discharger--An industrial discharger that introduces
wastewater to a water of the United States with or without treatment
by the discharger.
EEBA--Economic, Environmental, and Benefits Analysis of the Final
Metal Products & Machinery Rule (EPA-821-B-03-002)
Effluent Limitation--A maximum amount, per unit of time, production,
volume or other unit, of each specific constituent of the effluent
from an existing point source that is subject to limitation.
Effluent limitations may be expressed as a mass loading or as a
concentration in milligrams of pollutant per liter discharged.
End-of-Pipe Treatment--Refers to those processes that treat a plant
waste stream for pollutant removal prior to discharge.
FTE--Full Time Equivalents (related to the number of employees)
HAP--Hazardous Air Pollutant
HEM--Hexane Extractable Material
Indirect Discharger--An industrial discharger that introduces
wastewater into a publicly owned treatment works.
MACT--Maximum Achievable Control Technology (applicable to NESHAPs)
MFJS--Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory
MGY--Million gallons per year
MP&M--Metal Products and Machinery point source category
NAICS--North American Industry Classification System
NCA--Non-Chromium Anodizers subcategory
NCEPI--EPA's National Center for Environmental Publications
NESHAP--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NODA--Notice of Data Availability (June 5, 2002; 67 FR 38752)
NRMRL--EPA's National Risk Management Research Laboratory (formerly
RREL--EPA's Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory)
Nonconventional Pollutants--Pollutants that have not been designated
as either conventional pollutants or priority pollutants
NPDES--National Pollutant Discharge Elimination system, a Federal
Program requiring industry dischargers, including municipalities, to
obtain permits to discharge pollutants to the nation's water, under
section 402 of the Act
OCPSF--Organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers
manufacturing point source category (40 CFR part 414)
OMB--Office of Management and Budget
ORP--Oxidation-Reduction Potential
OWS--Oily Wastes subcategory
PE--Pound-equivalents (the units used to weight toxic pollutants)
POTW--Publicly owned treatment works
Priority Pollutants--The 126 pollutants listed at 40 CFR part 423,
appendix A
PPA--Pollutant Prevention Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq.,
Public Law 101-508, November 5, 1990)
PSES--Pretreatment Standards for existing sources of indirect
discharges, under section 307(b) of the Act
PSNS--Pretreatment standards for new sources of indirect discharges,
under sections 307(b) and (c) of the Act
PWB--Printed Wiring Board subcategory
RRLM--Railroad Line Maintenance subcategory
SBA--U.S. Small Business Administration
SIC--Standards Industrial Classification, a numerical categorization
scheme used by the U.S. Department of Commerce to denote segments of
industry
SFF--Steel Forming & Finishing subcategory
SGT--HEM--Silica Gel Treated--Hexane Extractable Material refers to
the freon-free oil and grease method (EPA Method 1664) used to
measure the portion of oil and grease that is similar to total
petroleum hydrocarbons
SDD--Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategory
SIU--Significant Industrial User as defined in the General
Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR part 403)
TDD--Development Document for the Final Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Metal Products & Machinery Point
Source Category (EPA-821-B-03-001)
TOC--Total Organic Carbon (EPA Method 415.1)
TOP--Total Organics Parameter
TRI--Toxic Release Inventory
TTO--Total Toxic Organics
TWF--Toxic Weighting Factor
VOC--Volatile Organic Compound
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 438
Environmental protection; Metal products and machinery; Waste
treatment and disposal; Water pollution control.
Dated: February 14, 2003.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
0
For the reasons set forth in this preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
0
1. A new part 438 is added to read as follows:
PART 438--METAL PRODUCTS AND MACHINERY POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
Sec.
438.1 General applicability.
438.2 General definitions.
Subpart A--Oily Wastes
438.10 Applicability.
438.12 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
438.13 Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best
control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
438.15 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Appendix A to part 438--Typical Products in Metal Products & Machinery
Sectors
Appendix B to part 438--Oily Operations Definitions
Appendix C to part 438--Metal-Bearing Operations Definitions
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342 and
1361.
Sec. 438.1 General applicability.
(a) As defined more specifically in subpart A, except as provided
in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section, this part applies to
process wastewater discharges from oily operations (as defined at Sec.
438.2(f) and appendix B of this part) to surface waters from existing
or new industrial facilities (including facilities owned and operated
by Federal, State, or local governments) engaged in manufacturing,
rebuilding, or maintenance of metal parts, products, or machines for
use in the Metal Product & Machinery (MP&M) industrial sectors listed
in this section. The MP&M industrial sectors consist of the following:
Aerospace;
Aircraft;
Bus and Truck;
Electronic Equipment;
Hardware;
Household Equipment;
Instruments;
Miscellaneous Metal Products;
Mobile Industrial Equipment;
Motor Vehicle;
Office Machine;
[[Page 25736]]
Ordnance;
Precious Metals and Jewelry;
Railroad;
Ships and Boats; or
Stationary Industrial Equipment.
(b) The regulations in this part do not apply to process
wastewaters from metal-bearing operations (as defined at Sec. 438.2(d)
and appendix C of this part) or process wastewaters which are subject
to the limitations and standards of other effluent limitations
guidelines (e.g., Metal Finishing (40 CFR part 433) or Iron and Steel
Manufacturing (40 CFR part 420)). The regulations in this part also do
not apply to process wastewaters from oily operations (as defined at
Sec. 438.2(f) and appendix B of this part) commingled with process
wastewaters already covered by other effluent limitations guidelines or
with process wastewaters from metal-bearing operations. This provision
must be examined for each point source discharge at a given facility.
(c) Wastewater discharges resulting from the washing of cars,
aircraft or other vehicles, when performed only for aesthetic or
cosmetic purposes, are not subject to this part. Direct discharges
resulting from the washing of cars, aircraft or other vehicles, when
performed as a preparatory step prior to one or more successive
manufacturing, rebuilding, or maintenance operations, are subject to
this part.
(d) Wastewater discharges from railroad line maintenance facilities
(as defined at Sec. 438.2(h)) are not subject to this part. Wastewater
discharges from railroad overhaul or heavy maintenance facilities (as
defined at Sec. 438.2(i)) may be covered by subpart A of this part,
the Metal Finishing Point Source Category (40 CFR part 433), or by
other effluent limitations guidelines, as applicable.
(e) The following wastewater discharges are not subject to this
part:
(1) Non-process wastewater as defined at Sec. 438.2(e).
(2) Wastewater discharges introduced into a Publicly Owned
Treatment Works (POTW) or a Federally owned and operated Treatment
Works Treating Domestic Sewage (TWTDS), as defined at 40 CFR 122.2.
(3) Process wastewater generated by maintenance and repair
activities at gasoline service stations, passenger car rental
facilities, or utility trailer and recreational vehicle rental
facilities.
(4) Wastewater discharges generated from gravure cylinder
preparation or metallic platemaking conducted within or for printing
and publishing facilities.
(5) Wastewater discharges in or on dry docks and similar
structures, such as graving docks, building ways, marine railways, lift
barges at shipbuilding facilities (or shipyards), and ships that are
afloat.
(6) Wastewater generated by facilities primarily performing drum
reconditioning and cleaning to prepare metal drums for resale, reuse,
or disposal.
Sec. 438.2 General definitions.
As used in this part:
(a) The general definitions and abbreviations at 40 CFR part 401
shall apply.
(b) The regulated parameters are listed with approved methods of
analysis in Table 1B at 40 CFR 136.3, and are defined as follows:
(1) O&G (as HEM) means total recoverable oil and grease measured as
n-hexane extractable material.
(2) TSS means total suspended solids.
