[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 14, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 77742-77747]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32063]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 136
[EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0192; FRL-9504-2]
Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of
Pollutants Under the Clean Water Act; Analysis and Sampling Procedures;
Notice of Data Availability
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of data availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On September 23, 2010, EPA proposed to approve a number of new
and revised test procedures (i.e., analytical methods) for measuring
pollutants under the Clean Water Act. Today's notice announces the
availability of new data on an analytical method for the measurement of
oil and grease that EPA described in the earlier notice but did not
propose to approve it for use. This notice discusses how EPA is
considering revising its proposed regulatory requirements for this
method. EPA is soliciting comment only on EPA's consideration of this
method.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 13, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
2010-0192, by one of the following methods:
http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
Email: OW-docket@epamail.epa.gov Attention Docket ID No.
OW-2010-0192.
Mail: Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Hand Delivery: EPA Water Center, EPA West Building, Room
B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID
No. OW-2010-0192. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's
normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-
0192. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
[[Page 77743]]
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket, EPA/
DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC.
The 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 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria Gomez-Taylor, Office of Science
and Technology, Office of Water (4303-T), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW; Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number: (202) 566-1005; fax number: (202) 566-1053; email address:
Gomez-taylor.maria@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
EPA Regions, as well as States, Territories and Tribes authorized
to implement the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program, issue permits with conditions designed to ensure
compliance with the technology-based and water quality-based
requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA). These permits may include
restrictions on the quantity of pollutants that may be discharged as
well as pollutant measurement and reporting requirements. If EPA has
approved a test procedure for analysis of a specific pollutant, the
NPDES permittee must use an approved test procedure (or an approved
alternate test procedure) for the specific pollutant when measuring the
required waste constituent. Similarly, if EPA has established sampling
requirements, measurements taken under an NPDES permit must comply with
these requirements. Therefore, entities with NPDES permits will
potentially be affected by the actions in this rulemaking. Categories
and entities that may potentially be affected by the requirements of
today's rule include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of potentially affected entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State, Territorial, and States, Territories, and Tribes
Indian Tribal Governments. authorized to administer the NPDES
permitting program; States, Territories,
and Tribes providing certification under
Clean Water Act section 401;
State, Territorial, and Indian Tribal
owned facilities that must conduct
monitoring to comply with NPDES permits.
Industry..................... Facilities that must conduct monitoring
to comply with NPDES permits.
Municipalities............... POTWs or other municipality owned
facilities that must conduct monitoring
to comply with NPDES permits.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. This table lists types of entities that EPA is now aware of
that could potentially be affected by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in the table could also be affected. To determine
whether your facility is affected by this action, you should carefully
examine the applicability language at 40 CFR 122.1 (NPDES purpose and
scope), 40 CFR 136.1 (NPDES permits and CWA) and 40 CFR 403.1
(Pretreatment standards purpose and applicability). If you have
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk
or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
[[Page 77744]]
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
II. Summary of New Information and Request for Comment
A. Background on Proposed Rule
On September 23, 2010, EPA proposed to add new and revised EPA
methods to its Part 136 test procedures (75 FR 58024). The regulated
community and laboratories use these approved methods for determining
compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits or other monitoring requirements under the Clean Water Act
(CWA). EPA periodically updates the list of approved methods to reflect
advances in technology and provide entities more choices of approved
compliance monitoring methods. Among other methods, in the September
2010 proposal, EPA proposed to add two oil and grease methods published
by the Standard Methods Committee that use the same solvent as the
existing Part 136 oil and grease methods. In the Notice, EPA also
described three oil and grease methods published by ASTM International
or the Standard Methods Committee that require a different extractant
and/or a different measurement (i.e., determinative) technique than the
existing Part 136 oil and grease methods. As explained in the Notice,
oil and grease is a method-defined parameter. That is, the measurements
obtained by the method are a specific artifact of the method and
defined solely by the elements (solvent, determinative technique) used
to measure the analyte. Because these three methods use a different
extractant and/or a different determinative technique, how to translate
measurements using these methods to those obtained under existing
methods for purposes of comparison was not clear. Consequently,
consistent with past practices, EPA did not propose to include these
methods in Part 136.