(c) Corrosion preventive coating means the application of removable
oily or organic solutions to protect metal surfaces against corrosive
environments. Corrosion preventive coatings include, but are not
limited to: petrolatum compounds, oils, hard dry-film compounds,
solvent-cutback petroleum-based compounds, emulsions, water-displacing
polar compounds, and fingerprint removers and neutralizers. Corrosion
preventive coating does not include electroplating, or chemical
conversion coating operations.
(d) Metal-bearing operations means one or more of the following:
abrasive jet machining; acid pickling neutralization; acid treatment
with chromium; acid treatment without chromium; alcohol cleaning;
alkaline cleaning neutralization; alkaline treatment with cyanide;
anodizing with chromium; anodizing without chromium; carbon black
deposition; catalyst acid pre-dip; chemical conversion coating without
chromium; chemical milling (or chemical machining); chromate conversion
coating (or chromating); chromium drag-out destruction; cyanide drag-
out destruction; cyaniding rinse; electrochemical machining;
electroless catalyst solution; electroless plating; electrolytic
cleaning; electroplating with chromium; electroplating with cyanide;
electroplating without chromium or cyanide; electropolishing;
galvanizing/hot dip coating; hot dip coating; kerfing; laminating;
mechanical and vapor plating; metallic fiber cloth manufacturing; metal
spraying (including water curtain); painting-immersion (including
electrophoretic, ``E-coat''); photo imaging; photo image developing;
photoresist application; photoresist strip; phosphor deposition;
physical vapor deposition; plasma arc machining; plastic wire
extrusion; salt bath descaling; shot tower--lead shot manufacturing;
soldering; solder flux cleaning; solder fusing; solder masking;
sputtering; stripping (paint); stripping (metallic coating); thermal
infusion; ultrasonic machining; vacuum impregnation; vacuum plating;
water shedder; wet air pollution control; wire galvanizing flux; and
numerous sub-operations within those listed in this paragraph. In
addition, process wastewater also results from associated rinses that
remove materials that the preceding processes deposit on the surface of
the workpiece. These metal-bearing operations are defined in appendix C
of this part.
(e) Non-process wastewater means sanitary wastewater, non-contact
cooling water, water from laundering, and non-contact storm water. Non-
process wastewater for this part also includes wastewater discharges
from non-industrial sources such as residential housing, schools,
churches, recreational parks, shopping centers as well as wastewater
discharges from gas stations, utility plants, and hospitals.
(f) Oily operations means one or more of the following: abrasive
blasting; adhesive bonding; alkaline cleaning for oil removal; alkaline
treatment without cyanide; aqueous degreasing; assembly/disassembly;
burnishing; calibration; corrosion preventive coating (as defined in
paragraph (c) of this section); electrical discharge machining; floor
cleaning (in process area); grinding; heat treating; impact
deformation; iron phosphate conversion coating; machining; painting-
spray or brush (including water curtains); polishing; pressure
deformation; solvent degreasing; steam cleaning; testing (e.g.,
hydrostatic, dye penetrant, ultrasonic, magnetic flux); thermal
cutting; tumbling/barrel finishing/mass finishing/vibratory finishing;
washing (finished products); welding; wet air pollution control for
organic constituents; and numerous sub-operations within those listed
in this paragraph. In addition, process wastewater also results from
associated rinses that remove materials that the preceding processes
deposit on the surface of the workpiece. These oily operations are
defined in appendix B of this part.
(g) Process wastewater means wastewater as defined at 40 CFR parts
122 and 401, and includes wastewater from air pollution control
devices.
(h) Railroad line maintenance facilities means facilities specified
at Sec. 438.1 that only perform routine cleaning and light maintenance
on railroad engines, cars, car-wheel trucks,
[[Page 25737]]
or similar parts or machines, and discharge wastewater exclusively from
oily operations (as defined in paragraph (f) of this section and
appendix B of this part). These facilities only perform one or more of
the following operations: assembly/disassembly, floor cleaning,
maintenance machining (wheel truing), touch-up painting, and washing.
(i) Railroad overhaul or heavy maintenance facilities means
facilities engaged in the manufacture, overhaul, or heavy maintenance
of railroad engines, cars, car-wheel trucks, or similar parts or
machines. These facilities typically perform one or more of the
operations in paragraph (h) of this section and one or more of the
following operations: abrasive blasting, alkaline cleaning, aqueous
degreasing, corrosion preventive coating, electrical discharge
machining, grinding, heat treating, impact deformation, painting,
plasma arc machining, polishing, pressure deformation, soldering/
brazing, stripping (paint), testing, thermal cutting, and welding.
Subpart A--Oily Wastes
Sec. 438.10 Applicability.
(a) This subpart applies to process wastewater directly discharged
from facilities specified at Sec. 438.1.
(b) This subpart applies to process wastewater discharges from oily
operations (as defined at Sec. 438.2(f) and appendix B of this part).
(c) This subpart does not apply to process wastewater discharges
from metal-bearing operations (as defined at Sec. 438.2(d) and
appendix C of this part).
Sec. 438.12 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
Except as provided at 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the application of BPT. Discharges
must remain within the pH range 6 to 9 and must not exceed the
following:
Effluent Limitations
[BPT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter daily \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. TSS....................................................... 62
2. O&G (as HEM).............................................. 46
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
Sec. 438.13 Effluent limitations attainable by application of the
best control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
Except as provided at 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitation representing the application of BCT: Limitations
for TSS, O&G (as HEM) and pH are the same as the corresponding
limitation specified at Sec. 438.12.
Sec. 438.15 New source performance standards (NSPS).
New point sources subject to this subpart must achieve the new
source performance standards (NSPS) for TSS, O&G (as HEM), and pH,
which are the same as the corresponding limitation specified at Sec.
438.12. The performance standards apply with respect to each new point
source that commences discharge after June 12, 2003.
Appendix A to Part 438--Typical Products in Metal Products and
Machinery Sectors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AEROSPACE AIRCRAFT BUS & TRUCK
Guided Missiles & Space Vehicle Aircraft Engines & Engine Parts Bus Terminal & Service Facilities
Guided Missile & Space Vehicle Prop Aircraft Frames Manufacturing Courier Services, Except by Air
Other Space Vehicle & Missile Parts Aircraft Parts & Equipment Freight Truck Terminals, W/ or W/O
Airports, Flying Fields, & Services Maintenance.
Intercity & Rural Highways
(Buslines)
Local & Suburban Transit (Bus &
subway)
Local Passenger. Trans. (Lim., Amb.,
Sight See)
Local Trucking With Storage
Local Trucking Without Storage
Motor Vehicle Parts & Accessories
School Buses
Trucking
Truck & Bus Bodies
Truck Trailers
[[Page 25738]]
ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT HARDWARE HOUSEHOLD EQUIPMENT
Communications Equipment Architectural & Ornamental Metal Commercial, Ind. & Inst. Elec.
Connectors for Electronic Work Lighting Fixtures
Applications Bolts, Nuts, Screws, Rivets & Current-Carrying Wiring Devices
Electric Lamps Washers Electirc Housewares & Fans
Electron Tubes Crowns & Closures Electric Lamps
Electronic Capacitors Cutlery Farm Freezers
Electronic Coils & Transformers Fabricated Metal Products Household Appliances
Electronic Components Fabricated Pipe & Fabricated Pipe Household Cooking Equipment
Radio & TV Communications Equipment Fittings Household Refrig. & Home & Farm
Telephone & Telegraph Apparatus Fabricated Plate Work (Boiler Shops) Freezers
Fabricated Structural Metal Household Laundry Equipment
Fasteners, Buttons, Needles & Pins Household Vacuum Cleaners
Fluid Power Values & Hose Fittings Lighting Equipment
Hand & Edge Tools Noncurrent-Carrying Wiring Devices
Hand Saws & Saw Blades Radio & Television Repair Shops
Hardware Radio & Television Sets Except
Heating Equipment, Except Electric Commn. Types
Industrial Furnaces & Ovens Refrig. & Air Cond. Serv. & Repair
Iron & Steel Forgings Shops
Machine Tool Accessories & Measuring Residential Electrical Lighting
Devices Fixtures
Machine Tools, Metal Cutting Types
Machine Tools, Metal Forming Types
Metal Shipping Barrels, Drums, Kegs,
Pails
Metal Stampings
Power Driven Hand Tools
Prefabricated Metal Buildings &
Components
Screw Machine Products
Sheet Metal Work
Special Dies & Tools, Die Sets,
Jigs, Etc.
Steel Springs
Valves & Pipe Fittings
Wire Springs
INSTRUMENTS MOBILE INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT MOTOR VEHICLE
Analytical Instruments Construction Machinery & Equipment Auto Exhaust System Repair Shops
Automatic Environmental Controls Farm Machinery & Equipment Automobile Dealers (new & used)
Coating, Engraving, & Allied Garden Tractors & Lawn & Garden Auto. Dealers (Dunebuggy, Go-cart,
Services Equipment Snowmobile)
Dental Equipment & Supplies Hoist, Industrial Cranes & Monorails Automobile Service (includes Diag. &
Ophthalmic Goods Industrial Trucks, Tractors, Insp. Cntrs.)
Fluid Meters & Counting Devices Trailers, Tanks & Tank Components Automotive Equipment
Instruments to Measure Electricity Mining machinery & equipment, except Automotive Glass Replacement Shops
Laboratory Apparatus & Furniture oil field Automotive Repairs Shops
Manufacturing Industries Automotive Stampings
Measuring & Controlling Devices Automotive Transmission Repair Shops
Optical Instruments & Lenses Carburetors, Pistons Rings, Values
Orthopedic, Prosthetic, & Surgical Electrical Equipment for Motor
Supplies General Automotive Repair Shops
Pens, Mechanical Pencils, & Parts Mobile Homes
Process Control Instruments Motor Vehicle & Automotive Bodies
Search & Navigation Equipment Motor Vehicle Parts & Accessories
Surgical & Medical Instruments & Motorcycle Dealers
Apparatus Motorcycles
Watches, Clocks, Associated Devices Passenger Car Leasing
& Parts Recreational & Utility Trailer
Dealers
Taxicabs
Top & Body Repair & Paint Shops
Travel Trailers & Campers
Vehicles
Vehicular Lighting Equipment
Welding Shops (includes Automotive)
INSTRUMENTS OFFICE MACHINE ORDNANCE PRECIOUS METALS & JEWELRY
Calculating & Accounting Equipment Ammunition Costume Jewelry
Computer Maintenance & Repair Ordnance & Accessories Jewelers' Materials & Lapidary Work
Computer Peripheral Equipment Small Arms Jewelry, Precious Metal
Computer Related Services Small Arms Ammunition Musical Instruments
Computer Rental & Leasing Silverware, Plated Ware, & Stainless
Computer Storage Devices
Computer Terminals
Electrical & Electronic Repair
Electronic Computers
Office Machines
Photographic Equipment & Supplies
[[Page 25739]]
RAILROAD SHIPS & BOATS STATIONARY INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
Line-Haul Railroads Boat Building & Repairing Air & Gas Compressors
Railcars, Railway Systems Deep Sea Domestic Transportation of Automatic Vending Machines
Switching & Terminal Stations Freight Ball & Roller Bearings
Deep Sea Passenger Transportation, Blowers & Exhaust & Ventilation Fans
Except by Ferry Commercial Laundry Equipment
Freight Transportation on the Great Conveyors & Conveying Equipment
Lakes Marinas Electric Industrial Apparatus
Ship Building & Repairing Elevators & Moving Stairways
Towing & Tugboat Service Equipment Rental & Leasing
Water Passenger Transportation Food Product Machinery
Ferries Fluid Power Cylinders & Actuators
Water Transportation of Freight Fluid Power Pumps & Motors
Water Transportation Services General Industrial Machinery
Heavy Construction Equipment Rental
Industrial Machinery
Industrial Patterns
Industrial Process Furnaces & Ovens
Internal Combustion Engines
Measuring & Dispensing Pumps
Mechanical Power Transmission
Equipment
Metal Working Machinery
Motors & Generators
Oil Field Machinery & Equipment
Packaging Machinery
Paper Industries Machinery
Printing Trades Machinery &
Equipment
Pumps & Pumping Equipment
Refrigeration & Air & Heating
Equipment
Relays & Industrial Controls
Rolling Mill Machinery & Equipment
Scales & Balances, Except Laboratory
Service Industry Machines
Special Industry Machinery
Speed Changers, High Speed Drivers &
Gears
Steam, Gas, Hydraulic Turbines,
Generator Units
Switchgear & Switchboard Apparatus
Textile Machinery
Transformers
Welding Apparatus
Woodworking Machinery
MISCELLANEOUS METAL PRODUCTS
Miscellaneous Fabricated Wire
Products
Miscellaneous Metal Work
Miscellaneous Repair Shops & Related
Services
Miscellaneous Transportation
Equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix B to Part 438--Oily Operations Definitions
Note: The definitions in this appendix shall not be used to
differentiate between the six ``core'' metal finishing operations
(i.e., Electroplating, Electroless Plating, Anodizing, Coating
(chromating, phosphating, and coloring), Chemical Etching and
Milling, and Printed Circuit Board Manufacture) and forty
``ancillary'' process operations listed at 40 CFR 433.10(a).
Abrasive Blasting involves removing surface film from a part by
using abrasive directed at high velocity against the part. Abrasive
blasting includes bead, grit, shot, and sand blasting, and may be
performed either dry or with water. The primary applications of wet
abrasive blasting include: Removing burrs on precision parts;
producing satin or matte finishes; removing fine tool marks; and
removing light mill scale, surface oxide, or welding scale. Wet
blasting can be used to finish fragile items such as electronic
components. Also, some aluminum parts are wet blasted to achieve a
fine-grained matte finish for decorative purposes. In abrasive
blasting, the water and abrasive typically are reused until the
particle size diminishes due to impacting and fracture.
Adhesive Bonding involves joining parts using an adhesive
material. Typically, an organic bonding compound is used as the
adhesive. This operation usually is dry; however, aqueous solutions
may be used as bonding agents or to contain residual organic bonding
materials.
Alkaline Cleaning for Oil Removal is a general term for the
application of an alkaline cleaning agent to a metal part to remove
oil and grease during the manufacture, maintenance, or rebuilding of
a metal product. This unit operation does not include washing of the
finished products after routine use (as defined in ``Washing
(Finished Products)'' in this appendix), or applying an alkaline
cleaning agent to remove nonoily contaminants such as dirt and scale
(as defined in ``Alkaline Treatment Without Cyanide'' in this
appendix and ``Alkaline Treatment With Cyanide'' in appendix C of
this part). Wastewater generated includes spent cleaning solutions
and rinse waters.
(1) Alkaline cleaning is performed to remove foreign
contaminants from parts. This operation usually is done prior to
finishing (e.g., electroplating).
(2) Emulsion cleaning is an alkaline cleaning operation that
uses either complex chemical enzymes or common organic solvents
(e.g., kerosene, mineral oil, glycols, and benzene) dispersed in
water with the aid of an emulsifying agent. The pH of the solvent
usually is between 7 and 9, and, depending on the solvent used,
cleaning is performed at temperatures from room temperature to 82
[deg]C (180 [deg]F). This operation often is used as a replacement
for vapor degreasing.
[[Page 25740]]
Alkaline Treatment Without Cyanide is a general term used to
describe the application of an alkaline solution not containing
cyanide to a metal surface to clean the metal surface or prepare the
metal surface for further surface finishing.