B. Method-Defined Analytes
A method-defined analyte includes certain parameters where the
measurement results obtained are solely dependent on the method used.
As a consequence, the results obtained are not directly comparable to
results obtained by another method (i.e., the data derived from method-
defined protocols cannot be reliably verified outside the method
itself). EPA has defined a method-defined analyte in 40 CFR 136.6(a)(5)
as ``.* * * an analyte defined solely by the method used to determine
the analyte. Such an analyte may be a physical parameter, a parameter
that is not a specific chemical, or a parameter that may be comprised
of a number of substances. Examples of such analytes include
temperature, oil and grease, total suspended solids, total phenolics,
turbidity, chemical oxygen demand, and biochemical oxygen demand.''
C. Oil and Grease
Unlike many parameters, oil and grease is not a unique chemical
entity, but is a mixture of chemical species that varies from source to
source. Common substances that may contribute to oil and grease include
petroleum based compounds such as fuels, motor oil, lubricating oil,
soaps, waxes, and hydraulic oil and vegetable based compounds such as
cooking oil and other fats. Oil and grease is defined by the method
used to measure it (i.e., a method-defined analyte). The CWA defines
oil and grease as a conventional parameter and hundreds of thousands of
NPDES permits and indirect discharging permits contain oil and grease
numerical limits. Currently, Part 136 lists three references to
analytical methods for the measurement of oil in grease in such
discharge permits. Overwhelmingly, the vast majority of discharges use
EPA Method 1664A to measure compliance with such discharge limits.
Method 1664A is a liquid/liquid extraction (LLE), gravimetric procedure
that employs normal hexane (n-hexane) as the extraction solvent. This
method also allows the use of solid-phase extraction (SPE) provided
that the results obtained by SPE are equivalent to the results obtained
by LLE.
D. Public Comments Related to Oil and Grease
In response to the September 2010 proposal, EPA received several
comments recommending that EPA approve recent methods that include new
technologies, including alternative methods for oil and grease. One
commenter stated that EPA's reasoning for not approving alternative
test methods for oil and grease is contradictory to the Agency's
``Summary'' statement that these regulations will ``provide increased
flexibility to the regulated community and laboratories in their
selection of analytical methods (test procedures) for use in Clean
Water Act programs.'' This commenter added that approving the new
technologies would be more consistent with EPA's mission and purpose to
``ensure that all Americans are protected from significant risks to
human health and the environment where they live, learn and work.''
Another commenter indicated that EPA should approve new
technologies for oil and grease because n-hexane is a dangerous
solvent. This commenter cited literature that describes n-hexane's
toxicity to humans and to the environment. Still another commenter
stated that fats, oils and greases are not exclusively ``hexane
extractable'' compounds and claimed that other technologies and methods
may be better at measuring these compounds, and may be used to better
quantify how much fat, oil or grease is toxic to aquatic life or
interferes with wastewater treatment. This commenter also stated that
EPA should not specifically and uniquely endorse a solvent-specific
method for ``oil and grease'' and requested that EPA reverse its
decision that only n-hexane extractable oil and grease methods are
acceptable.
III. ASTM Method D7575-10 for Oil and Grease
Some of the comments focused exclusively on one particular oil and
grease method EPA discussed in its proposal, ASTM D7575-10. Unlike EPA
Method 1664A which uses n-hexane as the extractant and gravimetry for
the measurement of the extracted materials, ASTM D7575-10 uses an
extracting membrane followed by infrared measurement of the sample
materials that can be retained on the membrane. This method was
originally developed by Orono Spectral Solutions (OSS), and approved by
ASTM on January 1, 2010 (Standard Test Method for Solvent-Free Membrane
Recoverable Oil and Grease by Infrared Determination, ASTM D7575-10).
Certain commenters to EPA's September 2010 proposal, including ASTM and
OSS, requested that EPA re-consider ASTM D7575-10 for the measurement
of oil and grease under Clean Water Act programs. In particular, they
cited that ASTM D7575-10 is solvent free and provides reliable and
comparable results to EPA Method 1664A. As part of this re-
consideration, these commenters submitted additional information on the
health hazards associated with hexane as well as additional single
laboratory comparability data between Method 1664A and ASTM D7575-10
and on additional matrices tested after the initial comparability study
and associated statistical analysis. These data, EPA's analyses of
these data, and
[[Page 77745]]
communications related to the alternative ASTM method between EPA, OSS
and ASTM are included as part of the record for today's notice.
EPA's consideration of ASTM D7575-10 is entirely novel. Because oil
and grease is a method-defined parameter, with one exception, EPA has
not considered promulgating multiple methods to measure oil and grease
that are based on different extractants. Moreover, EPA has not
considered multiple oil and grease methods that are based on different
determinative techniques. The only exception to this was EPA's
promulgation of EPA Method 1664A in 1999 to replace Method 413.1, a
similar procedure that used Freon[supreg] (1,1, 2-trichloro-1,2,2-
trifluoroethane (CFC-113; Freon-113)) as the extraction solvent. EPA
made this exception because Freon[supreg] was banned by an
international treaty, and until the ban went into effect, EPA allowed
either of these oil and grease methods for CWA compliance. In both
methods, the determinative technique is gravimetry and the only change
was the extraction solvent (n-hexane instead of Freon[supreg]).
EPA is persuaded by commenters to its September 23, 2010 Notice
that it should re-consider its position on ASTM D7575-10. Such a
consideration represents a new path for EPA. As is always the case, EPA
is proceeding carefully, with a particular focus on the underlying
data. EPA's consideration is specific to ASTM D7575-10 and should not
be interpreted broadly to other oil and grease methods that use
different extractants and/or determinative techniques, or more
generally to other method-defined analytes. If EPA receives similar
requests for other methods, it will evaluate each one individually.
Although the September 2010 proposal discussed the current use of
EPA Method 1664A as a required testing method to determine the
eligibility of materials for certain conditional exclusions for RCRA
regulations under 40 CFR260.20 and 260.22 (i.e., delistings), and
additionally proposed to allow the revised version of this testing
method (Method 1664, Rev. B) for future delistings, EPA is not
considering ASTM D7575-10 for use under the RCRA program. Until ASTM
D7575-10 is validated for a full range of matrices covered by the RCRA
program, EPA considers this new testing method to be limited to the
Clean Water Act program.
A. Technical Considerations Related to ASTM Method D7575-10
1. EPA Evaluation of This New Method
Based on the data and information available in EPA's record, EPA
concludes ASTM D7575-10 is a good stand-alone method for the
measurement of oil and grease in wastewater. The method was single- and
multi-lab tested following ASTM Standard Practice D2777 (Standard
Practice for the Determination of Precision and Bias of Applicable Test
methods of Committee D19 on Water) and produces similar recoveries and
precision to EPA Method 1664A for those matrices tested and in the
range of method applicability (5-200 mg/L).
In reviewing the method, EPA requested that ASTM revise its new
standard to provide additional details on the underlying procedural
steps--specifically in regard to sample homogenization and calibration
verification--and to clarify the applicability (or lack thereof) of the
method to non-wastewater matrices. ASTM revised the method write-up
accordingly. See DCN xxx for additional information.
2. Comparability of Results Between ASTM D7575-10 and EPA Method 1664A
As explained above, with the exception of EPA's promulgation of
Method 1664A to replace Method 413.1, EPA has not considered
promulgating multiple methods to measure oil and grease that are based
on different extractants nor has EPA considered promulgating oil and
grease methods with different determinative techniques. As a result,
EPA does not have a defined ``process'' for such considerations. For
non-method-defined parameters where the analyte being measured is a
single compound (e.g., copper, benzene), EPA often promulgates multiple
methods that may be based on different determinative techniques for
nationwide use. In such cases, EPA has a well-defined process for
ensuring that the performance of a proposed method is acceptable (i.e.,
the proposed test procedure must demonstrate an improvement over
current EPA-approved methods such as fewer matrix interferences, and
better sensitivity, precision and recovery). For a new candidate test
method employing a determinative technique that is different from those
techniques used in existing approved methods, the applicant must
develop quality control (QC) acceptance criteria based on the
validation protocol for nationwide use applications (9 laboratories,
each analyzing a different matrix). The QC acceptance criteria for the
candidate method must then be compared to the QC acceptance criteria
specifications for methods in Part 136 and the performance of the
candidate method must be as good or better than that of an approved
method. This process is described in the ``Protocol for EPA Approval of
New Methods for Organic and Inorganic Analytes in Wastewater and
Drinking Water,'' March 1999.