Aqueous Degreasing involves cleaning metal parts using aqueous-
based cleaning chemicals primarily to remove residual oils and
greases from the part. Residual oils can be from previous operations
(e.g., machine coolants), oil from product use in a dirty
environment, or oil coatings used to inhibit corrosion. Wastewater
generated by this operation includes spent cleaning solutions and
rinse waters.
Assembly/Disassembly involves fitting together previously
manufactured or rebuilt parts or components into a complete metal
product or machine or taking a complete metal product or machine
apart. Assembly/disassembly operations are typically dry; however,
special circumstances can require water for cooling or buoyancy.
Also, rinsing may be necessary under some conditions.
Burnishing involves finish sizing or smooth finishing a part
(previously machined or ground) by displacing, rather than removing,
minute surface irregularities with smooth point or line-contact,
fixed or rotating tools. Lubricants or soap solutions can be used to
cool the tools used in burnishing operations. Wastewater generated
during burnishing include process solutions and rinse water.
Calibration is performed to provide reference points for the use
of a product. This unit operation typically is dry, although water
may be used in some cases (e.g., pumping water for calibration of a
pump). Water used in this unit operation usually does not contain
additives.
Corrosion Preventive Coating involves applying removable oily or
organic solutions to protect metal surfaces against corrosive
environments. Corrosion preventive coatings include, but are not
limited to: Petrolatum compounds, oils, hard dry-film compounds,
solvent-cutback petroleum-based compounds, emulsions, water-
displacing polar compounds, and fingerprint removers and
neutralizers. Corrosion preventive coating does not include
electroplating, or chemical conversion coating operations. Many
corrosion preventive materials also are formulated to function as
lubricants or as a base for paint. Typical applications include:
Assembled machinery or equipment in standby storage; finished parts
in stock or spare parts for replacement; tools such as drills, taps,
dies, and gauges; and mill products such as sheet, strip, rod and
bar. Wastewater generated during corrosion preventive coating
includes spent process solutions and rinses. Process solutions are
discharged when they become contaminated with impurities or are
depleted of constituents. Corrosion preventive coatings typically do
not require an associated rinse, but parts are sometimes rinsed to
remove the coating before further processing.
Electrical Discharge Machining involves removing metals by a
rapid spark discharge between different polarity electrodes, one the
part and the other the tool, separated by a small gap. The gap may
be filled with air or a dielectric fluid. This operation is used
primarily to cut tool alloys, hard nonferrous alloys, and other
hard-to-machine materials. Most electrical discharge machining
processes are operated dry; however, in some cases, the process uses
water and generates wastewater containing dielectric fluid.
Floor Cleaning (in Process Area) removes dirt, debris, and
process solution spills from process area floors. Floors can be
cleaned using wet or dry methods, such as vacuuming, mopping, dry
sweeping, and hose rinsing. Non-process area floor cleaning in
offices and other similar non-process areas is not included in this
unit operation.
Grinding involves removing stock from a part by using abrasive
grains held by a rigid or semirigid binder. Grinding shapes or
deburrs the part. The grinding tool usually is a disk (the basic
shape of grinding wheels), but can also be a cylinder, ring, cup,
stick, strip, or belt. The most commonly used abrasives are aluminum
oxide, silicon carbide, and diamond. The process may use a grinding
fluid to cool the part and remove debris or metal fines. Wastewater
generated during grinding includes spent coolants and rinses. Metal-
working fluids become spent for a number of reasons, including
increased biological activity (i.e., the fluids become rancid) or
decomposition of the coolant additives. Rinse waters typically are
assimilated into the working fluid or treated on site.
Heat Treating involves modifying the physical properties of a
part by applying controlled heating and cooling cycles. This
operation includes tempering, carburizing, cyaniding, nitriding,
annealing, aging, normalizing, austenitizing, austempering,
siliconizing, martempering, and malleablizing. Parts are heated in
furnaces or molten salt baths, and then may be cooled by quenching
in aqueous solutions (e.g., brine solutions), neat oils (pure oils
with little or no impurities), or oil/water emulsions. Heat treating
typically is a dry operation, but is considered a wet operation if
aqueous quenching solutions are used. Wastewater includes spent
quench water and rinse water.
Impact Deformation involves applying impact force to a part to
permanently deform or shape it. Impact deformation may include
mechanical processes such as hammer forging, shot peening, peening,
coining, high-energy-rate forming, heading, or stamping. Natural and
synthetic oils, light greases, and pigmented lubricants are used in
impact deformation operations. Pigmented lubricants include whiting,
lithapone, mica, zinc oxide, molybdenum disulfide, bentonite, flour,
graphite, white lead, and soap-like materials. These operations
typically are dry, but wastewater can be generated from lubricant
discharge and from rinsing operations associated with the operation.
Iron Phosphate Conversion Coating is the process of applying a
protective coating on the surface of a metal using a bath consisting
of a phosphoric acid solution containing no metals (e.g., manganese,
nickel, or zinc) or a phosphate salt solution (i.e., sodium or
potassium salts of phosphoric acid solutions) containing no metals
(e.g., manganese, nickel, or zinc) other than sodium or potassium.
Any metal concentrations in the bath are from the substrate.
Machining involves removing stock from a part (as chips) by
forcing a cutting tool against the part. This includes machining
processes such as turning, milling, drilling, boring, tapping,
planing, broaching, sawing, shaving, shearing, threading, reaming,
shaping, slotting, hobbing, and chamfering. Machining processes use
various types of metal-working fluids, the choice of which depends
on the type of machining being performed and the preference of the
machine shop. The fluids can be categorized into four groups:
Straight oil (neat oils), synthetic, semisynthetic, and water-
soluble oil. Machining operations generate wastewater from working
fluid or rinse water discharge. Metal-working fluids periodically
are discarded because of reduced performance or development of a
rancid odor. After machining, parts are sometimes rinsed to remove
coolant and metal chips. The coolant reservoir is sometimes rinsed,
and the rinse water is added to the working fluid.
Painting-Spray or Brush (Including Water Curtains) involves
applying an organic coating to a part. Coatings such as paint,
varnish, lacquer, shellac, and plastics are applied by spraying,
brushing, roll coating, lithographing, powder coating, and wiping.
Water is used in painting operations as a solvent (water-borne
formulations) for rinsing, for cleanup, and for water-wash (or
curtain) type spray booths. Paint spray booths typically use most of
the water in this unit operation. Spray booths capture overspray
(i.e., paint that misses the product during application), and
control the introduction of pollutants into the workplace and
environment.
Polishing involves removing stock from a part using loose or
loosely held abrasive grains carried to the part by a flexible
support. Usually, the objective is to achieve a desired surface
finish or appearance rather then to remove a specified amount of
stock. Buffing is included in this unit operation, and usually is
performed using a revolving cloth or sisal buffing wheel, which is
coated with a suitable compound. Liquid buffing compounds are used
extensively for large-volume production on semiautomated or
automated buffing equipment. Polishing operations typically are dry,
although liquid compounds and associated rinses are used in some
polishing processes.
Pressure Deformation involves applying force (other than impact
force) to permanently deform or shape a part. Pressure deformation
may include rolling, drawing, bending, embossing, sizing, extruding,
squeezing, spinning, necking, forming, crimping or flaring. These
operations use natural and synthetic oils, light greases, and
pigmented lubricants. Pigmented lubricants include whiting,
lithapone, mica, zinc oxide, molybdenum disulfide, bentonite, flour,
graphite, white lead, and soap-like materials. Pressure deformation
typically is dry, but wastewater is sometimes generated from the
discharge of lubricants or from rinsing associated with the process.
Solvent Degreasing removes oils and grease from the surface of a
part using organic solvents, including aliphatic petroleum (e.g.,
kerosene, naphtha), aromatics (e.g., benzene, toluene), oxygenated
hydrocarbons (e.g.,
[[Page 25741]]
ketones, alcohol, ether), and halogenated hydrocarbons (e.g., 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, methylene chloride). Solvent
cleaning takes place in either the liquid or vapor phase. Solvent
vapor degreasing normally is quicker than solvent liquid degreasing.