In contrast, there is no well-defined process for the evaluation of
a proposed test method for method-defined parameters. In addition to
ensuring that the performance of the proposed method is acceptable as
described above for non-method-defined parameters, EPA wants to ensure
that results produced by the proposed method are comparable to results
produced with the approved method. When EPA promulgated EPA Method
1664A to replace EPA Method 413.1, a similar procedure that used
Freon[supreg] (1,1, 2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane (CFC-113; Freon-
113)) as the extraction solvent, EPA evaluated a variety of possible
replacement extracting solvents in addition to n-hexane. EPA selected
n-hexane and promulgated Method 1664A after conducting extensive side-
by-side studies of several extracting solvents on a variety of samples
representing a wide range of matrices (see ``Preliminary Report of EPA
Efforts to Replace Freon for the Determination of Oil and Grease,''
EPA-821-R-93-011, September 1993, and Report of EPA Efforts to Replace
Freon for the Determination of Oil and Grease and Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons, EPA-820-R-95003, April 1995). In considering which
solvent produced results most comparable to results obtained with
Freon[supreg], EPA conducted a Root Mean Squared Deviation (RMSD)
evaluation of the data collected in the side-by-side studies. None of
the alternative solvents produced results statistically comparable to
results produced by Freon[supreg]. However, EPA concluded at the time
that n-hexane was appropriate as an alternative solvent, based on
overall extraction results (96% versus 100% for Freon) and analytical
practical considerations (e.g., boiling point).
In considering ASTM D7575-10, EPA reviewed the available single
laboratory comparability data between ASTM D7575-10 and EPA Method
1664A. Initially, these data included triplicate analyses of samples
from seven different wastewater matrices (eight POTWs, dairy, machine
shop, gunsmith, auto garage, auto salvage yard, and fish processor).
Later, OSS submitted
[[Page 77746]]
additional data for three matrices (bilge water, peanut processor, and
lunchmeat processor) that were collected after the single laboratory
study.\1\ EPA conducted a Root Mean Squared Deviation (RMSD)
comparability assessment with these data, following the methodology set
forth in ``Analytical Method Guidance for EPA Method 1664A
Implementation and Use (40 CFR part 136), EPA/821-R-00-003, February
2000.'' For this assessment, EPA first used the original data set and
subsequently included the additional data for three matrices and
determined the results were not statistically comparable, with or
without the data for the additional matrices. This outcome was not
unexpected because of the intrinsic differences in the two methods and
the nature of method-defined parameters. Similarly, when EPA performed
an RMSD comparability assessment before promulgating EPA Method 1664A
in place of EPA Method 413.1, EPA did not find the results to be
statistically comparable.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ OSS also submitted data for several other matrices that EPA
did not include in the analysis because these data were based on
only one sample result per matrix and thus lacked the required
replicates for a statistical analysis. Additionally, ASTM recently
submitted triplicate data for three other matrices. Because EPA
received this data after conducting its statistical analysis, this
data is not included in the RMSD assessment described in this
paragraph, but is included in the record for today's notice.
\2\ Note that in absence of statistical comparability, EPA
ultimately determined that EPA Method 1664A could be used as a
direct replacement for EPA Method 413.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained in Section II.B, the comparability of results is a
significant issue with method-defined analytes such as oil and grease
because the results depend on the method used. For oil and grease, the
amount of oil and grease material extracted depends on the solvent or
membrane used for the extraction of oil and grease. As such, it may not
be possible for results from methods that use different extraction
techniques to be compared statistically. For example, EPA Method 1664A
employs distillation at 85[deg]C, and as such, petroleum materials from
gasoline through 2 fuel oil and non-petroleum materials
including carboxylic and other organic acids may be partially lost
during this solvent removal operation. Similarly, some crude oils and
heavy fuel oils contain a significant percentage of materials that are
not soluble in the n-hexane solvent of EPA Method 1664A resulting in
low recoveries for these materials. ASTM D7575-10 has no such solvent
removal step which could increase or decrease the amount of petroleum
and non-petroleum materials measured by ASTM D7575-10 relative to
Method 1664A.