However, ultrasonic vibration is sometimes used with liquid solvents
to decrease the required immersion time of complex shapes. Solvent
cleaning often is used as a precleaning operation prior to alkaline
cleaning, as a final cleaning of precision parts, or as surface
preparation for some painting operations. Solvent degreasing
operations typically are not followed by rinsing, although rinsing
is performed in some cases.
Steam Cleaning removes residual dirt, oil, and grease from parts
after processing though other unit operations. Typically, additives
are not used in this operation; the hot steam removes the
pollutants. Wastewater is generated when the cleaned parts are
rinsed.
Testing (e.g., hydrostatic, dye penetrant, ultrasonic, magnetic
flux) involves applying thermal, electrical, mechanical, hydraulic,
or other energy to determine the suitability or functionality of a
part, assembly, or complete unit. Testing also may include applying
surface penetrant dyes to detect surface imperfections. Other
examples of tests frequently performed include electrical testing,
performance testing, and ultrasonic testing; these tests typically
are dry but may generate wastewater under certain circumstances.
Testing usually is performed to replicate some aspect of the working
environment. Wastewater generated during testing includes spent
process solutions and rinses.
Thermal Cutting involves cutting, slotting, or piercing a part
using an oxy-acetylene oxygen lance, electric arc cutting tool, or
laser. Thermal cutting typically is a dry process, except for the
use of contact cooling waters and rinses.
Tumbling/Barrel Finishing/Mass Finishing/Vibratory Finishing
involves polishing or deburring a part using a rotating or vibrating
container and abrasive media or other polishing materials to achieve
a desired surface appearance. Parts to be finished are placed in a
rotating barrel or vibrating unit with an abrasive media (e.g.,
ceramic chips, pebbles), water, and chemical additives (e.g.,
alkaline detergents). As the barrel rotates, the upper layer of the
part slides toward the lower side of the barrel, causing the
abrading or polishing. Similar results can be achieved in a
vibrating unit, where the entire contents of the container are in
constant motion, or in a centrifugal unit, which compacts the load
of media and parts as the unit spins and generates up to 50 times
the force of gravity. Spindle finishing is a similar process, where
parts to be finished are mounted on fixtures and exposed to a
rapidly moving abrasive slurry. Wastewater generated during barrel
finishing includes spent process solutions and rinses. Following the
finishing process, the contents of the barrel are unloaded. Process
wastewater is either discharged continuously during the process,
discharged after finishing, or collected and reused. The parts are
sometimes given a final rinse to remove particles of abrasive media.
Washing (Finished Products) involves cleaning finished metal
products after use or storage using fresh water or water containing
a mild cleaning solution. This unit operation applies only to the
finished products that do not require maintenance or rebuilding.
Welding involves joining two or more pieces of material by
applying heat, pressure, or both, with or without filler material,
to produce a metallurgical bond through fusion or recrystallization
across the interface. This includes gas welding, resistance welding,
arc welding, cold welding, electron beam welding, and laser beam
welding. Welding typically is a dry process, except for the
occasional use of contact cooling waters or rinses.
Wet Air Pollution Control for Organic Constituents involves
using water to remove organic constituents that are entrained in air
streams exhausted from process tanks or production areas. Most
frequently, wet air pollution control devices are used with cleaning
and coating processes. A common type of wet air pollution control is
the wet packed scrubber consisting of a spray chamber that is filled
with packing material. Water is continuously sprayed onto the
packing and the air stream is pulled through the packing by a fan.
Pollutants in the air stream are absorbed by the water droplets and
the air is released to the atmosphere. A single scrubber often
serves numerous process tanks.
Appendix C to Part 438--Metal-Bearing Operations Definitions
Note: The definitions in this appendix shall not be used to
differentiate between the six ``core'' metal finishing operations
(i.e., Electroplating, Electroless Plating, Anodizing, Coating
(chromating, phosphating, and coloring), Chemical Etching and
Milling, and Printed Circuit Board Manufacture) and forty
``ancillary'' process operations listed at 40 CFR 433.10(a).
Abrasive Jet Machining includes removing stock material from a
part by a high-speed stream of abrasive particles carried by a
liquid or gas from a nozzle. Abrasive jet machining is used for
deburring, drilling, and cutting thin sections of metal or composite
material. Unlike abrasive blasting, this process operates at
pressures of thousands of pounds per square inch. The liquid streams
typically are alkaline or emulsified oil solutions, although water
also can be used.
Acid Pickling Neutralization involves using a dilute alkaline
solution to raise the pH of acid pickling rinse water that remains
on the part after pickling. The wastewater from this operation is
the acid pickling neutralization rinse water.
Acid Treatment With Chromium is a general term used to describe
any application of an acid solution containing chromium to a metal
surface. Acid cleaning, chemical etching, and pickling are types of
acid treatment. Chromic acid is used occasionally to clean cast
iron, stainless steel, cadmium and aluminum, and bright dipping of
copper and copper alloys. Also, chromic acid solutions can be used
for the final step in acid cleaning phosphate conversion coating
systems. Chemical conversion coatings formulated with chromic acid
are defined at ``Chromate Conversion Coating (or Chromating)'' in
this appendix. Wastewater generated during acid treatment includes
spent solutions and rinse waters. Spent solutions typically are
batch discharged and treated or disposed of off site. Most acid
treatment operations are followed by a water rinse to remove
residual acid.
Acid Treatment Without Chromium is a general term used to
describe any application of an acid solution not containing chromium
to a metal surface. Acid cleaning, chemical etching, and pickling
are types of acid treatment. Wastewater generated during acid
treatment includes spent solutions and rinse waters. Spent solutions
typically are batch discharged and treated or disposed of off site.
Most acid treatment operations are followed by a water rinse to
remove residual acid.
Alcohol Cleaning involves removing dirt and residue material
from a part using alcohol.
Alkaline Cleaning Neutralization involves using a dilute acid
solution to lower the pH of alkaline cleaning rinse water that
remains on the part after alkaline cleaning. Wastewater from this
operation is the alkaline cleaning neutralization rinse water.
Alkaline Treatment With Cyanide is the cleaning of a metal
surface with an alkaline solution containing cyanide. Wastewater
generated during alkaline treatment includes spent solutions and
rinse waters. Alkaline treatment solutions become contaminated from
the introduction of soils and dissolution of the base metal. They
usually are treated and disposed of on a batch basis. Alkaline
treatment typically is followed by a water rinse that is discharged
to a treatment system.
Anodizing With Chromium involves producing a protective oxide
film on aluminum, magnesium, or other light metal, usually by
passing an electric current through an electrolyte bath in which the
metal is immersed. Anodizing may be followed by a sealant operation.
Chromic acid anodic coatings have a relatively thick boundary layer
and are more protective than are sulfuric acid coatings. For these
reasons, chromic acid is sometimes used when the part cannot be
rinsed completely. These oxide coatings provide corrosion
protection, decorative surfaces, a base for painting and other
coating processes, and special electrical and mechanical properties.
Wastewaters generated during anodizing include spent anodizing
solutions, sealants, and rinse waters. Because of the anodic nature
of the process, anodizing solutions become contaminated with the
base metal being processed. These solutions eventually reach an
intolerable concentration of dissolved metal and require treatment
or disposal. Rinse water following anodizing, coloring, and sealing
typically is discharged to a treatment system.
Anodizing Without Chromium involves applying a protective oxide
film to aluminum, magnesium, or other light metal, usually by
passing an electric current through an electrolyte bath in which the
metal is immersed. Phosphoric acid, sulfuric acid, and boric acid
are used in anodizing. Anodizing also may include sealant baths.