For the reason identified above, in the case of ASTM D7575-10, EPA
concludes it is not appropriate to apply the same statistical
assessment as is done for non-method-defined parameters. As a result,
EPA applied similar comparison techniques as those performed in
replacing EPA Method 413.1 with EPA Method 1664A. As mentioned above,
during that replacement analysis, n-hexane was found to extract 96% of
the oil and grease that could be extracted by Freon. This 4% difference
was deemed insignificant based on the variability of oil and grease
measurements (around the order of 10% relative standard deviation) and
the confidence intervals about the 96% extraction (plus or minus 20%
extracted). When comparing the results of ASTM D7575-10 to EPA Method
1664A, the non-solvent method removes an average of 99.6% of the oil
and grease that was removed by n-hexane under the same conditions. The
variability of the situational comparisons along with the 10% relative
standard deviation for oil and grease measurements once again allow us
to conclude that the 0.4% difference is not significant. Using this
approach, for the range of the ASTM D7575-10 applicability (5-200 mg/
L), ASTM D7575-10 could serve as a substitute for Method 1664A in the
same fashion as n-hexane served as a replacement for Freon.
B. Summary of EPA's Reconsideration of ASTM D7575-10
Based on the information presented in today's Notice, EPA is re-
considering its decision not to include ASTM D7575-10 in 40 CFR Part
136 as an alternative to EPA Method 1664A for measuring oil and grease.
EPA has three main reasons for this reconsideration. First, EPA's
analysis demonstrates ASTM D7575-10 is an acceptable stand-alone method
for the measurement of oil in grease in wastewater for the applicable
reporting range (5-200 mg/L) and it produces results that are generally
very close to those obtained using EPA Method 1664A for the matrices
tested. Second, this method has certain advantages over the currently
approved method. EPA supports pollution prevention, and is particularly
persuaded by the substantial advantages associated with the green
aspects of this membrane technology (e.g., it uses a solventless
extraction, there is no solvent waste, and no analyst exposure to
solvent). Finally, ASTM D7575-10 may offer other advantages such as
ease of analysis, reduced analysis time, and lower analytical costs.
C. Implementation Considerations Related to Multiple Oil and Grease
Methods
EPA recognizes that if it promulgates ASTM D7575-10 in 40 CFR Part
136 as an alternative to EPA method 1664A, permittees and control
authorities may still have concerns related to the results obtained
from ASTM D7575-10 relative to EPA Method 1664A, particularly for
matrices not evaluated to date. While EPA has determined that the
results of the two methods are comparable over the applicable range
where the two methods overlap (5-200 mg/L), because of the wide variety
and type of individual compounds that may be measured by oil and grease
and because oil and grease are extensively incorporated in permits
covering a wide variety of wastewater matrices, permittees or control
authorities may continue to have compliance concerns (i.e., a permittee
could be in or out of compliance) simply due to a change in the test
method used to evaluate samples.
When EPA promulgated EPA Method 1664A to replace EPA Method 413.1,
EPA and other stakeholders had similar concerns. These concerns were
magnified because Method 1664A was a replacement, rather than an
alternative, to the existing method at that time. To accommodate
concerns about differences in results, EPA allowed permitting
authorities to establish a conversion factor by having the discharger
perform a side-by-side comparison of Method 1664 and the Freon[supreg]
extraction method and then adjusting the discharge limits, if
necessary, to account for differences in the permit. EPA further
recommended a specific process to follow for the side-by-side
comparison in the guidance document mentioned earlier [Analytical
Method Guidance for EPA Method 1664A Implementation and Use (40 CFR
part 136), EPA/821-R-00-003, February 2000].