These oxide coatings provide corrosion protection, decorative
surfaces, a base for
[[Page 25742]]
painting and other coating processes, and special electrical and
mechanical properties. Wastewater generated during anodizing
includes spent anodizing solutions, sealants, and rinse waters.
Because of the anodic nature of the process, anodizing solutions
become contaminated with the base metal being processed. These
solutions eventually reach an intolerable concentration of dissolved
metal and require treatment or disposal. Rinse water following
anodizing, coloring, and sealing steps typically is discharged to a
treatment systems.
Carbon Black Deposition involves coating the inside of printed
circuit board holes by dipping the circuit board into a tank that
contains carbon black and potassium hydroxide. After excess solution
dips from the circuit boards, they are heated to allow the carbon
black to adhere to the board.
Catalyst Acid Pre-Dip uses rinse water to remove residual
solution from a part after the part is processed in an acid bath.
The wastewater generated in this unit operation is the rinse water.
Chemical Conversion Coating without Chromium is the process of
applying a protective coating on the surface of a metal without
using chromium. Such coatings are applied through phosphate
conversion (except for ``Iron Phosphate Conversion Coating,'' see
appendix B of this part), metal coloring, or passivation. Coatings
are applied to a base metal or previously deposited metal to
increase corrosion protection and lubricity, prepare the surface for
additional coatings, or formulate a special surface appearance. This
unit process includes sealant operations that use additives other
than chromium.
(1) In phosphate conversion, coatings are applied for one or
more of the following reasons: to provide a base for paints and
other organic coatings; to condition surfaces for cold forming
operations by providing a base for drawing compounds and lubricants;
to impart corrosion resistance to the metal surface; or to provide a
suitable base for corrosion-resistant oils or waxes. Phosphate
conversion coatings are formed by immersing a metal part in a dilute
solution of phosphoric acid, phosphate salts, and other reagents.
(2) Metal coloring by chemical conversion coating produces a
large group of decorative finishes. Metal coloring includes the
formation of oxide conversion coatings. In this operation, the metal
surface is converted into an oxide or similar metallic compound,
giving the part the desired color. The most common colored finishes
are used on copper, steel, zinc, and cadmium.
(3) Passivation forms a protective coating on metals,
particularly stainless steel, by immersing the part in an acid
solution. Stainless steel is passivated to dissolve embedded iron
particles and to form a thin oxide film on the surface of the metal.
Wastewater generated during chemical conversion coating includes
spent solutions and rinses (i.e., both the chemical conversion
coating solutions and post-treatment sealant solutions). These
solutions commonly are discharged to a treatment system when
contaminated with the base metal or other impurities. Rinsing
normally follows each process step, except when a sealant dries on
the part surface.
Chemical Milling (or Chemical Machining) involves removing metal
from a part by controlled chemical attack, or etching, to produce
desired shapes and dimensions. In chemical machining, a masking
agent typically is applied to cover a portion of the part's surface;
the exposed (unmasked) surface is then treated with the chemical
machining solution. Wastewater generated during chemical machining
includes spent solutions and rinses. Process solutions typically are
discharged after becoming contaminated with the base metal. Rinsing
normally follows chemical machining.
Chromate Conversion Coating (or Chromating) involves forming a
conversion coating (protective coating) on a metal by immersing or
spraying the metal with a hexavalent chromium compound solution to
produce a hexavalent or trivalent chromium compound coating. This
also is known as chromate treatment, and is most often applied to
aluminum, zinc, cadmium or magnesium surfaces. Sealant operations
using chromium also are included in this unit operation. Chromate
solutions include two types: (1) those that deposit substantial
chromate films on the substrate metal and are complete treatments
themselves, and (2) those that seal or supplement oxide, phosphate,
or other types of protective coatings. Wastewater generated during
chromate conversion coating includes spent process solutions (i.e.,
both the chromate conversion coating solutions and post-treatment
sealant solutions) and rinses. These solutions typically are
discharged to a treatment system when contaminated with the base
metal or other impurities. Also, chromium-based solutions, which are
typically formulated with hexavalent chromium, lose operating
strength when the hexavalent chromium reduces to trivalent chromium
during use. Rinsing normally follows each process step, except for
sealants that dry on the surface of the part.
Chromium Drag-out Destruction is a unit operation performed
following chromium-bearing operations to reduce hexavalent chromium
that is ``dragged out'' of the process bath. Parts are dipped in a
solution of a chromium-reducing chemical (e.g., sodium
metabisulfite) to prevent the hexavalent chromium from contaminating
subsequent process baths. This operation typically is performed in a
stagnant drag-out rinse tank that contains concentrated chromium-
bearing wastewater.
Cyanide Drag-out Destruction involves dipping part in a cyanide
oxidation solution (e.g., sodium hypochloride) to prevent cyanide
that is ``dragged out'' of a process bath from contaminating
subsequent process baths. This operation typically is performed in a
stagnant drag-out rinse tank.
Cyaniding Rinse is generated during cyaniding hardening of a
part. The part is heated in a molten salt solution containing
cyanide. Wastewater is generated when excess cyanide salt solution
is removed from the part in rinse water.
Electrochemical Machining is a process in which the part becomes
the anode and a shaped cathode is the cutting tool. By pumping
electrolyte between the electrodes and applying a current, metal is
rapidly but selectively dissolved from the part. Wastewater
generated during electrochemical machining includes spent
electrolytes and rinses.
Electroless Catalyst Solution involves adding a catalyst just
prior to an electroless plating operation to accelerate the plating
operation.
Electroless Plating involves applying a metallic coating to a
part using a chemical reduction process in the presence of a
catalysis. An electric current is not used in this operations. The
metal to be plated onto a part typically is held in solution at high
concentrations using a chelating agent. This plates all areas of the
part to a uniform thickness regardless of the configuration of the
part. Also, an electroless-plated surface is dense and virtually
nonporous. Copper and nickel electroless plating operations are the
most common. Sealant operations (i.e., other than hot water dips)
following electroless plating are considered separate unit
operations if they include any additives. Wastewater generated
during electroless plating includes spent process solutions and
rinses. The wastewater contains chelated metals, which require
separate preliminary treatment to break the metal chelates prior to
conventional chemical precipitation. Rinsing follows most
electroless plating processes to remove residual plating solution
and prevent contamination of subsequent process baths.
Electrolytic Cleaning involves removing soil, scale, or surface
oxides from a part by electrolysis. The part is one of the
electrodes and the electrolyte is usually alkaline. Electrolytic
alkaline cleaning and electrolytic acid cleaning are the two types
of electrolytic cleaning.
(1) Electrolytic alkaline cleaning produces a cleaner surface
than do nonelectrolytic methods of alkaline cleaning. This operation
uses strong agitation, gas evolution in the solution, and oxidation-
reduction reactions that occur during electrolysis. In addition,
dirt particles become electrically charged and are repelled from the
part surface.
(2) Electrolytic acid cleaning sometimes is used as a final
cleaning before electroplating. Sulfuric acid is most frequently
used as the electrolyte. As with electrolytic alkaline cleaning, the
mechanical scrubbing effect from the evolution of gas enhances the
effectiveness of the process.
Wastewater generated during electrolytic cleaning includes spent
process solutions and rinses. Electrolytic cleaning solutions become
contaminated during use due to the dissolution of the base metal and
the introduction of pollutants. The solutions typically are batch
discharged for treatment or disposal after they weaken. Rinsing
following electrolytic cleaning removes residual cleaner to prevent
contamination of subsequent process baths.