In contrast to EPA's replacement of Freon with n-hexane, if EPA
were to promulgate ASTM D7575-10, it would not lead to any requirement
on permit holders. In this case, unless ASTM D7575-10 is specified in
the permit, promulgating ASTM D7575-10 would simply provide additional
flexibility to permit holders in analyzing for oil and grease. Because
this would be optional and because of the burden that would be placed
on the permitting authorities in reviewing side-by-side data, EPA is
not currently persuaded that it should include a provision providing
the same
[[Page 77747]]
ability to adjust discharge limits based on side-by side-comparison of
EPA Method 1664A to ASTM D7575-10 as it did when it replaced Freon with
n-hexane. However, to the extent that permittees would elect to use
ASTM D7575-10 and permitting authorities would accept the use of ASTM
D-7575-10 rather than EPA Method 1664A, nothing would prevent them from
conducting a side-by-side comparison of the two methods. EPA would
recommend such a side-by-side comparison if permittees and/or
permitting authorities have concerns about a specific matrix,
particularly when the measured oil and grease values when switching to
ASTM D7575-10 are more than 20% lower from values routinely measured by
EPA Method 1664A (the 20% variability around oil and grease
measurements is discussed in section III.A.2 of today's Notice).
IV. Request for Comments
Based on the new information and EPA's analysis of this information
as described in this Notice, EPA is reconsidering whether to promulgate
ASTM D7575-10 in 40 CFR Part 136 as an alternative method for oil and
grease where the applicable ranges overlap (5-200 mg/L) and requests
public comments on this reconsideration, the supporting data, and the
resulting analysis. While ASTM D7575-10 has significant pollution
prevention advantages over the currently approved method, EPA
recognizes the potential impact that this new method could have on the
hundreds of thousands of oil and grease determinations in regulatory
Clean Water Act programs and desires to obtain additional input from
stakeholders. Specifically, EPA requests comments on the following:
1. Whether EPA should reconsider promulgating this additional
method for oil and grease based on different extractants and
determinative techniques than EPA Method 1664A.
2. EPA's current view, based on the data it has reviewed to date,
that ASTM D7575-10 is an acceptable choice for the determination of oil
and grease for the range (5 to 200 mg/L) evaluated.
3. EPA's current conclusion that permit limit adjustment based on
side-by-side comparisons of EPA Method 1664A and ASTM D7575-10 is not
appropriate. EPA is particularly interested in obtaining comments from
permitting authorities on this issue and estimates of the burden
associated with reviewing such requests.
4. If EPA were to allow a side-by-side comparison with limit
adjustment as necessary, should EPA look to the approach used for n-
hexane in place of Freon (see section III.C above) or should EPA
consider a different approach?
V. Referenced New Docket Materials
1. January 16, 2009 Memorandum from Richard Reding on Modifications
to Method 1664A.
2. May 14, 1999 Federal Register (64 FR 26315).
3. Preliminary Report of EPA Efforts to Replace Freon for the
Determination of Oil and Grease, EPA-821-R-93-011, September 1993.
4. Report of EPA Efforts to Replace Freon for the Determination of
Oil and Grease and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons: Phase II, EPA-820-
R-95-003, April 1995.
5. October 15, 2010 email from Tyler Martin containing the following
data files:
a. Multi-Lab Validation Raw Data
b. Expanded ASTM D7575 Validation Report
c. Single-Lab Validation Raw Data
d. Comparability Analysis from Single-Lab Validation Results
6. October 19, 2010 email from Tyler Martin containing additional
comparability data between Method 1664 and ASTM D7575.
7. October 21, 2010 email from Tyler Martin with clarification on
data submitted.
8. June 28, 2011 letter from James A. Thomas, ASTM President to Mary
Smith, EPA, with ASTM International D19 Water Response to US EPA
Questions Concerning ASTM Standard D7575.
9. Analytical Method Guidance for EPA Method 1664A Implementation
and Use (40 CFR part 136), EPA/821-R-00-003, February 2000.
10. Protocol for EPA Approval of New Methods for Organic and
Inorganic Analytes in Wastewater and Drinking Water, March 1999.
11. Study Report from the Testing of Additional Industrial
Wastewater Matrices in Support of ASTM D7575 for USEPA's
Reconsideration of this Method in the Forthcoming Method Update
Rule, November 2011.
Dated: December 2, 2011.
Nancy K. Stoner,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Water.
[FR Doc. 2011-32063 Filed 12-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P