Electroplating with Chromium involves producing a chromium metal
coating on a surface by electrodeposition. Electroplating provides
corrosion protection, wear or erosion resistance, lubricity,
electrical conductivity, or decoration. In electroplating, metal
ions in acid, alkaline, or neutral solutions are reduced on the
cathodic
[[Page 25743]]
surfaces of the parts being plated. Metal salts or oxides typically
are added to replenish the solutions. Chromium trioxide often is
added as a source of chromium. In addition to water and the metal
being deposited, electroplating solutions often contain agents that
form complexes with the metal being deposited, stabilizers to
prevent hydrolysis, buffers for pH control, catalysts to assist in
deposition, chemical aids to dissolve anodes, and miscellaneous
ingredients that modify the process to attain specific properties.
Sealant operations performed after this operation are considered
separate unit operations if they include any additives (i.e., other
than hot water dips). Wastewater generated during electroplating
includes spent process solutions and rinses. Electroplating
solutions occasionally become contaminated during use due to the
base metal dissolving and the introduction of other pollutants,
diminishing the effectiveness of the electroplating solutions
diminishes. Spent concentrated solutions typically are treated to
remove pollutants and reused, processed in a wastewater treatment
system, or disposed of off site. Rinse waters, including some drag-
out rinse tank solutions, typically are treated on site.
Electroplating with Cyanide involves producing metal coatings on
a surface by electrodeposition using cyanide. Electroplating
provides corrosion protection, wear or erosion resistance,
electrical conductivity, or decoration. In electroplating, metal
ions in acid, alkaline, or neutral solutions are reduced on the
cathodic surfaces of the parts being plated. The metal ions in
solution typically are replenished by dissolving metal from anodes
contained in inert wire or metal baskets. Sealant operations
performed after this operation are considered separate unit
operations if they include any additives (i.e., any sealant
operations other than hot water dips). In addition to water and the
metal being deposited, electroplating solutions often contain agents
that form complexes with the metal being deposited, stabilizers to
prevent hydrolysis, buffers to control pH, catalysts to assist in
deposition, chemical aids to dissolve anodes, and miscellaneous
ingredients that modify the process to attain specific properties.
Cyanide, usually in the form of sodium or potassium cyanide,
frequently is used as a complexing agent for zinc, cadmium, copper,
and precious metal baths. Wastewater generated during electroplating
includes spent process solutions and rinses. Electroplating
solutions occasionally become contaminated during use due to
dissolution of the base metal and the introduction of other
pollutants, diminishing the performance of the electroplating
solutions. Spent concentrated solutions typically are treated to
remove pollutants and reused, processed in a wastewater treatment
system, or disposed of off site. Rinse waters, including some drag-
out rinse tank solutions, typically are treated on site.
Electroplating without Chromium or Cyanide involves the
production of metal coatings on a surface by electrodeposition,
without using chromium or cyanide. Commonly electroplated metals
include nickel, copper, tin/lead, gold, and zinc. Electroplating
provides corrosion protection, wear or erosion resistance,
lubricity, electrical conductivity, or decoration. In
electroplating, metal ions in acid, alkaline, or neutral solutions
are reduced on the cathodic surfaces of the parts being plated. The
metal ions in solution typically are replenished by dissolving metal
from anodes contained in inert wire or metal baskets. Sealant
operations performed after this operation are considered separate
unit operations if they include any additives (i.e., any sealant
operations other than hot water dips). In addition to water and the
metal being deposited, electroplating solutions often contain agents
that form complexes with the metal being deposited, stabilizers to
prevent hydrolysis, buffers to control pH, catalysts to assist in
deposition, chemical aids to dissolve anodes, and miscellaneous
ingredients that modify the process to attain specific properties.
Wastewater generated during electroplating without chromium or
cyanide includes spent process solutions and rinses. Electroplating
solutions occasionally become contaminated during use due to
dissolution of the base metal and the introduction of other
pollutants, diminishing the effectiveness of the electroplating
solutions. Spent concentrated solutions typically are treated for
pollutant removal and reused, processed in a wastewater treatment
system, or disposed of off site. Rinse waters, including some drag-
out rinse tank solutions, typically are treated on site.
Electropolishing involves producing a highly polished surface on
a part using reversed electrodeposition in which the anode (part)
releases some metal ions into the electrolyte to reduce surface
roughness. When current is applied, a polarized film forms on the
metal surface, through which metal ions diffuse. In this operation,
areas of surface roughness on parts serve as high-current density
areas and are dissolved at rates greater than the rates for smoother
portions of the metal surface. Metals are electropolished to improve
appearance, reflectivity, and corrosion resistance. Base metals
processed by electropolishing include aluminum, copper, zinc, low-
alloy steel, and stainless steel. Common electrolytes include sodium
hydroxide and combinations of sulfuric acid, phosphoric acid, and
chromic acid. Wastewater generated during electropolishing includes
spent process solutions and rinses. Eventually, the concentration of
dissolved metals increases to the point where the process becomes
ineffective. Typically, a portion of the bath is decanted and either
fresh chemicals are added or the entire solution is discharged to
treatment and replaced with fresh chemicals. Rinsing can involve
several steps and can include hot immersion or spray rinses.
Galvanizing/Hot Dip Coating involves using various processes to
coat an iron or steel surface with zinc. In hot dipping, a base
metal is coated by dipping it into a tank that contains a molten
metal.
Hot Dip Coating involves applying a metal coating (usually zinc)
to the surface of a part by dipping the part in a molten metal bath.
Wastewater is generated in this operation when residual metal
coating solution is removed from the part in rinse water.
Kerfing uses a tool to remove small amounts of metal from a
product surface. Water and synthetic coolants may be used to
lubricate the area between the tool and the metal, to maintain the
temperature of the cutting tool, and to remove metal fines from the
surface of the part. This operation generates oily wastewater that
contains metal fines and dust.
Laminating involves applying a material to a substrate using
heat and pressure.
Mechanical and Vapor Plating involves applying a metallic
coating to a part. For mechanical plating, the part is rotated in a
drum containing a water-based solution, glass beads, and metal
powder. In vapor plating, a metallic coating is applied by atomizing
the metal and applying an electric charge to the part, which causes
the atomized (vapor phase) metal to adhere to the part. Wastewater
generated in this operation includes spent solutions from the
process bath and rinse water. Typically, the wastewater contains
high concentrations of the applied metal.
Metallic Fiber Cloth Manufacturing involves weaving thin
metallic fibers to create a mesh cloth.
Metal Spraying (Including Water Curtain) involves applying a
metallic coating to a part by projecting molten or semimolten metal
particles onto a substrate. Coatings can be sprayed from rod or wire
stock or from powdered material. The process involves feeding the
material (e.g., wire) into a flame where it is melted. The molten
stock then is stripped from the end of the wire and atomized by a
high-velocity stream of compressed air or other gas that propels the
material onto a prepared substrate or part. Metal spraying coatings
are used in a wide range of special applications, including:
insulating layers in applications such as induction heating coils;
electromagnetic interference shielding; thermal barriers for rocket
engines; nuclear moderators; films for hot isostatic pressing; and
dimensional restoration of worn parts. Metal spraying is sometimes
performed in front of a ``water curtain'' (a circulated water stream
used to trap overspray) or a dry filter exhaust hood that captures
the overspray and fumes. With water curtain systems, water is
recirculated from a sump or tank. Wastewater is generated when the
sump or tank is discharged periodically. Metal spraying typically is
not followed by rinsing.
Painting-Immersion (Including Electrophoretic, ``E-coat'')
involves applying an organic coating to a part using processes such
autophoretic and electrophoretic painting.
(1) Autophoretic Painting involves applying an organic paint
film by electrophoresis when a part is immersed in a suitable
aqueous bath.
(2) Electrophoretic Painting is coating a part by making it
either anodic or cathodic in a bath that is generally an aqueous
emulsion of the organic coating material.
(3) Other Immersion Painting includes all other types of
immersion painting such as dip painting.
Water is used in immersion paint operations as a carrier for
paint particles and to rinse the part. Aqueous painting solutions
[[Page 25744]]
and rinses typically are treated through an ultrafiltration system.
The concentrate is returned to the painting solution, and the
permeate is reused as rinse water. Sites typically discharge a bleed
stream to treatment. The painting solution and rinses are batch
discharged periodically to treatment.
Photo Imaging is the process of exposing a photoresist-laden
printed wiring board to light to impact the circuitry design to the
board. Water is not used in this operation.
Photo Image Developing is an operation in which a water-based
solution is used to develop the exposed circuitry in a photoresist-
laden printed wiring board. Wastewater generated in this operation
includes spent process solution and rinse water.
Photoresist Application is an operation that uses heat and
pressure to apply a photoresist coating to a printed wiring board.
Water is not used in this operation.
Photoresist Strip involves removing organic photoresist material
from a printed wiring board using an acid solution.
Phosphor Deposition is the application of a phosphorescent
coating to a part. Wastewater generated in this unit operation
includes water used to keep the parts clean and wet while the
coating is applied, and rinse water used to remove excess
phosphorescent coating from the part.
Physical Vapor Deposition involves physically removing a
material from a source through evaporation or sputtering, using the
energy of the vapor particles in a vacuum or partial vacuum to
transport the removed material, and condensing the removed material
as a film onto the surface of a part or other substrate.
Plasma Arc Machining involves removing material or shaping a
part by a high-velocity jet of high-temperature, ionized gas. A gas
(nitrogen, argon, or hydrogen) is passed through an electric arc,
causing the gas to become ionized, and heated to temperatures
exceeding 16,650 [deg]C (30,000 [deg]F). The relatively narrow
plasma jet melts and displaces the material in its path. Because
plasma arc machining does not depend on a chemical reaction between
the gas and the part, and because plasma temperatures are extremely
high, the process can be used on almost any metal, including those
that are resistant to oxygen-fuel gas cutting. The method is used
mainly for profile cutting of stainless steel and aluminum alloys.
Although plasma arc machining typically is a dry process, water is
used for water injection plasma arc torches. In these cases, a
constricted swirling flow of water surrounds the cutting arc. This
operations also may be performed immersed in a water bath. In both
cases, water is used to stabilize the arc, to cool the part, and to
contain smoke and fumes.
Plastic Wire Extrusion involves applying a plastic material to a
metal wire through an extrusion process.
Salt Bath Descaling involves removing surface oxides or scale
from a part by immersing the part in a molten salt bath or hot salt
solution. Salt bath descaling solutions can contain molten salts,
caustic soda, sodium hydride, and chemical additives. Molten salt
baths are used in a salt bath-water quench-acid dip sequence to
remove oxides from stainless steel and other corrosion-resistant
alloys. In this process, the part typically is immersed in the
molten salt, quenched with water, and then dipped in acid.
Oxidizing, reducing, or electrolytic salt baths can be used
depending on the oxide to be removed. Wastewater generated during
salt bath descaling includes spent process solutions, quenches, and
rinses.
Shot Tower--Lead Shot Manufacturing involves dropping molten
lead from a platform on the top of a tower through a sieve-like
device and into a vat of cold water.
Soldering involves joining metals by inserting a thin (capillary
thickness) layer of nonferrous filler metal into the space between
them. Bonding results from the intimate contact produced by the
metallic bond formed between the substrate metal and the solder
alloy. The term soldering is used where the melting temperature of
the filler is below 425 [deg]C (800 [deg]F). Some soldering
operations use a solder flux, which is an aqueous or nonaqueous
material used to dissolve, remove, or prevent the formation of
surface oxides on the part. Except for the use of aqueous fluxes,
soldering typically is a dry operation; however, a quench or rinse
sometimes follows soldering to cool the part or remove excess flux
or other foreign material from its surface. Recent developments in
soldering technology have focused on fluxless solders and fluxes
that can be cleaned off with water.
Solder Flux Cleaning involves removing residual solder flux from
a printed circuit board using either an alkaline or alcohol cleaning
solution.
Solder Fusing involves coating a tin-lead plated circuit board
with a solder flux and then passing the board through a hot oil. The
hot oil fuses the tin-lead to the board and creates a solder-like
finish on the board.
Solder Masking involves applying a resistive coating to certain
areas of a circuit board to protect the areas during subsequent
processing.
Sputtering is a vacuum evaporation process in which portions of
a coating material are physically removed from a substrate and
deposited a thin film onto a different substrate.
Stripping (Paint) involves removing a paint (or other organic)
coating from a metal basis material. Stripping commonly is performed
as part of the manufacturing process to recover parts that have been
improperly coated or as part of maintenance and rebuilding to
restore parts to a usable condition. Organic coatings (including
paint) are stripped using thermal, mechanical, and chemical means.
Thermal methods include burn-off ovens, fluidized beds of sand, and
molten salt baths. Mechanical methods include scraping and abrasive
blasting (as defined in ``Abrasive Blasting'' in appendix B of this
part). Chemical paint strippers include alkali solutions, acid
solutions, and solvents (e.g., methylene chloride). Wastewater
generated during organic coating stripping includes process
solutions (limited mostly to chemical paint strippers and rinses).
Stripping (Metallic Coating) involves removing a metallic
coating from a metal basis material. Stripping is commonly part of
the manufacturing process to recover parts that have been improperly
coated or as part of maintenance and rebuilding to restore parts to
a usable condition. Metallic coating stripping most often uses
chemical baths, although mechanical means (e.g., grinding, abrasive
blasting) also are used. Chemical stripping frequently is performed
as an aqueous electrolytic process. Wastewater generated during
metallic coating stripping includes process solutions and rinses.
Stripping solutions become contaminated from dissolution of the base
metal. Typically, the entire solution is discharged to treatment.
Rinsing is used to remove the corrosive film remaining on the parts.
Thermal Infusion uses heat to infuse metal powder or dust onto
the surface of a part. Typically, thermal infusion is a dry
operation. In some cases, however, water may be used to remove
excess metal powder, metal dust, or molten metal.
Ultrasonic Machining involves forcing an abrasive liquid between
a vibrating tool and a part. Particles in the abrasive liquid strike
the part, removing any microscopic flakes on the part.
Vacuum Impregnation is used to reduce the porosity of the part.
A filler material (usually organic) is applied to the surface of the
part and polymerized under pressure and heat. Wastewater is
generated in this unit operation when rinse water is used to remove
residual organic coating from the part.
Vacuum Plating involves applying a thin layer of metal oxide
onto a part using molten metal in a vacuum chamber.
Water Shedder involves applying a dilute water-based chemical
compound to a part to accelerate drying. This operation typically is
used to prevent a part from streaking when excess water remains on
the part.
Wet Air Pollution Control involves using water to remove
chemicals, fumes, or dusts that are entrained in air streams
exhausted from process tanks or production areas. Most frequently,
wet air pollution control devices are used with electroplating,
cleaning, and coating processes. A common type of wet air pollution
control is the wet packed scrubber consisting of a spray chamber
that is filled with packing material. Water is continuously sprayed
onto the packing and the air stream is pulled through the packing by
a fan. Pollutants in the air stream are absorbed by the water
droplets and the air is released to the atmosphere. A single
scrubber often serves numerous process tanks; however, the air
streams typically are segregated by source into chromium, cyanide,
and acid/alkaline sources. Wet air pollution control can be divided
into several suboperations, including:
(1) Wet Air Pollution Control for Acid Alkaline Baths;
(2) Wet Air Pollution Control for Cyanide Baths;
(3) Wet Air Pollution Control for Chromium-Bearing Baths; and
(4) Wet Air Pollution Control for Fumes and Dusts.
Wire Galvanizing Flux involves using flux to remove rust and
oxide from the surface of steel wire prior to galvanizing. This
provides
[[Page 25745]]
long-term corrosion protection for the steel wire.
[FR Doc. 03-4258 Filed 5-12-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P